(818)

Baconian  Robert Frederick

 https://youtu.be/hydkMBgo7aY?is=iXTZ_koRjO14X58V

The Baconian theory— that Francis Bacon secretly wrote the works of William Shakespeare—.(in my opinion)  faces major weaknesses, especially compared to the Marlovian alternative centered on Christopher Marlowe. Most importantly, there is no direct historical evidence linking Bacon to the plays: no manuscripts, no contemporary claims, and no theatrical involvement, whereas Marlowe was an established dramatist already writing in a similar style. Bacon’s career as a statesman and philosopher also clashes with the practical, collaborative world of Elizabethan theater, making his secret authorship unlikely. The theory further depends on elaborate hidden codes and numerological interpretations, which are highly subjective and not considered reliable evidence by scholars. In contrast, Marlovian arguments rely more on stylistic continuity, even if they require the plausible premise that Marlowe deadly threatened by the law (accused of high treason)was forced with royal support to feign his death thus revived  and continued to write not only under the Pseudonym Shakespeare, but also under  an inconceivable number of other pennames.

https://m.youtube.com/@bastianconrad2550/videos

Bacon  communicated with the True Shakespeare (disguised as) Toby Matthew.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ziu9aVXv_n8

(817). The dark history behind Shakespeare

https://youtu.be/Eb4eu4B2gm4?is=x51Y2l-zorPsvsIN

(816) Just Stigg Abell getting progressively angrierr about the marlovian theory….

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=just+stigg+ 

Stig Abell’s outburst about William Shakespeare:s authorship (Marlowe)  is less an argument than a performance—one powered by a neat bit of circular reasoning. His core claim boils down to: Shakespeare must have written Shakespeare because anyone who reads Shakespeare can tell it’s Shakespeare. That’s not evidence; it’s a circular loop dressed up as certainty.

By lumping the Marlowe Theory together with flat-earthers, Abell avoids engaging with the actual question. But dismissing debate doesn’t settle it. The authorship issue—whether involving Christopher Marlowe or others—has existed for centuries precisely because the historical record isn’t airtight.

What stands out isn’t just his irritation, but the fragility behind it. If the case were as self-evident as he insists, it wouldn’t need this kind of rhetorical gatekeeping. Shakespeare’s stature doesn’t depend on shutting down questions—and Abell’s circular certainty does more to weaken his position than defend it.

(815) Prospero’s Wrath

 https://youtu.be/LYxYb_B_2MQ?is=lsWmuK6SWcRiaoek

(813) thank you to Stratfordians!!

 

                        Jonathan David  Dixon

https://youtu.be/xxQW82tFGmI?is=3dzWie_aZz2VOvEG

(814) Sweer Swan of Avon

 https://youtu.be/1OPNpHBoyho?is=4HGbksd7LHa3b4bF

(812). WHO dun it? The bard debunked.

https://youtu.be/f82Ynzmm0rU?is=aYaurdYT807lTg7F

(811). was Shakespeare actually Edward de Vere?

 https://youtu.be/RNffi2oPiik?is=8xQaBv8uO5nYL6Ra

(810) too many candidates -

https://www.shakespeareauthorship.org

Too many candidates make the authorship question absurd—there could only have been one author.”

https://m.youtube.com/@bastianconrad2550/videos

(809) Non-Stratfordian Alan Green suggesting a cryptographic or occult dimension behind the Shakespeare canon.

Alan W. Green

VIDEO 

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/hcXaKhWIcl4

He is a  (“anti-Stratfordian”) Shakespeare authorship theorist, known for  unconventional interpretations of Shakespeare’s works. 

he argues that Shakespeare’s texts contain hidden codes, symbols, and esoteric messages, rather than being straightforward literary works.

His books—such as “Dee-Coding Shakespeare”—connect Shakespeare to figures like John Dee, suggesting a cryptographic or occult dimension behind the canon.

HE has produced media content (e.g. “Shakespeare Decoded”) exploring these ideas in a more popular format. 

he belongs to a fringe strand of the broader Shakespeare authorship question.

Unlike more widely known alternative candidates (such as Edward de Vere in Oxfordian theory, Bacon or Marlowe) Green’s approach focuses less on proposing a single historical author and more on decoding supposed hidden structures in the texts

His theories are not accepted by mainstream scholarship, which overwhelmingly supports William Shakespeareas the author based on documentary evidence. 

In academic terms, Alan W. Green  must be  regarded  as  speculative researcher. His work seems  closer to symbolic or esoteric interpretation than to historical or philological scholarship.

(808). Who was william Shakespeare ?

https://www.instagram.com/reels/audio/25679783051681116?igsh=MWI1bXVwMDdvMGV2OQ==

—————————

https://youtu.be/722IsC58edw?is=fGL256ZhbS52y42m

Part 1 

https://youtu.be/vAVjU-cnVKI?is=_MCiYeRBdQ1Q4ru2

Part 2 

https://youtu.be/t4Q0XZBfy_M?is=fubzooYxpH_-KVgM

Part 3

https://youtu.be/AhPOmUePoCo?is=DGv0OMTnwbMeGL9-

(807) Dissolving Shakespeare: How Modern Scholarship Evades the Authorship Question

Prof. Emma Smith

Hertford College  ,Oxford

https://youtu.be/8-vwJwv1gfo?is=OSb2zXAuS4rQPUni

The lecture—part of the University of Notre Dame London Shakespeare Lecture series—offers a polished and fashionable argument: “Shakespeare” is not a stable historical author but a fluid cultural construct, endlessly rewritten by performance, adaptation, and modern reception. It insists that meaning is produced in the present—by directors, audiences, and global reinterpretations—rather than anchored in any recoverable historical figure. This emphasis on plurality and reinvention is not new; it reflects a now-standard academic posture that privileges reception over origin and treats the plays less as authored works than as an evolving cultural process. 

Yet this stance, for all its sophistication, quietly evades the central historical question: who actually wrote the works? By dissolving authorship into a cloud of “uses,” it risks turning a concrete problem into an aesthetic slogan. The celebration of ambiguity can feel less like intellectual openness than like a convenient retreat—one that protects orthodox assumptions by declaring the author irrelevant. In this sense, the talk is eloquent but evasive: it substitutes interpretive freedom for historical responsibility, and in doing so, naturally and inevitably  leaves the most pressing question—authorship itself—curiously untouched.

(806) An Oxfordien prelude to the authorship question??

                              https://youtu.be/KBDcbecx7-4?is=Dh2QTRwYEB0ROuAs

Polite Doubt, Strategic Silence: An Oxfordian Prelude That Avoids Marlowe

This video conversation is less a contribution to the Shakespeare authorship debate than a carefully staged prelude to one—and even that may be too generous. The two Oxfordians present themselves as open-minded seekers of truth, but their “methodological neutrality” quickly reveals itself as a soft introduction to the familiar orbit of Edward de Vere. The tone lies nothing that has not been said for decades.

Their central maneuver—casting doubt on William Shakespeare—is by now intellectually exhausted. Raising biographical gaps and documentary silences is not a breakthrough; it is the lowest common denominator of all anti-Stratfordian positions. What is conspicuously absent is any serious attempt to move beyond this negative critique toward a positive, evidence-based solution.

Most striking, however, is their complete avoidance of Christopher Marlowe. This is not an innocent omission. Marlowe is the one figure whose documented literary power already stands on the same level as the Shakespeare canon and whose “death” in 1593 opens the door to the most radical—and logically demanding—explanation: continued authorship under multiple identities. To ignore this is not caution; it is evasion.

The conversation  retreats into a comfortable vagueness: a call for discussion, for openness, for “asking questions.” But without confronting the strongest competing theory, this posture rings hollow. It creates the impression of intellectual fairness while carefully sidestepping the most inconvenient line of inquiry.

In the end, the “new message” amounts to little more than a rebranded Oxfordian soft sell: doubt Stratford, hint at de Vere, avoid Marlowe. From a critical standpoint, this is poor  progress—it is a strategic narrowing of the field disguised as open debate.

https://m.youtube.com/@bastianconrad2550/videos

(805) The Marlowe Survival: The Evidence No One Dares to Confront”.. —- Marlowe the only possible True Shakespeare!

The True Shakespeares (=Marlowe) Survival: 

The Evidence No One Dares to Confront”.. 

A serious reassessment of the fate of Christopher Marlowe must now acknowledge that both direct and indirect evidence for his survival has accumulated to a degree that can no longer be dismissed as mere speculation. (Click links below)

INdications  emerge in the sudden  and unexplained cessation of Marlowe’s documented life contrasted with the immediate rise (afterwards) of sophisticated literary works attributed to William Shakespeare, whose biography totally lacks corresponding intellectual development. The involvement of figures tied to intelligence circles, such as Sir Francis Walsingham and his network, definitely strengthens the plausibility of a staged disappearance. 

Stylistic continuities between Marlowe’s known works and later drama provide cumulative indirect evidence that exceeds coincidence. The persistent absence of authentic personal documents for Shakespeare contrasts sharply with the depth of knowledge displayed in the plays. 

The convergence of these strands—documentary anomalies, political context, literary continuity, and biographical gaps—forms a coherent evidentiary pattern.  The totality of evidence now functions as a de facto argument for it. To ignore this convergence is increasingly to defend orthodoxy rather than to pursue historical truth.

VIDEO Archive  on the Marlowe Theory

https://youtube.com/@bastianconrad2550?si=fjhNf09VyjsSD62c

———————

Recent Youtube Video (link below)

 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6jCVS1yTzmU

(804). WHy the VIDEO title: an illiterate fraud”

This video is a good example of how Stratfordian orthodoxy survives—not through evidence, but through  visual Ai spectacle. - What we are shown is not argument but: polished AI imagery, confident AI narration, and a staged illusion of certainty. The effect is almost hypnotic. But beneath this aesthetic surface lies a strange emptiness: no engagement with primary documents, no confrontation with anomalies, no serious attempt to address the hundreds of unresolved problems surrounding the life of William Shakspere of Stratford. —.  Instead, alternative authorship research is dismissed with a wave of the hand—as if decades of scholarship, textual analysis, and historical inquiry could be reduced to a “nuisance.” -   That is not how intellectual history advances. It is how dogma protects itself.  AI, in this case, does not illuminate—it decorates. —-If Stratfordianism were as secure as this video suggests, it would not need to rely on dismissal. It would welcome scrutiny. But it does not. That, perhaps, is the most telling detail of all.