GOWN OF OFFICE: Is Oxford Wearing Hammersley's Clothes?
Elizabeth
I was staring at the Ashbourne and it occured to me
that Oxford's gown looked rather less like something
Hamlet would wear and more like the black gowns
worn by officials like Bacon and Burghley.
I searched "gown of office" and the Lord Mayors did wear a
"gown of office." I found some historical references such
as this one:
"Winchester, in 1580, (had festival days) 'when the maior of the
saied citie shall weare his scarlet gowne', on pain of a £10 fine.
Rochester in 1591 ordered the mayor's brethren to accompany
him to church in their gowns."
High occasions like the festival days mentioned above called
for the scarlet gown but Lord Mayors gowns then and now
also wore black gowns.
The Ashbourne sitter is also wearing a "girdle belt," a chained
belt that could also be part of official mayoral paraphenalia
along with chains, medallions, robes and hats.
Brought up 50% in an image viewer, Lord Mayor Hammersley
can be seen wearing a girdle belt. The photograph of the portrait
has been spoiled by a flash bulb camera but part of the girdle
belt worn by Hammersley can be detected.
The quality of the photograph is not good enough to determine
if it's the same girdle belt worn by the sitter in the Ashbourne.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Here's probably the best Ashbourne
posted online.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
I have put a big version of the portrait of Sir Hugh at:
http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/sirhugh2.jpg
I have also updated my Hamersley family history at:
http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/tree.htm
for anyone interested.
Best wishes,
Graham Senior-Milne
Art Neuendorffer
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't tell what Oxford was WEARing unless you have X-ray vision:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
_A Golden Book, bound richly up_ By Barbara Burris ©2001
<<The Dutch painter Cornelius Ketel, whose initials Barrell found in
the painting through X-rays, was in England from 1573 to 1581. Hatton
introduced Ketel as a painter to Elizabeth's Court in 1578. Van Mander
notes Ketel painted a portrait of Oxford. In 1580 Harvey mocked Oxford's
wearing of large French Camerick ruffs. Barrell's X-ray examination
revealed a large circular ruff under the visible ruff. Lord Russell's
1580 French ruff fits perfectly over the outlines of this hidden ruff.>>
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/NewsletterMain.htm
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Ashbourne.htm
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/Ashbourne-Part_II_Win...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fwkc.com/encyclopedia/low/articles/b/b003002760f.html
BRUEGHEL, Pieter, the Elder (c. 1525/30-69),
Modern scholars are far from interpreting Brueghel's art
as simple drolleries and folk subjects painted by an artist
from mere peasant stock, as Karel Van Mander (1548-1606)
described him in 1604. Recent writers see him as a knowledgeable
man with such intellectual friends as geographer Abraham Ortelius.
Brueghel's art has been variously interpreted as referring to the
conflicts between Roman Catholicism & Protestantism, to the political
domination of the Lowlands by the Spanish, and as parallels to dramatic
allegories performed publicly by Flemish societies of rhetoric.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
1603, 31 August, Karel Van Mander writes about Caravaggio
in _HET Schilderboek_ (1604):
<<There is also a certain Michelangelo da Caravaggio who paints
wonderful things in Rome. He has laboriously emerged from poverty by
means of hard work, tackling and accepting everything with foresight &
daring, as is done by some who do not wish to remain inferior through
timidity & cowardice. He is one who cares little for the works of others
without at the same time overtly praising his own. He holds that all
works are nothing but childish trifles, whatever their subject and by
whomever they are painted unless they are made and painted from life
and that there can be no good or better way of painting than to
follow nature. He is a mixture of grain & chaff: indeed he does not
continuously devote himself to this study but when he has worked for
a couple of weeks he swaggers about for a month or two, his sword
at his side and a servant behind him and goes from one ball game
to another ever ready for a duel or a scuffle so that
it is almost impossible to get to know him.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth
> I have also updated my Hamersley family history at:
>
> http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/tree.htm
>
> for anyone interested.
Thanks for the post.
I wonder if you know that Sir Hugh Hammersley was
a member, with Sir Francis Bacon, of the Second
Charter Council of the Virginia Company. The
Second Charter Council included some of the
great political leaders of the Stuart era. The
Second Charter Council inherited a terrific mess
in Virginia from the inept First Charter Council
which had allowed anarchy and cannibalism to
occur at Jamestown. The Second Council was not
only decisive, it made reforms in a republican,
parliamentary process via resolutions of the Council.
(Until I learned that I didn't realize how politically
evolved institutions were in the early 17th century).
This particular group of men understood how to do
government and shortly restored confidence in the
Jamestown venture.
It's too bad the Ashbourne was defaced. It's
odd that the Oxfordians have claimed the Ashbourne.
Oxford had a full head of hair, probably light
red and curly. Oxford was a very diminutive man,
Hammersley has girth in both portaits.
I'm not sure the Oxfordians have any authentic portraits
of Oxford other than an unidentified Hilliard whose dates
have been tampered with to obscure the identity of the sitter
just as the dates were altered on the Ashbourne by changing
a "2" to a "1." Apparently some Hilliards were more valuable
if the identity of the sitter was unknown and considering
Oxford's record that may have been the case.
One way or the other the Oxfordians are certainly not
responsible for making a forgery of Sir Hugh's portrait.
That was probably done in the 19th century judging from
the rendering of the skull. It's obvious from the
deviations from the English School that at least
two artists worked on the portrait, one earlier, one
later.
I've done some research on Sir John Salusbury and
the Phoenix and the Turtle. Salusbury is the key
to the identities of the Phoenix and of the Turtle.
I'll post what I've found.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> _____________________________________________
> The quality of the photograph is not good enough to determine
> if it's the same girdle belt worn by the sitter in the Ashbourne.>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can't tell what Oxford was WEARing unless you have X-ray vision:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
Art. Like you can tell that I have black
hair and bushy black eyebrows?
I don't look like Lucy Van Pelt, I look like
I'm English from the blue-eyed race of Veres.
Although not descended from the short and
freckled line (thank god).
The VVeirs translate the Vere motto as Nothing
But The Truth.
That's not only a more accurate translation
it doesn't allow any for equivocation on
the word "truth."
Furthermore "Nothing is truer than truth" is
a logical fallacy. Look it up.
And Webb, not I, is the fussbudget Lucy Van Pelt
although that's not an adequate diagnosis.
It isn't necessary to x-ray the Ashbourne (although
Sir Hugh Hammersley's coat-of-arms has already
been identified). All the information necessary
to dismiss the Oxfordian claim is on the surface
of the portrait.
If I'd known you were going to be so upset
I would have dropped art history.
And I do object to the fact, Art, that you
constantly spam your views into HLAS while
at the same time you attempt to repress, by
a process of intimidation, the views of those
who don't agree with yours.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Art Neuendorffer
>> _____________________________________________
>>> The quality of the photograph is not good enough to determine
>>> if it's the same girdle belt worn by the sitter in the Ashbourne.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> You can't tell what Oxford was WEARing unless you have X-ray vision:
>> ------------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ--------
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> Art. Like you can tell that I have black
> hair and bushy black eyebrows?
> I don't look like Lucy Van Pelt, I look like
> I'm English from the blue-eyed race of Veres.
--------------------------------------------------
This blue-eyed hag was hither brought with child
And here was left by the sailors.
-- PROSPERO: The Tempest Act 1, Scene 2
--------------------------------------------------
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>Although not descended from
> the short and freckled line (thank god).
-----------ｭ------------------------------ｭ---------
An HABERDASHER of SMALL WEIRS
-----------ｭ------------------------------ｭ---------
"To match this saint there was another,
As busy and perVERsE a brother,
An HABERDASHER of SMALL WARES
In politics and state affairs." - Butler: Hudibras, iii. 2.
--------------------------------------------------
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> The VVeirs translate the Vere motto as
> Nothing But The Truth.
So help you, Bacon?
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>That's not only a more accurate translation
>it doesn't allow any for equivocation on
>the word "truth."
>Furthermore "Nothing is truer than truth"
> is a logical fallacy. Look it up.
Many Oxfordians prefer:
"Nothing is truer than VERE"
---------------------------------------------
_Lady Clara VERE de VERE_
"KIND HEARTS are more than coronets,
And simple faith than Norman blood" - Tennyson
---------------------------------------------
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>And Webb, not I, is the fussbudget Lucy Van Pelt
> although that's not an adequate diagnosis.
Webb has black hair and bushy black eyebrows?
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>It isn't necessary to x-ray the Ashbourne (although
>Sir Hugh Hammersley's coat-of-arms has already
>been identified). All the information necessary
>to dismiss the Oxfordian claim is on the surface
>of the portrait.
------------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ---------
The Ashbourne Portrait: Why It's Not the Earl of Oxford
by David Kathman
<<In 1940, Charles Wisner Barrell, an Oxfordian, had X-rays made of the
Ashbourne Portrait, which revealed that the painting had been altered at
some point in the past to look more like Shakespeare (in particular, the
hairline had been pushed back to make the subject bald). Barrell claimed
that the original portrait had been of the Earl of Oxford; he claimed
that a coat of arms visible in his X-ray photos was that of the Earl's
second wife, and that the subject's ring depicted a boar, one of the
Earl's symbols. He also found initials which he interpreted as "C.K.,"
which he in turn interpreted as referring to Cornelius Ketel,
who painted one of the two known portraits of Edward de Vere.
Barrell published his findings in Scientific American.
However, in 1979 the painting undewent a restoration in preparation for
a Folger exhibition. Some of the paint was removed, and it turned out
that the coat of arms in the painting was not that of Oxford's second
wife at all, but that of Sir Hugh Hamersley, a prominent member of the
HABERDASHER's Company and onetime Lord Mayor of London. Also,
the painting contains the age of the sitter (47 years old) and the date
(1611), which fits Shakespeare; however, the restoration revealed that
the last "1" in the date had been altered from a 2." Hugh Hamersley, it
turns out, was born in 1565 (one year after Shakespeare), and thus was
47 years old in 1612. It is now universally accepted, even by most
Oxfordians (except for a few extreme militants) that the original
portrait was of Hugh Hamersley and had nothing to do with the Earl
of Oxford. Details of all this can be found in an article by William L.
Pressley in Shakespeare Quarterly, 1993, pp. 54-72, called "The
Ashbourne Portrait of Shakespeare: Through the Looking Glass.">>
------------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ--------
The Pin is mightier than the Sword.
------------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ--------
The City Livery Companies and Their Heraldry ｩ L G Pierson, 1986
http://www.kwtelecom.com/heralｭdry/livery/pierson.html
<<The HABERDASHERS found a commercial winner in the pin.
It is said that ｣50,000 was paid annually to import
this little item, but by the end of the reign of Elizabeth I
the HABERDASHERs were making it themselves. Essential to the
well-dressed woman, whose husband made her suitable allowance,
the trade soon gave rise to the expression "pin money".>>
------------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ---------
Date "HABERDASHER" was first used: 1280
HABERDASHER, n. [Prob. fr. Icel. hapurtask trumpery, trifles,
perh. through French. It is possibly akin to E. haversack, and
to Icel. taska trunk, chest, pocket, G. tasche pocket,
and the orig. sense was perh., peddler's wares.]
1. A dealer in small wares, as tapes, pins, needles, and thread. [Obs.]
2. A dealer in items of men's clothing: HATS, gloves, neckties, etc.
3. A dealer in drapery goods, e.g., laces, silks, trimmings, etc.
------------------------------ｭｭ-------------------------------------
HABERDASHER: from hapertas, a cloth the width
of which was settled by Magna Charta.
A "hapertas-er" is the seller of hapertas-erie.
------------------------------ｭｭ---------------------------------------ｭ-
The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia, 1593
Dedication: T O M Y D E A R E L A D I E
AND SISTER, THE COUN-TESSE OF PEMBROKE.
... Read it then at your idle tymes, and the follyes your good
judgement wil finde in it, blame not, but laugh at. And so, looking
for no better stuffe, then, as in an HABERDASHERS shoppe, glasses,
or feathers, you will continue to love the writer, who doth
excedinglie love you ; and most most HARTE-LIE praies
you may long live, to be a principall ORNAMENT
to the familie of the Sidneis.
Your loving Brother: Philip Sidnei.
-----------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ-----------
<<Gilbert Shakspere was a HABERDASHER at St. Bride's in 1597 when
he & a local shoemaker put up ｣19 bail, in the court of Queen's Bench,
for the clockmaker William SAMPSON>> -Honan's _Shakespeare a Life_
------------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ-------------
King Henry EIGHT Act 5, Scene 4
Man: There was a HABERDASHER's WIFE of small wit near him,
that railed upon me till her PINKED PORRINGER fell off her head,
------------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ--------------
--
EIGHT days before Shakspere's death his brother-in-law William HARTTE
the HATTER ['HATTER' is an anagram of 'HARTTE'] died.
------------------------------ｭ------------------------------
Echoes -- Lewis Carroll (1869)
Lady Clara VERE de VERE
Was EIGHT years old, she said:
EVERy ringlet, lightly SHAKEn, ran itself in GOLDEN THREAD.
She took her little PORRINGER:
Of me SHE SHALL NOT WIN RENOWN:
For the baseness of its nature shall have strength to drag her down.
"SISTERS and BROTHERS, little Maid?
There stands the Inspector at thy door:
Like a DOG, he hunts for BOYS
who know not two and two are four."
"KIND HEARTS are more than coronets,"
She said, and wondering looked at me:
"It is the dead unhappy night, and I must hurry home to tea."
------------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ-------
Descendants of Mr.W.H. (and wife Joan S. HARTTE) are still alive!
------------------------------ｭ------------------------------
A little more than KIND, and less than KIN:
Chettle's 'KIND-HARTE's Dream':
"Shall KIN with KIN and KIND with KIND confound?"
--------------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ--------
HARTYKYN: A term of endearment //Palsgrave's Acolastus, 1540.
------------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ---------
The HABERDASHER heapeth wealth by HATS. --GASCOIGNE.
------------------------------ｭｭ---------------------------------------ｭ-
<<As has been observed, Shakespeare's eldest daughter, Susanna, was
married on June 5, 1607, to John Hall, a learned man, a distinguished
physician and a noted citizen. Scandal erupted in the Hall household
in 1613. As a consequence, on July 13, Susanna sought a writ of
slander & brought action for defamation (cf. _Measure for Measure_,
II. i.) in the Consistory (an Ecclesiastical) Court at Worcester.
Susanna's charge was against John LANE , whose uncle,
Richard Lane, Shakespeare had asked to be one of the witnesses
for the commission out of Chancery on the Lambert controversy
(through which Shakespeare lost his mother's inheritance finally
in 1599) and had been of Shakespeare's party in the suit
to Chancery on the Stratford tithes. John LANE(Jr.)
had accused Shakespeare's daughter by saying Susanna
"...had the running of the reins
and had been naught (i.e. immoral) with
Rafe (Ralph) Smith & John Palmer."
"Sassafras (believed to be a specific for syphilis)"
Rafe (Ralph) Smith was a Stratford HABERDASHER & HATTER;
his uncle was Hamlet Sadler, the close friend of Shakespeare
(for whom he named his son). The males of the 2nd generation
of close acquaintances were a threat to the reputation
of his daughters; and in the case of Judith, to come, and,
at first, Susanna, the Shakespeares struck back at the male
contemporaries of the son William no longer had. With this court case,
Susanna has become subject to precisely the slanderous accusation
of adultery as in something of a prophetic manner for Shakespeare's
biography was Hermione in The Winter's Tale, anticipated by Desdemona
in Othello. John LANE, "...a ne'er-do-well, was some years later hailed.
into court for riot and libels against the vicar and aldermen, and was
then described as a drunkard." John LANE did not appear in court
to support the rumors he had spread and was excommunicated.>>
---------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ-----
September 9, 1566, 12 yr. old Philip Sidney visits Stratford
September 9, 1543, 9 mo. old Mary Queen of Scots crowned
------------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ-------------
Tuesday September 9, 1943, Lorenzo's birthday.
Tuesday September 9, 1746, JOHN WARD plays Othello in Stratford.
Tuesday September 9, 1634, Lt. Hammond (Ham.Lt.) visits Stratford.
Friday September 9, 1513, Sidney's grandpere knighted at Flodden Field
Friday September 9, 1608, Shakespeare's mother, Mary, buried
Friday September 9, 1603, George Carey dies from MERCURY POISONING!
--------------------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ------
<<The (MAD) Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this;
but all he said was,
'Why is a RAVEN like a WRITING-DESK?'>>
[A. Poe & Dante wrote on both.]
-----------------------------------------------ｭ-------------------
_Sylvie and Bruno Concluded_ by Lewis Carroll
The Other Professor is to recite a Tale of a PIG-
-I mean a PIG-Tale," he corrected himself.
"It has Introductory VERsEs at the beginning, and at the end."
"It ca'n't have Introductory VERsEs at the end, can it?" said Sylvie.
"Wait till you hear it," said the Professor: "then you'll see.
I m not sure it hasn't some in the middle, as well." Here he rose
to his feet, and there was an instant silence through the
Banqueting-Hall: they evidently expected a speech.
Little Birds are writing
Interesting books,
To be read by cooks:
Read, I say, not roasted--
Letterpress, when toasted,
Loses its good looks.
------------------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ-------
_Ulysses_ ends at 3:24 am June 17, 1904? (324 = 3 x 3 x 3 dozen)
-----------------------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ---
----
A HACKNEY car, number three hundred and twentyfour, driver Barton James
of number one Harmony avenue, Donnybrook, on which sat a fare, a young
gentleman, stylishly dressed in an indigoblue serge suit made by George
Robert Mesias, TAILOR and cutter, of number FIVE EDEN quay,
and WEARing a straw HAT VERy dressy,
bought of John Plasto of number one
Great Brunswick street, HATTER. Eh?
FLORRY What?
( A HACKNEYcar number three hundred and twentyfour,
with a gallantbuttocked mare, driven by James Barton,
Harmony Avenue, Donnybrook, trots past. ...
------------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ-----
http://www.kwtelecom.com/heralｭdry/livery/pierson.html
<<The lion in the arms of the Merchant TAYLORS is the lion
of England and may be connected with royal favours,
as the company was granted a number of royal letters patent
and included many royal personages in its list of members.
Several kings of England have been Freemen of the Company. Both
the Merchant TAYLORS & the HABERDASHERS received in charters
granted by Henry VII the distinctive epithet of "Merchant".>>
------------------------------ｭ------------------------------ｭ-
"Have you guessed the riddle yet?" the HATTER said,
turning to Alice again.
"No, I give it up," Alice replied: "what's the answer?"
"I haven't the slightest idea," said the HATTER.
------------------------------ｭ--------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
portrait at:
http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/tree.htm
search for 'ashbourne'
The results are quite interesting I think.
Best wishes,
Graham Senior-Milne
gangleri
I noted with interest your reference to Thomas Salusbury at the above
link and related comments on the Salusburys' connection to the
Shakespeare Opus.
Was that a reference to David Bottrill's work?
If not, I would appreciate any further comments you may have on the
subject matter.
Gangleri
Elizabeth
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> >> _____________________________________________
> >>> The quality of the photograph is not good enough to determine
> >>> if it's the same girdle belt worn by the sitter in the Ashbourne.
>
> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> You can't tell what Oxford was WEARing unless you have X-ray vision:
>
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>
> > Art. Like you can tell that I have black
> > hair and bushy black eyebrows?
>
> > I don't look like Lucy Van Pelt, I look like
> > I'm English from the blue-eyed race of Veres.
> --------------------------------------------------
> This blue-eyed hag was hither brought with child
> And here was left by the sailors.
That doesn't upset me, Art, because I've noticed that
males don't behave in online forums and newsgroups
like they do in the real physical world where female
pheromones, I presume, organize society.
Forums are like men isolated in prisons. Lots of
acting out for other men and male bonding around
the taking of victims. Lord of the Flies.
I know that you, and Reedy and Ross and Webb
and Groves and all the other bad asses in HLAS
become likeable guys when you turn off the
machine. I don't doubt that your wife finds you
amusing. I doubt Webb's wife finds him amusing but
that's really none of my business.
> -- PROSPERO: The Tempest Act 1, Scene 2
> --------------------------------------------------
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>
> >Although not descended from
> > the short and freckled line (thank god).
> --------------------------------------------------
> An HABERDASHER of SMALL WEIRS
Neuendorffer doesn't sound English but
I could be wrong.
> --------------------------------------------------
> "To match this saint there was another,
> As busy and perVERsE a brother,
> An HABERDASHER of SMALL WARES
> In politics and state affairs." - Butler: Hudibras, iii. 2.
> --------------------------------------------------
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>
> > The VVeirs translate the Vere motto as
> > Nothing But The Truth.
>
> So help you, Bacon?
That reminds me to post Bushell's confession.
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>
> >That's not only a more accurate translation
> >it doesn't allow any for equivocation on
> >the word "truth."
>
> >Furthermore "Nothing is truer than truth"
> > is a logical fallacy. Look it up.
>
> Many Oxfordians prefer:
> "Nothing is truer than VERE"
Uh oh. That was the secret sanity test.
> ---------------------------------------------
> _Lady Clara VERE de VERE_
>
> "KIND HEARTS are more than coronets,
> And simple faith than Norman blood" - Tennyson
The problem is historical revisionism, Art. Oxford's
life was bracketed by one of the most disruptive events
in history, the English Reformation. Because it was done
by fiat the English went to bed Catholics and woke up
heretics. After Regans In Excelsis was issued and the
Tudor regime reacted, English Catholics went to bed
loyal Englishmen and woke up traitors.
Oxford was a traitor if he took confession. When the priests
were kicked out of England, English Catholics were in a state
of spiritual anguish lest they die unconfessed. It was so much
worse than I can write here.
Oxfordianism exists only because Oxford's biography has yet
to be written. It certainly is in no part of any Oxfordian book,
on any Oxfordian website let alone in Nelson's book.
"Oxford goes here, Oxford goes there."
That's my review of the Oxfordians and Nelson.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Art Neuendorffer
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Apparently, some people believe that Sir Hugh Hamersley was the real
Shakespeare - a theory that I am happy to agree with (on the assumption that
Sir Hugh's descendants will be entitled to 400 years worth of back-dated
royalties - of which I calculate my personal share to be
$8,683,925,387,254.17 or 9 gazillion dollars, rounded up).>>
http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/tree.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A gazillion dollars isn't what it used to be, Graham.
http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/sirhugh4.jpg
http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/Ashbourne2.jpg
Chance that these are the same person ~ 1/"a gazillion"
(Have you visited TIKAL lately, Graham?)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arms of Sir Hugh Hammersley (1565-1636),
Lord Mayor of London (1627), being the arms
anciently borne by the family in Staffordshire
AND GRANTED TO SIR HUGH IN 1614!
http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/hammersleycoatofarms.jpg
1614 = Three years after "Aetatis suae 47 Anno 1611"
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Under the gold painted inscription in the upper left are
the outlines of a coat of arms nearly identical to that
used by the Trentham family. Oxford married
http://freepages.family.rootsweb.com/~heraldry/ca_trentham_1a.gif
Elizabeth Trentham in 1592. The Ashbourne portait's name
comes from an estate in the "Ashbourne" addition to Derbyshire.
The Ashbourne addition was one of the properties
of Elizabeth Trentham Cockayne, a great-grand-niece
of Oxford's wife, Elizabeth Trentham, the Countess of Oxford.>>
http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/ashbour2.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ashbourne Portrait
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4260/book2.html
<<Beneath the fake inscription at the upper left
ARE THE REMAINS OF A COAT OF ARMS
that were nearly obliterated by the forgers.
The identification of the correct family
represented by the coat of Arms is still being debated.
But the arms do match the family of Elizabeth Trentham, the Countess
Oxford (de Vere's second wife.) The provenance of the painting also
points to the Trenthams. The Ashbourne portrait emerged from the
estate of Elizabeth Trentham Cockayne, the great-grand-niece
of Elizabeth Trentham, the Countess of Oxford.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ashbourne Portrait
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4260/book2.html
<<This magnificent painting shows a nobleman in almost full length. The
subject's right arm is resting atop a "memento mori" skull, his hand
holding a gilt book with 4 red drawstrings. He wears a ring on the thumb
of his left hand. For perhaps a century this painting was said to be
Shakespeare, and when it came into the possession of the Folger
Shakespeare Library it was prominently and proudly presented
as a remarkable portrait of Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon.
There was quite a shock when Scientific American published an
illustrated article on the Ashbourne Shakespeare, in the January, 1940
issue. The article reported that an X-ray analysis of the canvas had
found that the image had been altered and over-painted. Identification
of some of the hidden material : a boars head on the thumb ring, and the
Heraldic Arms of the Trentham family in the upper left portion of the
painting led researcher and author Charles Wisner Barrell to conclude
that the sitter in the painting is Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of
Oxford. At some point in the past 400 years someone severely re-worked
the portrait to make a man with a full head of hair look something like
the high-foreheaded cartoon image of Shakespeare from the First Folio.
X-ray analysis has shown that the original hairline had been raised by
several inches. The subject in the painting wears a huge fluted
courtiers ruff in the original. The over-painting reduces the ruff to
gentleman's proportions and style. The forgers used gold paint to do the
phony inscription in the upper left, Aetatis suae 47 Anno 1611, which
gives a correct age for Shakespeare of Stratford, who was born in 1564.
The same gold paint was used to alter the sitter's thumb ring, to
highlight his belt, and to obliterate the markings on the book the man
is holding. The X-ray of the thumb ring shows the remnant of a boar's
head, the symbolic badge of the Earl of Oxford. Beneath the fake
inscription at the upper left are the remains of a coat of arms that
were nearly obliterated by the forgers. The identification of the
correct family represented by the coat of Arms is still being debated.
But the arms do match the family of Elizabeth Trentham, the Countess
Oxford (de Vere's second wife.) The provenance of the painting also
points to the Trenthams. The Ashbourne portrait emerged from the estate
of Elizabeth Trentham Cockayne, the great-grand-niece of Elizabeth
Trentham, the Countess of Oxford.
The initials C. K. in the lower right identify the painter as Cornelius
Ketel, (1548-1616), the Dutch portrait artist. A contemporary account of
Ketel's workshop from the year 1604, lists many portraits which Ketel
had painted for Elizabethan dignitaries. A full size portrait of Oxford
is listed in that account. Though the painting had been thought lost or
destroyed, Barrell's identification in 1940 showed that The Ashbourne
painting of Shakespeare is really an over-painting of the lost Ketel
portrait of Oxford !
Since Barrell's work, the Ashbourne painting has been taken off
general display, and the trustees of the Folger have mounted a
counterattack that attempts to identify the sitter with a Mr. Hammersley
of London. Of all the known portraits of Shakespeare, all but one are
modeled on the first folio image. They all face left. Only the Ashbourne
Portrait depicts the real person who was Shakespeare, and the proof is
buried in the basement of the Folger Shakespeare Library of Wash., DC>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashbourne Part II by Barbara Burris
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/Ashbourne-Part_II_Winter_2002.pdf
<<Only the well known art expert M. H. Spielmann, who examined the
painting in 1910, cautiously remarked upon discordant elements in the
painting that contradicted the official view of a Shakespeare portrait
of the Stratford man. These dissonant elements included the problems
with the inscription, nobleman's dress, neck ruff, age of the sitter and
similarity of the costume to the Earl of Morton who died in 1581, thirty
years before the 1611 date on the painting. Spielmann's reference to the
similarity of the Ashbourne costume with the costume of the Earl of
Morton, who died in 1581, that intrigued me and sent me off in the
direction of researching the costume to learn the true date of the
painting.
Costume is the single most reliable and universally respected method of
dating portraits whose dates are unknown or in dispute. The dating of
costume is a reliable means for dating a painting within a range of a
few years and sometimes even within a year or two. Just as we can date
1920s, 30s, or 50s pictures from our familiarity with the clothes, hair
styles and objects in those times, so art experts rely on extensive
knowledge of the changes in fashion and in painting styles in dating
portraits. As in our own time, fashion in Elizabethan and Jacobean
England generally changed by decades, with some overlap of course,
especially at the beginning and end of a decade.
The late 1570s dating of the painting by costume also confirms Charles
Wisner Barrell's X-ray examination of the Ashbourne that revealed a
portrait of Edward de Vere beneath the overpainting into Shake-speare.
And it places the painting back in its correct time frame when the Dutch
painter Cornelius Ketel- whose initials were exposed beneath the
overpainting by Barrell's X-rays-was in England from 1573 to 1581, and
was known to have painted a portrait of Oxford. At this point you might
be asking why all the fuss over a portrait? The answer is best expressed
by quoting from a February 1982 letter from the Folger Shakespeare
Library when the Library was proclaiming Hugh Hamersley, former Lord
Mayor of London in 1627/8 as the painting's subject. The letter,
intended for Geoffrey M. Lemmer, conservator of the Baltimore Museum of
Art giving him instructions about the portrait, states that, "...the
portrait is an important document in the controversy over the true
authorship of Shakespeare's works."
Ruth Loyd Miller notes that "there are at least 12 altered portraits
(into Shakespeare) of undoubted Elizabethan or Jacobean composition.
Until very recent times 6 of these paintings had been held by various
members of the old English Aristocracy and had no connection whatsoever
with Stratfordian ownership." For example, the Hampton Court portrait of
Shake-speare, which Barrell found to be an over-painted portrait of
Oxford holding the sword of state (blacked out), did not leave the
collection at Penshurst Place, seat of the Sidney-Herbert families,
until it was given to King William IV. This was the same Sidney family
of whom Mary Sidney's sons, the earls of Pembroke and Montgomery, were
the "incomparable brethern" to whom the 1623 Folio was dedicated.
Oxford's daughter Susan was married to the Earl of Montgomery, one of
these two "incomparable brethern." Miller adds that, "Of the 12 genuine
'Renaissance studies' of Shakespeare listed by The Encyclopedia
Britannica, 8 depict him wearing the attire of a nobleman." One of the
most interesting of these is the portrait of Shake-speare in nobleman's
garb formerly in the Tudor collection at Windsor Castle, given by Queen
Victoria to the novelist Lord Lytton. "Another is the miniature called
'Shakespeare' acquired by the Earl of Oxford (2nd creation) about
1719 showing the bard in the dress of a 16th century nobleman."
The inscriptions Which brings us to the issue of inscriptions.
Spielmann's suspicions about the 1611 inscription on the Ashbourne that
was in a different paint from the original paint and stood out in slight
relief above the rest of the painting were correct. "Whether or not it
(the inscription) is a later addition is an open question; but the fact
must not be lost sight of that the colour of it corresponds to that of
the book-cover gold and that of the thumb-ring and is in sharp contrast
to that on the belt and glove." Spielmann maintained the Jacobean dating
in spite of contrary evidence, but he added later that, "The picture is
pretty clearly an original and no copy; and obviously represents a
gentleman of the early years of Jacobean rule, who, if the 'AETATIS SUAE
47' is to be trusted, looked young for his age" (emphasis added). Oxford
in 1580 would have been around 30 years of age, not age 47, as in the
inscription on the painting, which fit the age of the man from Stratford
in 1611. Clearly the over painting of the full head of hair above the
forehead was intended to make the sitter look older to fit the
inscription age. The point is that inscription dates and names on
portraits can be and have at times been wrong either by mistake
or by design.
The fact that the St. Alban's has the name Edward de Vere blazoned
across it does not counter the primary costume evidence that Sir Roy
Strong used to date this painting circa 1565. The costume proves that
the inscription is wrong in the St. Alban's portrait. The style of the
doublet and the high collar with its tiny lace edged in black that is a
precursor of the ruff, in the St. Alban's portrait belongs to the period
of the late 1550s or 1560s. Sir Roy Strong has dated it circa 1565.
Because of the intertwined ribbon of black and white (the Queen's
personal colors, not the Oxford colors) suspending the Oxford boar, I
would date it from 1558 (when the Queen came to the throne) to 1562
when its sitter, most likely John De Vere, the 16th Earl of Oxford died.
Because the sitter appears to be in his early 40s and the costume is of
the early 1560s it cannot be Edward de Vere who was in his teens
in the 1560s.
Using the same costume dating methods and evidence for the Ashbourne,
the 1611 date on the inscription, as Spielmann suspected and Barrell
confirmed with Xrays, is wrong: it is not the original inscription. The
1611 date is a false date added later. Additionally, Barrell's X-rays
confirmed that the original inscription in the Ashbourne portrait had
been rubbed out so vigorously that holes were made in the canvas,
although ghostly remnants of letters could still be seen.
In conclusion, the circa 1579-80 costume in the Ashbourne Shake-speare
portrait eliminates as subjects both the Stratford man and Hugh
Hamersley, who would have been 14 and 15 years old respectively in 1580.
The costume is that of a nobleman. Looney discovered in 1920 that the
nobleman poet playwright Edward de Vere was the author behind the
Shakespeare mask. The Dutch painter Cornelius Ketel, whose initials
Barrell found in the painting through X-rays, was in England from 1573
to 1581. Hatton introduced Ketel as a painter to Elizabeth's Court in
1578. Van Mander notes Ketel painted a portrait of Oxford. In 1580
Harvey mocked Oxford's wearing of large French Camerick ruffs.
Barrell's X-ray examination revealed a large circular ruff under the
visible ruff. Lord Russell's 1580 French ruff fits perfectly over
the outlines of this hidden ruff.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>>> _____________________________________________
>>>> The quality of the photograph is not good enough to determine
>>>> if it's the same girdle belt worn by the sitter in the Ashbourne.
>
>> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> You can't tell what Oxford was WEARing unless you have X-ray vision:
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>
> > Art. Like you can tell that I have black
> > hair and bushy black eyebrows?
> > I don't look like Lucy Van Pelt, I look like
> > I'm English from the blue-eyed race of Veres.
Shakespeare wrote:
> This blue-eyed hag was hither brought with child
> And here was left by the sailors.
> -- PROSPERO: The Tempest Act 1, Scene 2
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>That doesn't upset me, Art, because I've noticed that
>males don't behave in online forums and newsgroups
>like they do in the real physical world where female
> pheromones, I presume, organize society.
What's the difference between a pheromone & a hormone?
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> Forums are like men isolated in prisons.
That's why I nEVER pick up the soap
whenEVER Webb is around.
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> Lots of acting out
> for other men and male bonding around
> the taking of victims. Lord of the Flies.
Didn't Arthur Golding write that?
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>I know that you, and Reedy and Ross and Webb
>and Groves and all the other bad asses in HLAS
>become likeable guys when you turn off the
>machine. I don't doubt that your wife finds you
>amusing. I doubt Webb's wife finds him amusing
> but that's really none of my business.
My wife (who happens to be short & freckled) is not amused.
(Webb's wife appears to be a cat.)
--------------------------------------------------
>> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>
>>>Although not descended from
>>> the short and freckled line (thank god).
>Neuendorffer wrote:
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> An HABERDASHER of SMALL WEIRS
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> Neuendorffer doesn't sound English but
> I could be wrong.
You could be weirong.
Neuendorffer wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> "To match this saint there was another,
> As busy and perVERsE a brother,
> An HABERDASHER of SMALL WARES
> In politics and state affairs." - Butler: Hudibras, iii. 2.
> --------------------------------------------------
>> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>
>>> The VVeirs translate the Vere motto as
>>> Nothing But The Truth.
>>>That's not only a more accurate translation
>>>it doesn't allow any for equivocation on
>>>the word "truth."
>
>>>Furthermore "Nothing is truer than truth"
>>> is a logical fallacy. Look it up.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
>> Many Oxfordians prefer:
>> "Nothing is truer than VERE"
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> Uh oh. That was the secret sanity test.
Is this going to cost me another nickel?
http://www.kataweb.it/speciali/images/blog/lucy.jpg
>Neuendorffer wrote:
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> _Lady Clara VERE de VERE_
>>
>> "KIND HEARTS are more than coronets,
>> And simple faith than Norman blood" - Tennyson
>> ---------------------------------------------
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>
>The problem is historical revisionism, Art. Oxford's
>life was bracketed by one of the most disruptive events
>in history, the English Reformation. Because it was done
>by fiat the English went to bed Catholics and woke up
>heretics. After Regans In Excelsis was issued and the
>Tudor regime reacted, English Catholics went to bed
>loyal Englishmen and woke up traitors.
--------------------------------------------------------
"The rules of the game are changing," Tony Blair said Friday.
--------------------------------------------------------
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>Oxford was a traitor if he took confession. When the priests
>were kicked out of England, English Catholics were in a state
>of spiritual anguish lest they die unconfessed. It was so much
>worse than I can write here.
I can't imagine that it is worse than YOU can write, Elizabeth.
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>Oxfordianism exists only because Oxford's biography has yet
>to be written. It certainly is in no part of any Oxfordian book,
>on any Oxfordian website let alone in Nelson's book.
> "Oxford goes here, Oxford goes there."
>That's my review of the Oxfordians and Nelson.
------------------------------------------------
The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out,
The worms play pinochle on your snout.
They eat your eyes, they eat your nose,
They eat the jelly between your toes.
A big green worm with rolling eyes,
Crawls in your stomach and out your eyes.
Your stomach turns a slimy green,
And pus pours out like whipping cream.
You spread it out on a slice of bread,
And that's what you eat when you are dead.
------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
ffred
<gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1123801231....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/tree.htm
>
The man who has nothing to boast of but his ancestry is like a potato.
The only good belonging to him is underground.
Sir Thomas Overbury
Elizabeth
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>
> >I know that you, and Reedy and Ross and Webb
> >and Groves and all the other bad asses in HLAS
> >become likeable guys when you turn off the
> >machine. I don't doubt that your wife finds you
> >amusing. I doubt Webb's wife finds him amusing
> > but that's really none of my business.
>
> My wife (who happens to be short & freckled) is not amused.
Tell her she descends from the 17th earl. That should
make her happy.
> (Webb's wife appears to be a cat.)
Short haired and freckled?
> --------------------------------------------------
> >> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> >
> >>>Although not descended from
> >>> the short and freckled line (thank god).
WHAT. Are you psychic?
> >Neuendorffer wrote:
> >> --------------------------------------------------
> >> An HABERDASHER of SMALL WEIRS
>
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>
> > Neuendorffer doesn't sound English but
> > I could be wrong.
>
> You could be weirong.
So Neuendorffer is Thai? Vietnamese? Cambodian?
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > "To match this saint there was another,
> > As busy and perVERsE a brother,
> > An HABERDASHER of SMALL WARES
> > In politics and state affairs." - Butler: Hudibras, iii. 2.
> > --------------------------------------------------
> >> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> >
> >>> The VVeirs translate the Vere motto as
> >>> Nothing But The Truth.
>
> >>>That's not only a more accurate translation
> >>>it doesn't allow any for equivocation on
> >>>the word "truth."
> >
> >>>Furthermore "Nothing is truer than truth"
> >>> is a logical fallacy. Look it up.
>
> > Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> >> Many Oxfordians prefer:
> >> "Nothing is truer than VERE"
>
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>
> > Uh oh. That was the secret sanity test.
>
> Is this going to cost me another nickel?
> http://www.kataweb.it/speciali/images/blog/lucy.jpg
That was 1955. I'll bill you.
> >Neuendorffer wrote:
> >> ---------------------------------------------
> >> _Lady Clara VERE de VERE_
> >>
> >> "KIND HEARTS are more than coronets,
> >> And simple faith than Norman blood" - Tennyson
> >> ---------------------------------------------
>
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> >
> >The problem is historical revisionism, Art. Oxford's
> >life was bracketed by one of the most disruptive events
> >in history, the English Reformation. Because it was done
> >by fiat the English went to bed Catholics and woke up
> >heretics. After Regans In Excelsis was issued and the
> >Tudor regime reacted, English Catholics went to bed
> >loyal Englishmen and woke up traitors.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> "The rules of the game are changing," Tony Blair said Friday.
How would you like to find this in the mail?
<http://wikisource.org/wiki/Regnans_in_Excelsis>
(There will be an exam so wear clean underwear).
> --------------------------------------------------------
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>
> >Oxford was a traitor if he took confession. When the priests
> >were kicked out of England, English Catholics were in a state
> >of spiritual anguish lest they die unconfessed. It was so much
> >worse than I can write here.
>
> I can't imagine that it is worse than YOU can write, Elizabeth.
Are you referring to my immature style?
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>
> >Oxfordianism exists only because Oxford's biography has yet
> >to be written. It certainly is in no part of any Oxfordian book,
> >on any Oxfordian website let alone in Nelson's book.
>
> > "Oxford goes here, Oxford goes there."
>
> >That's my review of the Oxfordians and Nelson.
> ------------------------------------------------
> The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out,
> The worms play pinochle on your snout.
> They eat your eyes, they eat your nose,
> They eat the jelly between your toes.
> A big green worm with rolling eyes,
> Crawls in your stomach and out your eyes.
> Your stomach turns a slimy green,
> And pus pours out like whipping cream.
> You spread it out on a slice of bread,
> And that's what you eat when you are dead.
> ------------------------------------------------
We used to sing that on the school bus. It
brings back memories of the bus driver yelling
at us to shut up.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
find my ancestors fascinating. They give me a connection with the past
and their acheivements and moral qualities are an example to aspire to
- as is their good manners. I am just sorry for you that you do not
have this. My commiserations and best of luck.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
seems to have disappeared. The theory was interesting but I have no
idea whether there is anything to it. It sounded rather far-fetched to
me (but I didn't discount it entirely). Actually, I have only a summary
knowledge of the authorship dabate, my interest is in genealogy. One
fact that did impress me (if it is a fact) is that Shakespeare (the
Stratford chap) was apparently illiterate and was unable to sign his
own name. That is rather a difficult fact (pretty much impossibe I'd
say) to get round - whatever other arguments one can put on either
side. What fun!
Is there a current website that explains David Bottrill's theory?
Best wishes,
Graham Senior-Milne
LynnE
Sephardic branch. I'm still doubtful that the Ashbourne is Hamersley,
especially after seeing for myself at the Folger the mess it's in, but
we can agree to--possibly--differ. If you'd like to see a split image
of the Ashbourne and Edward de Vere, please look at the cover of Mark
Anderson's new book, at
http://www.shakespearebyanothername.com
That seems to me to be a much closer match; however, portraits are not
as accurate as photographs so I'm not making any claims based on
likenesses in them.
Thank you very much for sharing your family tree with us. I would be
very interested in further material about your Jewish ancestry, if you
have any.
Regards,
Lynne
gangleri
school teacher or administrator, and a gracious lady), with whom I was
in email contact until about two years ago.
She was not in good health and, with the disappearance of the website
and her failure to respond to emails, I'm afraid she may have passed
on.
As for David Bottrill's research, in which 'deciphering' of the three
Stratford inscriptions played an important role, I suspect he may have
hit upon a mode of 'deciphering' akin to that of Peter Farey in the
case of the "Stay passenger..." inscription, for the 'story' which
Bottrill read from the record is essentially Marlovian.
Except that Thomas Salusbury, the Cipher Value of whose name calculated
by the Saga-Shakespeare Cipher Key is 9099, is cast as the
supposedly-dead Marlowe, who 'reappeared' under the pseudonym Thomas
Heywood, 7942, to write the works of William Shakespeare.
In 'The Tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke', 15621, the imagery of
King Hamlet's 'death' and 'reappearance' as Ghost in cahoots with
Prince Hamlet is evocative of the Marlovian/Salusbury/Heywood imagery
which Bottrill and Farey have 'deciphered' from the record wholly
independent of the Saga-Shakespeare Cipher Key.
Yet, the Cipher Sum 15621 + 9099 - 1000 + 4000 + 7942 = 35662, would
tie all loose ends together insofar as the Bottrill/Farey 'Marlovian'
hypothesis is concerned, with the 'before' and 'after' aspects of
Marlowe/Salusbury/Heywood reflecting Spirit's passage through the
Darkness, - 1000, of Ignorance to 'death' by metamorphosis into
World-Burning/Ending Flaming Sword, 4000.
And how does that relate to the Authorship Issue?
The Cipher Value 35662 stands for the Stratfordian's "houre vpon the
stage", with the 'baptism' of 'Gulielmus filius Johannes Shakspere',
17252, on April 26, 1564, symbolizing 'entry on stage' and the 'burial'
of 'Will Shakspere gent', 10026, on April 25, 1616, symbolizing 'exit',
at Houre's End, 100 as in 17252 + 2602 + 1564 + 10026 + 2502 + 1616 +
100 = 35662.
Viva Marlowe/Salusbury/Heywood!
Gangleri
Tom Reedy
news:1123854919.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
From that Web site:
" . . . sometimes overlooked and sometimes entirely new pieces of evidence .
. ."
I like that. It's funny.
TR
Tom Reedy
news:1123854739.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, it was David Bottrill. There was a website at one time but it
> seems to have disappeared. The theory was interesting but I have no
> idea whether there is anything to it. It sounded rather far-fetched to
> me (but I didn't discount it entirely). Actually, I have only a summary
> knowledge of the authorship dabate, my interest is in genealogy. One
> fact that did impress me (if it is a fact) is that Shakespeare (the
> Stratford chap) was apparently illiterate and was unable to sign his
> own name. That is rather a difficult fact (pretty much impossibe I'd
> say) to get round - whatever other arguments one can put on either
> side.
Unfortunately for whoever claimed that, there are six almost universally
accepted signatures (and the only people who don't accept them are
antiStratfordians) and one which is generally accepted, making a total of
seven difficult facts for those who claim he couldn't sign his name.
TR
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Thanks for that. I have loads of material my Senior side, including
original letters and documents from the 18th century. Don Araham
Senior's family are quite well covered in various books about the
Sephardim. I would really love to trace the family after 1492 to all
the places they travelled to make a living. Did you know that a branch
of the Seniors invented Curacao, the liquer? Their old house on Curacao
is now a museum but you can still buy their liquer (but not in
England).
Frankly, I think one would need fairly clear evidence to conclude that
the Ashbourne portrait is Sir Hugh. I would dearly love to see the arms
discovered on the painting. I suspect that many portraits at that time
were fairly stylized so many would look alike - as the cover of Mark
Anderson's book seems to demonstrate. The fact that Sir Hugh was
granted arms in 1614 doesn't mean that those arms would not appear on a
portrait painted before that date. The reason for this is that Sir Hugh
was not granted arms in 1614, strictly speaking; the arms were
exemplified i.e. the grant merely recognised an existing right to arms
anciently borne by his ancestors. Heraldry is useful sometimes.
Honestly, some of the posts in this thread seem pretty unpleasant to
me. One would have hoped that reading all that Shakespeare would tend
people towards gentleness - but perhaps that is expecting too much.
Since I have been accused of being a potato, does that make me a chip
off the old block?
Best wishes,
Graham
Art Neuendorffer
> > Yes, it was David Bottrill. There was a website at one time but it
> > seems to have disappeared. The theory was interesting but I have no
> > idea whether there is anything to it. It sounded rather far-fetched to
> > me (but I didn't discount it entirely). Actually, I have only a summary
> > knowledge of the authorship dabate, my interest is in genealogy. One
> > fact that did impress me (if it is a fact) is that Shakespeare (the
> > Stratford chap) was apparently illiterate and was unable to sign his
> > own name. That is rather a difficult fact (pretty much impossibe I'd
> > say) to get round - whatever other arguments one can put on either
> > side.
"Tom Reedy" <tomr...@verizon.net> wrote
> Unfortunately for whoever claimed that, there are six almost universally
> accepted signatures (and the only people who don't accept them are
> antiStratfordians) and one which is generally accepted, making a total of
> seven difficult facts for those who claim he couldn't sign his name.
> TR
The six signatures are proof that Shakespeare
(the Stratford chap) was apparently illiterate
Art N.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
comment on the issue. Perhaps I should just have kept quiet.
Graham
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
opinion of a cypher expert would be pretty persuasive I suppose. Are
you saying that the probability of these cyphers 'fitting the facts' by
chance is so remote that they must be deliberate - or something like
that. Can this be expressed mathematically in a generally accepted way
i.e. the probablity of these cyphers working by chance is x in y?
Graham
Elizabeth
Just when were those six signatures authenticated
and by what experts? Can we see the documents of
authentification?
Or were the signatures authenticated by "tradition?"
I don't have much confidence in the Stratford
record. The interpolation of the bequest of rings
has proven to be a forgery so what else has been
forged?
My guess is that the grammar school records showed
a year of petty school per Rowe. Too bad about
the fire. Was Collier in the vicinity?
I have to laugh because it's poetic justice that Strats
altered Hammersley's portrait so that the Oxfordians
could grab it.
If it still looked like Hammersley, Oxfordians would
have nothing with Shakespearean gravity to recruit
the public since the other portaits assigned to
Oxford aren't exactly recruitment tools.
Fortunately the Strat forgers didn't overpaint
Hammersley's mayoral robes which incidently, Oxford
would not be caught dead in. Oxford, at least,
knew his place.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> A gazillion dollars isn't what it used to be, Graham.
It better than what I'm earning at the moment!
LynnE
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Lynne,
>
> Thanks for that. I have loads of material my Senior side, including
> original letters and documents from the 18th century. Don Araham
> Senior's family are quite well covered in various books about the
> Sephardim. I would really love to trace the family after 1492 to all
> the places they travelled to make a living. Did you know that a branch
> of the Seniors invented Curacao, the liquer? Their old house on Curacao
> is now a museum but you can still buy their liquer (but not in
> England).
Fascinating. It's my favourite liqueur. Now I know why.
>
> Frankly, I think one would need fairly clear evidence to conclude that
> the Ashbourne portrait is Sir Hugh. I would dearly love to see the arms
> discovered on the painting. I suspect that many portraits at that time
> were fairly stylized so many would look alike - as the cover of Mark
> Anderson's book seems to demonstrate. The fact that Sir Hugh was
> granted arms in 1614 doesn't mean that those arms would not appear on a
> portrait painted before that date. The reason for this is that Sir Hugh
> was not granted arms in 1614, strictly speaking; the arms were
> exemplified i.e. the grant merely recognised an existing right to arms
> anciently borne by his ancestors. Heraldry is useful sometimes.
>
> Honestly, some of the posts in this thread seem pretty unpleasant to
> me. One would have hoped that reading all that Shakespeare would tend
> people towards gentleness - but perhaps that is expecting too much.
It's expecting too much here. But most people are rather nice under
their crusty exteriors. Hang around and you'll find out.
>
> Since I have been accused of being a potato, does that make me a chip
> off the old block?
Better than being a sofa-spud.
Regards,
Lynne
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Graham
Art Neuendorffer
> Honestly, some of the posts in this thread seem pretty unpleasant to
> me. One would have hoped that reading all that Shakespeare would tend
> people towards gentleness - but perhaps that is expecting too much.
As you've already pointed out:
there is, at the very least, a lot of money at stake.
Art N.
gangleri
Are you saying that the probability of these cyphers 'fitting the
facts' by chance is so remote that they must be deliberate - or
something like that. Can this be expressed mathematically in a
generally accepted wayi.e. the probablity of these cyphers working by
chance is x in y?
Comment:
The brief answer is Yes, and it has to do with "things in heaven and
earth" that are not "dreamt of in [Stratfordian] philosophy."
And "dreamers", who think they are anchored to "reality", will not be
impressed by mathematical "proof" that they are anything but!
A case in point.
Tom Reedy took you to task for questioning the Stratfordian's writing
ability, citing his (alleged) signatures as evidence that he could
write his name.
On reading this, I searched the Internet for "shakespeare signatures"
and came up with the following:
"Here's six signatures of Shakespeare, the only specimens of his
handwriting we have.
"The interpretation of the lettering is by Charles Hamilton, In Search
of Shakespeare Harcourt Brace, 1985.
(a) From 1612 deposition: William Shackper
(b) 1612 Blackfriars deed:William Shakspear
(c) 1612 Blackfriars mortgage: Wm Shakspea
(d) His 1615 will, page 1: William Shackspere
(e) Will, page 2: Willm. Shakspere
(f) Will, page 3: By me William Shakspeare [often questioned as by a
different hand]."
Now, as indicated by my earlier postings to hlas, I am persuaded that
the Stratfordian "of record" - that is the character whose "baptismal"
and "burial" entries are taken from a purported honest COPY of
never-seen Holy Trinity Church records - is a figment of the
imagination of the Kabbalistic Master known as Sir Francis Bacon,
Knight.
And, since a figment of Bacon's imagination cannot possibly have penned
his name in the six signatures above, it follows that there MUST be
something more to them than is readily apparent at first glance.
And what might that be?
It took me a minute to determine that the Cipher Sum of the first five
signatures, 8346 + 8866 + 6114 + 9470 + 8523 = 41319, mirrors that of
mythical Brownswerd, - 4000, become the plaything of the Powers Aboue
as symbolized by the Twelve Houses of the Zodiac, 45319* as in 45319 -
4000 = 41319.
*Leo-Virgo-Libra-Scorpio-Sagittarius-Capricornus-Aquarius-Pisces-Aries-Taurus-Gemini-Cancer
And what about the sixth signature - the one that is "often questioned
as by a different hand"?
Its Cipher Value is 9094, giving us a Cipher Sum of 41319 + 9094 =
50413 for the six signatures which Tom Reedy and like-minded
sophisticated/seasoned/sagacious and sober-minded scholars hold to be
the real thing - signatures of mere figment of Francis Bacon's powerful
poetic imagination.
As it happens, the Cipher Value of the six signatures is mirrored in
the Cipher Sum 4654 + 4600 + 5497 + 35662 = 50413, where
4654 = Brutus;
4600 = Scialetheia ('A Shadow of Truth');
5497 = Et in Arcadia Ego ('And I in Arcadia'); and
35662 = A Poore Stratfordian Players Houre Vpon The Stage.*
* As in 17252 + 2602 + 1564 + 10026 + 2502 + 1616 + 100 = 35662, where
'Baptism':
17252 = Gulielmus filius Johannes Shakspere;
2602 = April 26;
1564 = 1564;
'Burial':
10026 = Will Shakspere gent;
2502 = April 25;
1616 = 1616;
Curtains:
100 = The End.
****
The Saga-Shakespeare Cipher Key and Calculator are posted on the
Internet at http://www.light-of-truth.com/gunnartomasson/ciphers.htm
Art Neuendorffer
> ________________________________
>
> Here's probably the best Ashbourne
> posted online.
>
> <http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Ashbourne_small.gif>
Or: http://www.shakespearebyanothername.com/pix/sban3.jpg
Elizabeth
> Or: http://www.shakespearebyanothername.com/pix/sban3.jpg
It's like this, Art.
The dispute over the identity of the Ashbourne
sitter is not settled. The Oxfordian evidence is
sixty-five or more years old. The Folger evidence
is recent. I'm not acquainted with the evidence so
I'm not going to take sides with the Folger.
The MORAL QUESTION is whether the Oxfordians have
the right to call the Ashbourne a portrait of Oxford
before the dispute has been settled.
The Oxfordians obviously benefit from the use of
the Ashbourne because, as I said in the post above,
it has Shakespearean gravity while Oxford's portraits
do not.
So, Art, I would like your interpretation of this
moral dilemma. Is it right to use the Ashbourne's
image on the product label before you know what's in
the can? Is it false advertising? Does it violate
the ethics of scholarship?
Please don't give me any bull about intuiting Oxford's
mind in the paint. ;)
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Spam Scone
Yes, we'd hate to see the cottage industry of the Shakespeare-deniers
dry up.
Elizabeth
Isn't it kind of hard to believe that the
guy that wrote the following
(a) From 1612 deposition: William Shackper
(b) 1612 Blackfriars deed: William Shakspear
(c) 1612 Blackfriars mortgage: Wm Shakspea
(d) His 1615 will, page 1: William Shackspere
(e) Will, page 2: Willm. Shakspere
(f) Will, page 3: By me William Shakspeare
wrote the million words of the First Folio?
He didn't seem to be able to read his own
name let alone write it. I note that
"Shakespeare" is not on the list.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Art Neuendorffer
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> It's like this, Art.
>
> The dispute over the identity of the Ashbourne
> sitter is not settled. The Oxfordian evidence is
> sixty-five or more years old. The Folger evidence
> is recent. I'm not acquainted with the evidence so
> I'm not going to take sides with the Folger.
The Oxfordian evidence was published in Scientific American.
The Oxfordian evidence was published in the
Stratfordian/SAA run Shakespeare Quarterly (1993)
It took them from 14 to 53 years(!!)
to invent a bogus cover story.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ashbourne Portrait: Why It's Not the Earl of Oxford
by David Kathman
<<In 1940, Charles Wisner Barrell, an Oxfordian, had X-rays made of the
Ashbourne Portrait, which revealed that the painting had been altered at
some point in the past to look more like Shakespeare (in particular, the
hairline had been pushed back to make the subject bald). Barrell claimed
that the original portrait had been of the Earl of Oxford; he claimed
that a coat of arms visible in his X-ray photos was that of the Earl's
second wife, and that the subject's ring depicted a boar, one of the
Earl's symbols. He also found initials which he interpreted as "C.K.,"
which he in turn interpreted as referring to Cornelius Ketel,
who painted one of the two known portraits of Edward de Vere.
Barrell published his findings in Scientific American.
However, in 1979 the painting undewent a restoration in preparation for
a Folger exhibition. Some of the paint was removed, and it turned out
that the coat of arms in the painting was not that of Oxford's second
wife at all, but that of Sir Hugh Hamersley, a prominent member of the
HABERDASHER's Company and onetime Lord Mayor of London. Also,
the painting contains the age of the sitter (47 years old) and the date
(1611), which fits Shakespeare; however, the restoration revealed that
the last "1" in the date had been altered from a 2." Hugh Hamersley, it
turns out, was born in 1565 (one year after Shakespeare), and thus was
47 years old in 1612. It is now universally accepted, even by most
Oxfordians (except for a few extreme militants) that the original
portrait was of Hugh Hamersley and had nothing to do with the Earl
of Oxford. Details of all this can be found in an article by William L.
Pressley in Shakespeare Quarterly, 1993, pp. 54-72, called "The
Ashbourne Portrait of Shakespeare: Through the Looking Glass.">>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> The MORAL QUESTION is whether the Oxfordians have
> the right to call the Ashbourne a portrait of Oxford
> before the dispute has been settled.
People can judge for themselves:
http://www.shakespearebyanothername.com/pix/sban3.jpg
http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/Ashbourne3.jpg
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> The Oxfordians obviously benefit from the use of
> the Ashbourne because, as I said in the post above,
> it has Shakespearean gravity while Oxford's portraits
> do not.
>
> So, Art, I would like your interpretation of this
> moral dilemma.
> Is it right to use the Ashbourne's image on the
> product label before you know what's in the can?
Yes
> Is it false advertising?
No
> Does it violate the ethics of scholarship?
No
> Please don't give me any bull about
> intuiting Oxford's mind in the paint. ;)
OK.
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > Honestly, some of the posts in this thread seem pretty unpleasant to
> > > me. One would have hoped that reading all that Shakespeare would tend
> > > people towards gentleness - but perhaps that is expecting too much.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > As you've already pointed out:
> > there is, at the very least, a lot of money at stake.
----------------------------------------------------
"Spam Scone" <Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Yes, we'd hate to see the cottage industry
> of the Shakespeare-deniers dry up.
----------------------------------------------------
You guys invented "the cottage industry":
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.stratford.co.uk/prop3.asp
http://www.shakespeare.org.uk/main/4/365
<<The world famous Anne Hathaway's Cottage is situated in Shottery 1 mile
from Stratford-upon-Avon and was the childhood home of Shakespeare's wife
and has been a pilgrimage for visitors for centuries. The young Shakespeare
would have courted Anne here and the site has often been described as the
most romantic view in England. The beautiful thatched farmhouse was occupied
by descendents of the Hathaway family until it's purchase by the Trust in
1892 and still contains many rare family items of furniture that date back
to Anne's time, including the finely carved, oak "Hathaway bed". This may
well have been the one valued at £3 in 1624, on the death of Anne Hathaway's
brother.>>
Admission:
Adult: £5.20
Child: (5 - 16 years) £2
Concession: £4
Family: (2 adults and up to 3 children) £12
----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
http://www.curacaoliqueur.com/
Graham
Elizabeth
I've been looking around the Internet to see
what I could discover about your Staffordshire
ancestor's portrait.
The village of Ashbourne, as far as I can tell,
is just on the boundary of Staffordshire and
Derbyshire on the Derbyshire side. There seems
to be a river that separates the two shires with
Ashbourne situated on the east bank.
The COE includes Ashbourne in the Staffordshire district.
The Prince Henry COE school in Ashbourne may be
the grammar school where the portrait was discovered.
It was identified by a Rev. Kingston who may have
been the Prince Henry head master.
It's a beautiful district.
<http://www.cressbrook.co.uk/images/fronts/ladybower.jpg>
For all we know Sir Hugh attended the school where
his portrait was found. The family may have donated
the portrait. I'm speculating, of course.
On the other hand, it is interesting that the Ashbourne
was discovered in a village on the boundary of Staffordshire
and not on the boundary of East Anglia.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
A lovely part of the country. I think the answer to the Sir Hugh or not
Sir Hugh question might lie in the coat of arms identified by X-Ray. If
the arms are distinguishable they could provide a definitive answer;
after all, arms were included to identify the sitter. Has a picture of
these arms ever been published do you know?
Graham
LynnE
I lived around there for about five years--at Repton. We went into
Ashbourne often.
>I think the answer to the Sir Hugh or not
> Sir Hugh question might lie in the coat of arms identified by X-Ray. If
> the arms are distinguishable they could provide a definitive answer;
> after all, arms were included to identify the sitter. Has a picture of
> these arms ever been published do you know?
Graham, We have some sketches of the arms with commentary. They were
published in our newsletter, Shakespeare Matters, in Spring 2002. If
you'd like to write to me privately, I'll be glad to give you access to
the pages in question.
Regards,
Lynne
>
> Graham