Shakespeare's Tomb Saturday Channel Four

[graham.a...@btinternet.com]

Documentary to be broadcast on Channel Four on Saturday 26 March at 8pm. or one hour later on +4.

Looking at all the information and what is inside it!

Must be the results of the radar survey mentioned on a thread here.

[poor tom]

Be interesting to see if they pushed a probe down there, or else made a direct scan through the stone surface: as I remember, digging is not allowed: Whatever, even if they do find what could be a body, who it belonged to when living, is anybody's guess: According to English history, there were plenty of plague victims available in that town, indeed, whole families: just the thing to help support a big fat lie:

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

> on Saturday 26 March at 8pm. or one hour later on +4.
>
> Looking at all the information and what is inside it!
>
> Must be the results of the radar survey mentioned on a thread here.

--------------------------------------------------
The 1612 MINERVA BRITANNA *MENTE VIDEBOR*
______ anagram is clearly *DE VERE IN TOMB*
--------------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/htfujs3
..............................................
Interviewer: Is this the de Vere tomb?

Charles Vere: That's right--this is the tomb of Francis Vere who was the Earl of Oxford's first cousin, together with Horace *HORATIO*. And he died fighting in the Netherlands and was brought back to England and buried here with great ceremony.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*HORATIO* : Good night sweet prince:
. And flights of *ANGELS* sing thee to thy rest!
....................................................
*ENGEL* : *ANGEL* (Danish, Dutch, German)
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Sir Francis Vere (1560-1609) & his brother *HORACE* (1565-1635)
are buried in the chapel of St John the Ev[ANGEL]ist in the Abbey.

Francis has a large monument of alabaster and black marble showing
him lying on a carved rush mattress in civilian dress under a slab
on which is laid out his suit of armour. The slab is supported on
the shoulders of four life-sized knights in armour who kneel at
each corner. The monument seems to have been inspired by that of
*Count ENGELbert* II of Nassau-Dillenburg in the church at Breda.>>
....................................................
. This is CLEARLY the tomb of *HAM(l)ET*
. NOT that of some *Count ENGEL-BERT* :
.
http://tinyurl.com/ycraswu
--------------------------------------------------
. Quarto 2 (1604) Act 5, Scene 2
.
*FORT(enbr)ASSE* : Let foure Cap(T)aines
. B[E]are Hamlet like a (S)ouldie[R] *to the stage* ,
. For h(E) was lik[E]ly, had (HE BE)ene pu(T) on,
. To ha[V|E} prooued most royall; and [F|O}r his passage,
. The souldiers musicke and the right of warre
. Speake loudly for him:
....................................................
________ <= 22 =>

. L e t f{O}u r e C a p (T)a i n e s B [E] a r e
. H a m l{E}t l i k e a (S|O)u l d i e [R] t o t
. h e s(T)a g e,F{O}r h (E)w a s l i k [E] l y,h
. a d(H E B(E|E}n{E}p u (T)o n,T o h a [V]{E} p r
. o o v e d m{O|S)t r o y a l l;a n d [F]{O} r h
. i s p a s s a g e(T)h e s o u l d i e r s m
. u s i c k e a n d t h e r i g h t o f w a r
. r e S p e a k e l o u d l y f o r h i m:
.
[F.VERE] -22 : Prob. ~ 1 in 66
------------------------------------------------------------
. Quarto 1 (1603) Scene 17
.
*FORT(enbr)ASSE* : Let foure of our chiefest Captaines
. Beare Hamlet like a souldier *to his graue* :
. For he was likely, had he liued,
. To a prou'd most royall.
....................................................
. *FORT(enbr)ASSE* : *PERHAPS* (Latin)
....................................................
. The farce is finished. I go to seek a vast *PERHAPS*.
.
. "Je m'en vais chercher un grand *PEUT-ÊTRE* ;
. tirez le rideau, la farce est jouée."
.
rABelais's last words. [From MOTTEUX, Life of rABelais]
--------------------------------------------------------
____ *ENGELBErt* : *English Born*
____ *ENGELI* : *Barrier* (Turkish)
____ *BEnENGELi* : *Son of England*

'The History of Don Quixote of the Mancha, written
by Cid *HAMETE BEnENGELi*, an Arabical historiographer.'
.......................................................
Shelton's Don Quixote, Part 1 The Second Book I

<<Being one day walking in the exchange of Toledo, a certain boy by
chance would have sold *DIVERS* old quires and scrolls of books to a
squire that walked up and down in that place, and I, being addicted to
read such scrolls, though I found them torn in the streets, borne away
by this my natural inclination, took one of the quires in my hand, and
perceived it to be written in Arabical characters, and seeing that,
although I knew the letters, yet could I not read the substance, I
looked about to view whether I could perceive any Moor turned Spaniard
thereabouts, that could read them; nor was it very difficult to find
there such an interpreter; for, if I had searched one of another
better and more ancient language, that place would easily afford him.
In fine, my good fortune presented one to me; to whom telling my
desire, and setting the book in his hand, he opened it, and, having
read a little therein, began to laugh. I demanded of him why he
laughed; and he answered, at that marginal note which the book had. I
bade him to expound it to me, and with that took him a little aside;
and he, continuing still his laughter, said: 'There is written there,
on this margin, these words: "This Dulcinea of Toboso, so many times
spoken of in this history, had the best hand for powdering of porks of
any woman in all the Mancha."' When I heard it make mention of
Dulcinea of Toboso, I rested amazed and suspended, and imagined
forthwith that those quires contained the history of Don Quixote. With
this conceit I hastened him to read the beginning, which he did, and,
translating the Arabical into Spanish in a trice, he said that it
begun thus: 'The History of Don Quixote of the Mancha, written by Cid
Hamete *BEnENGELi*, an Arabical historiographer.'>>
.......................................................
Shelton's Don Quixote, Part 1 The Third Book

THE WISE Cid *Hamet BEN-ENGEL{I}* recounteth that,
as soon as Don Quixote had taken leave of the goatherds.....

...omitting that Cid *Mahamet BEnENGEL{I}* was a very exact
historiographer, and most curious in all things, as may be
gathered very well, seeing that those which are related being
so minute and trivial, he would not overslip them in *silence*.

CID *HAMET BEN-ENGEL{I}*, an Arabic and Manchegan author,
recounts, in this most grave, lofty, divine, *SWEET*
conceited history, that, after these discourses passed
between Don Quixote and his squire Sancho Panza...

Here Cardenio finished his large discourse and unfortunate and amorous
history; and just about the time that the curate was be-thinking
himself of some comfortable reasons to answer and persuade him, he
was suspended by a voice arrived to his hearing, which with pitiful
accents said what shall be recounted in the Fourth Part of this
narration; for in this very point the wise and most absolute
historiographer, Cid *Hamet BEN-ENGEL{I}*, finished
the Third Book of this history.
------------------------------------------
____ Sonnet *4*

VNthrifty lovelinesse why dost thou spend,
Vpon thy selfe thy beauties legacy?
Natures bequest giues nothing but doth lend,
And being franck she lends to those are free:

Then beautious nigard why doost thou abuse,
(T)he b(o)unt{I}ous [L]arg[E]sse [G]iue[N] the[E] to g(I)ue?
Profitles vserer why doost thou vse
So great a summe of summes yet can'st not liue?

. <= *4* =>

. (T)h e b
. (o)u n t
. {I}o u s
. [L]a r g
. [E]s s e
. [G]i u e
. [N]t h e
. [E]t o g
. (I)u e?

[ENGEL{I}] -4

For hauing traffike with thy selfe alone,
Thou of thy selfe thy *SWEET* selfe dost deceaue,
Then how when nature calls thee to be gone,
What acceptable Audit can'st thou leaue?

*Thy vnus'd beauty must be TOMB'd with thee*,
Which vsed liues th'executor to be.
--------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkqcLJZ9I3s
..............................................
Interviewer: There's an inscription in the slab next to the monument which says: Stone Coffin Underneath--do you know--what do you make of that?

Charles Vere: Well, I think--my hunch is that it may well be that the 17th Earl of Oxford was reburied there, was moved from Hackney Church and buried here. It would be unthinkable for the Earl of Oxford--a) to have no tomb just because of the sort of person he was, his station, 17th Earl of Oxford, that says it all, Lord Great Chamberlain of England; and of course if he was Shakespeare, if he gave the world that incredible achievement, then it would only be fitting that he should lie here in Westminster Abbey. I think that what one feels above all is a rather eerie sense of something mysterious or even untoward here. So I think one gets very much a sense of history in the present--of you and I taking part in it as much as back in the 17th century when this was erected. Our part is just as significant and I think it was probably intended to be. This resolution was left with future generations.
----------------------------------------------------
Ben Jonson (1623) _To the Memory of Shakespeare_
...................................................
My Shakespeare, rise ; *I WILL* no[T LODGE] THee by
Chaucer, or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lye
A little further to make thee a roome ;
Thou art a Moniment, without a TOMBe,
........................................................
Job 31:32 The *STRANGER* did no[T LODGE] in the street:
. but I opened my doores to the trauailer.
........................................................
Shine forth, thou Starr{E O}f Poets, and wi[T]h rage,
Or inf[L]uence, chide, [O]r cheere the [D]rooping Sta[G]e;
Which, sinc[E] thy flight fro' hence, hath mourn'd like night,
And despaires day, but for thy Volumes light.
.............................................
. <= 11 =>
.
. S h i n e f o r t h, t
. h o u S t a r r{E O} f
. P o e t s,a n d w i [T]
. h r a g e.O r i n f [L]
. u e n c e,c h i d e,[O]
. r c h e e r e t h e [D]
. r o o p i n g S t a [G]
. e;W h i c h,s i n c [E]
. t h y f l i g h t
.
[T LODGE] 11 : Prob. at end ~ 1 in 18,000
.
(Shortest positive [T LODGE] skip in KJV = 25)
--------------------------------------------------------
Shakespeare's Eulogies by David Kathman
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/eulogies.html

William Basse wrote a poem entitled "On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare,
he died in April 1616" (thus he was very clearly referring
to the Stratford Shakespeare). Basse was suggesting that
Shakespeare should have been buried in Westminster Abbey
next to Chaucer, Beaumont, and Spenser (Chambers, II, 226):

William Basse (Shakespeare's Poems 1640)
.
. Renowned {[S]PENS<E>R}, lie a tho[U]ght m<O>re nigh
. To [L]earn<E>d Chaucer, [A]nd rare Beaumon[T] lie
. A little nearer {SPENSER} to make room
. {FOR SHAKESPEARE}in your threefold, fourfold tomb.
..................................................
. <= 14 =>
.
. R e n o w n e d{[S] P E N S <E>}
.{R}l i e a t h o [U] g h t m <O>
. r e n i g h T o [L] e a r n <E>
. d C H a u c<E>r,[A] n d r a r
. e B E a u m<O>n [T] l i e A l
. i t T l e n<E>a r e r{S P E
. N S E R}t o m a k e r o o m
.{F O R S H A K E S P E A R E}
.
[TALUS] -14 : Prob. ~ 1 in 1080
------------------------------------------------------
. British Museum's Lansdowne MS. Temp. James I.
. by William Basse (c. 1622)
.
.(To LODGE) all fowre in one bed m{A}ke a shift
. Untill Doomesdaye, for ha{R}dly will a sift
. Betwixt ys day and yt {B}y *FATE* be slayne,
. For whom your Curta{I}nes may be drawn againe.
. If yoUr prec{E}dency in death doth barre
. A *FOURTH* place in your sacred sepulcher,
............................................
_______ <= 30 =>
.
. For*SHAK{E}SPEARE* inyourthreefoldf
. owerfol {D} TOMBE ToLODGEallfowrein
. onebedm {A} keash iftUntillDoomesda
. yeforha {R} dlywi llasiftBetwixtysd
. ayandyt {B} yFATE beslayneForwhomyo
. urCurta {I} nesma ybedrawnagaineIfy
. oUrprec {E} dency indeathdothbarreA
. fourthp l acEin yoursacredsepulcher
.
{E.DARBIE} 30 : Prob. ~ 1 in 10,300
.....................................................
(Shortest positive {DARBIE} skip in KJV = 33)
..........................................................
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A12017.0001.001?view=toc

<<The most lamentable Romaine tragedie of Titus Andronicus
As it was plaide by the right honourable the {E}arle of {DARBIE},
*Earl of PEMBROOKE* , and Earl of Sussex their seruants.

London: Printed by Iohn Danter, and are to be sold by
Edward White & Thomas Millington, at the little North
doore of Paules at the signe of the Gunne, 1594.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
david kathman wrote:

<<In 1596, *THOMAS LODGE* in his *WITS MISERy* mentioned
the "ghost which cried so MISERably at the Theatre,
*like an OISTER-WIFE*, 'HAMlet, REVEnge'.">>
---------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Lodge

<<THOMAS LODGE (1558 - September 1625) was an English dramatist.
He was born at West HAM, the second son of Sir Thomas Lodge,
who was Lord Mayor of the City of London in 1562-1563.

Young Thomas served as *PAGE* to the Stanleys, Earls of Derby,
until approximately 1571, when he enrolled in the
Merchant-Taylors' School. From there he went on to
Trinity College, Oxford, where he took his degree in 1577.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Was *THOMAS LODGE* the *PAGE* that served W.S.'s WIT?
....................................................
http://www.bartleby.com/331/186.html
.
. Rosalynde (1590) by *THOMAS LODGE*
_Phoebe's Sonnet, a Reply to Montanus' Passion_

When Love was first begot,
And by the *moVER's WILL*
Did fall to human lot
His solace to fulfil,
Devoid of all deceit,
A chaste and holy fire
Did quick[E]n man's conce[I]t,
And women's [B]reast inspi[R]e.
The gods th[A]t saw the goo[D]
That mortal{S} did approve,
{W}ith kind and holy mood
Began to talk of Love.
.......................................
. <= 11 =>
.
. D i d q u i c k [E] n m
. a n's c o n c e [I] t,A
. n d w o m e n's [B] r e
. a s t i n s p i [R] e.T
. h e g o d s t h [A] t s
. a w t h e g o o [D] T h
. a t m o r t a l {S} d i
. d a p p r o v e,{W} i t
. h k i n d a n d h o l
. y m o o d
.
[{W.S.} DARBIE] -11 : Prob. in song ~ 1 in 3,650,000
.......................................................
But during this accord,
A wonder *STRANGE* to hear,
Whilst Love in deed and word
Most faithful did appear,
False-semblance came in place,
By Jealousy attended,
And with a double face
Both love and fancy blended;
Which made the gods forsake,
And men from fancy fly,
And maidens scorn a make,
Forsooth, and so *WILL I*.
........................................................
. Epilogue _ROSALYNDE OR, EUPHUES' GOLDEN LEGACY_
.
If you grace me with that favor, you encourage me to be
more forward; and as soon as I have overlooked my labors,
expect the Sailor's Calendar.
.
. *T. LODGE. FINIS*
-----------------------------------------------------
Henry IV, Part 1 (Quarto 1, 1598) Act I, scene iii
.
EARL OF WORCESTER: Peace coosen, say no more.
. And now *I WILL UNCLASPE a SECRET BOOKE* ,
. And to your quicke conceiuing discontents
. Ile read[E] you matter deepe and daun[G]erous,
. As full of perill an[D] aduenterous spirit,
. As to [O]rewalke a Current roring [L]owd,
. On the vnstedfast foo[T]ing of a *SPEARE*.
....................................................
____ <= 2 x 11 =>

. U N C L A S P E a*S E C R E T B O O K E*, A n
. d t o y o u r q u i c k e c o n c e i u i n
. g d i s c o n t e n t s I l e r e a d[E] y o
. u m a t t e r d e e p e a n d d a u n[G] e r
. o u s,A s f u l l o f p e r i l l a n[D] a d
. u e n t e r o u s s p i r i t,A s t o[O] r e
. w a l k e a C u r r e n t r o r i n g[L] o w
. d,O n t h e v n s t e d f a s t f o o[T] i n
. g o f a*S P E A R E*.

[T LODGE] -22 (one of 6 *SPEARE*s) (only *SECRET BOOKE*)
-------------------------------------------------------------
In 1608 Thomas Greene and his wife Leticia lived at
*NEW PLACE* , Stratford-on-Avon, had a son, William.
......................................................
EPIGRAMS. BOOK I. The Author B. J.

64. To [Robert (Cecil) Earl of Salisbury. (May 4, 1608)]
Upon the Accession of the Treasurership to him.
......................................................
NOt glad, like those that have new Hopes, or Suits,
With thy *NEW PLACE* , bring I [T]hese ear[L]y Fruits
[O]f Love, an[D] what the [G]olden Ag[E] did hold
A Treasure, Art: Condemn'd in th' Age of Gold.
..................................................
_ <= 8 =>

. *N E W P L A C E* (May 4, 1597)
. b r i n g I[T]h
. e s e e a r[L]y
. F r u i t s[O]f
. L o v e,a n[D]w
. h a T t h e[G]o
. l d E n A g[E]d
. i d H o l d A T
. r e A s u r e,
.
[T LODGE] 8 Prob. ~ 1 in 7250
--------------------------------------------
In his Frontline essay, William Murphy
mentions THOMAS LODGE once and only once:
..........................................
Thirty-Six Plays in Search of an Author
by William M. Murphy, Union College Symposium 1964
http://tinyurl.com/296qhc
.............................................................
There are those, like Delia Bacon, who are afflicted with what
has been called the "Corporation Syndrome," holding that such
distinguished literature must be the work of a commi[T]tee.
Its members wou[L]d include, in additi[O]n to BACON and Oxfor[D],
Robert GREENE, Geor[G]e PEELE, Samuel DANI[E]L, Thomas NASHE,
*THOMAS LODGE*, Michael Drayton, and Thomas Dekker.
....................................................
_________ <= 17 =>
.
. m u s t b e t h e w o r k o f a c
. o m m i [T] t e e.I t s m e m b e r
. s w o u [L] d i n c l u d e,i n a d
. d i t i [O] n t o B a c o n a n d O
. x f o r [D] R o b e r t G r e e n e,
. G e o r [G] e P e e l e,S a m u e l
. D a n i [E] l,T h o m a s N a s h e,
.*T H O M A S L O D G E*

[T.LODGE] 17 : Prob. stuck on *THOMAS LODGE* ~ 1 in 100,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

[graham.a...@btinternet.com]

Stop it with the Bull SHit MR New Door
Go and LODGE something under you CAPS LOCK key to stop it coming on as well!

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:

> Stop it with the Bull SHit MR New Door
> Go and LODGE something under you CAPS LOCK key to stop it coming on as well!

I beg your pardon.

Art N.

[graham.a...@btinternet.com]

Having just watched the documentary, all the stories about the skull missing are not based on the fact that Shakespeare's bones were shown up by the radar technique. In fact the bones of all the graves scanned would be the same as the background material. What it does show is the depth of the burial and the length of the burial. The short Shakespeare stone is not an indication of the size of the Shakespeare grave. The radar shows that his grave was the same length as all the others. All of them 3 feet down. The same depth reported in the Argosy Magazine and the Skull robbing story. Which of course is remarkable, as the general conclusion was that the family was in a vault. And there was no vault.
At what would be the head end of Shakespeare, is a plain slab. This has a stone frame to support it, all added at a later date. This means that the grave at that end had sunk and a repair was need.
The conclusion therefore is that the stealing of the skull story was true, in two respects first the accuracy of the depth and not a vault. Plus the fact the head end needed repairs to be done.

What happened to the Skull?

A story emerged it had ended up in another church. A mystery skull is still to be found in a bricked up family vault at that church. The church allowed them to scan the skull without touching it.
That was shown to be woman aged around 70. A facial reconstruction was made of it.

Of course this opens up lots of questions then it gives answers.
For one thing did they actually steal Shakespeare's skull or his wife? She was aged around 70 when she passed. Is she buried under that Shakespeare's slab, and William under her slab?
Have the stones been moved around at some point during their lifetime. Not put back in the right order? If the Argosy story is true they found evidence of more recent grave over Shakespeare tomb. That would mean that stones had been lifted to get the new grave in!

Of course the Stratford church people, even though the grave has been disturbed, are still not going to allow a proper examination of the tombs. They can't go on a theory they say.

One thing I will say is that woman's face gave me quite a SHOCK!
But I'm not certain I want to discuss it with the "cretins" on this site!

[marco]

.

[poor tom]

=================================

The program starts out by informing us that the church register contains the birth and death details, therefore 'Shakespeare' must be buried in the chapel: but it fails to tell us that the register they were reading was written in Victorian times, as the original was damaged/lost: So who can say what was written in the original register:

The program was a load of cobblers: they went to a church some fifteen miles away because it is written in a comic book that the stolen skull - originally kept in the house of a trophy hunter - was to be hidden in a vault there: the vault, it turns out, took two masons half a day's work to lift up a section of a vault: so two grave-robbers travelled 15 miles (not easy in those times) to hide a stolen skull in a another church - why not simply throw it in the Avon: who'd ever find it? and even if they did, who could guess it belonged to 'Shakespeare??? Cobblers all the way through:

They got into the vault, but the vicar had told them not to move any bones! in a bone house? Was there a curse written there as well? And because the vicar made the rule, they had to do all kinds of manipulations with lasar scanners
to make a 3D image, in extremely cramped conditions, instead of putting the skull on a table and taking a few snap shots: and of course, it turns out that the skull belonged to a 70 year old woman - but only her skull was in the vault: What absolute piffle:

I noticed also the use of an anonymous oil painting to give viewers the impression that it was a real 'Shakespeare' portrait:

Impressed I was not

[graham.a...@btinternet.com]

The church register was not destroyed and is not a copy. The entry that contains Shakespeare's burial was done at the time. That script would have been impossible to create accurately in Victorian times.
The Shakespeare's entry of birth is a copy, but it was done in Elizabethan times about 1600 at the order of the Archbishop of Canterbury Whitgift. The entries were copied from a paper book to a parchment book. So they would survive.
Whitgift was a real stickler for record keeping and it's thanks to him that records dealing with Shakespeare's life have survived.
The showing of the book was simply to show that William Shakespeare was buried in the church - somewhere!

The "comic book" had accurate details of the burial, you can read it in the link I provided. The survey showed it was 3 feet down just like in the book, even the modern guide says the Shakespeare are in a vault, we saw that on the film. They are not! The "comic book" does not mention a vault! There is also evidence, which the program did not use, that a modern burial was first disturbed. In fact if you watch the show again you can see the page where it talks about the modern finds and a ring with letters "I.H.S.".

In fact one man placed the Skull in that church. It's likely the man was employed as a workman and like most builders would be called in to do work at a distance.
The best place to chuck away a skull that is HOT is to place it with others!

There was no curse, but Christen Church does not let people disturb the remains of anyone who was placed in their care. Not unless it is necessary. Such as repairs or danger of collapse. Some believe that doing so might cause the sprit to be become restless.
We only saw a part of the investigation of the skull. They did mention that high quality photo's were taken. You can rest assured that the investigation into that skull was accurate. Regardless of what you think of that archaeologist, Caroline who did the reconstruction of the face has done many TV shows doing the same thing. She has spent years doing it and works with the police on cold cases that involve facial reconstruction.
The image of the woman, apart from hair colour and style and eye colour, would be accurate so that if she had died recently and had relations they could have recognised her.

The only question remains if that skull of the woman did actually come from Shakespeare grave, seeing that she was around 70 years old could they have dug up the skull of Anne Hathaway?
If you go back to the story they found a more recent burial under cursed stone! So somebody lifted that stone up, maybe the others too. Perhaps they didn't put them back in the write order! So when the "trophy hunters" dug up Shakespeare's grave they actually dug up his wife's.
In which case that image is the face of Anne Shakespeare.

http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2016/03/23/18/pg-22-shakespeare-grave-2-arrow-ch4.jpg

[poor tom]

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 8:50:40 PM UTC+1, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 March 2016 03:58:55 UTC+1, poor tom wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 1:16:42 PM UTC, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
> > > Documentary to be broadcast on Channel Four on Saturday 26 March at 8pm. or one hour later on +4.
> > >
> > > Looking at all the information and what is inside it!
> > >
> > > Must be the results of the radar survey mentioned on a thread here.
> >
> > =================================
> >
> > The program starts out by informing us that the church register contains the birth and death details, therefore 'Shakespeare' must be buried in the chapel: but it fails to tell us that the register they were reading was written in Victorian times, as the original was damaged/lost: So who can say what was written in the original register:
> >
> > The program was a load of cobblers: they went to a church some fifteen miles away because it is written in a comic book that the stolen skull - originally kept in the house of a trophy hunter - was to be hidden in a vault there: the vault, it turns out, took two masons half a day's work to lift up a section of a vault: so two grave-robbers travelled 15 miles (not easy in those times) to hide a stolen skull in a another church - why not simply throw it in the Avon: who'd ever find it? and even if they did, who could guess it belonged to 'Shakespeare??? Cobblers all the way through:
> >
> > They got into the vault, but the vicar had told them not to move any bones! in a bone house? Was there a curse written there as well? And because the vicar made the rule, they had to do all kinds of manipulations with lasar scanners
> > to make a 3D image, in extremely cramped conditions, instead of putting the skull on a table and taking a few snap shots: and of course, it turns out that the skull belonged to a 70 year old woman - but only her skull was in the vault: What absolute piffle:
> >
> > I noticed also the use of an anonymous oil painting to give viewers the impression that it was a real 'Shakespeare' portrait:
> >
> > Impressed I was not
>
> The church register was not destroyed and is not a copy. The entry that contains Shakespeare's burial was done at the time. That script would have been impossible to create accurately in Victorian times.
> The Shakespeare's entry of birth is a copy, but it was done in Elizabethan times about 1600 at the order of the Archbishop of Canterbury Whitgift. The entries were copied from a paper book to a parchment book. So they would survive.
> Whitgift was a real stickler for record keeping and it's thanks to him that records dealing with Shakespeare's life have survived.
> The showing of the book was simply to show that William Shakespeare was buried in the church - somewhere!
>

==============================

The present clergy and staff at the Holy Trinity Church must therefore be in error: it was they, after all, who emailed my with the information regarding the register;

==============================

> The "comic book" had accurate details of the burial, you can read it in the link I provided. The survey showed it was 3 feet down just like in the book, even the modern guide says the Shakespeare are in a vault, we saw that on the film. They are not! The "comic book" does not mention a vault! There is also evidence, which the program did not use, that a modern burial was first disturbed. In fact if you watch the show again you can see the page where it talks about the modern finds and a ring with letters "I.H.S.".
>
> In fact one man placed the Skull in that church. It's likely the man was employed as a workman and like most builders would be called in to do work at a distance.

==============================
Burials under the floor of a chapel were the safest place to avoid the bone house (which was next to the north wall, and was accessed via the door by the WS monument:

What was "3 feet down"? a body? We were informed by the program that the radar equipment detects changes; the big deal was all about 'dark' patches or cavities: a body left in earth for 400 odd years is hardly likely to show any changes, other than soil being misplaced due natural causes:

> The best place to chuck away a skull that is HOT is to place it with others!
>
> There was no curse, but Christen Church does not let people disturb the remains of anyone who was placed in their care. Not unless it is necessary. Such as repairs or danger of collapse. Some believe that doing so might cause the sprit to be become restless.
> We only saw a part of the investigation of the skull. They did mention that high quality photo's were taken. You can rest assured that the investigation into that skull was accurate. Regardless of what you think of that archaeologist, Caroline who did the reconstruction of the face has done many TV shows doing the same thing. She has spent years doing it and works with the police on cold cases that involve facial reconstruction.
> The image of the woman, apart from hair colour and style and eye colour, would be accurate so that if she had died recently and had relations they could have recognised her.
>
> The only question remains if that skull of the woman did actually come from Shakespeare grave, seeing that she was around 70 years old could they have dug up the skull of Anne Hathaway?
> If you go back to the story they found a more recent burial under cursed stone! So somebody lifted that stone up, maybe the others too. Perhaps they didn't put them back in the write order! So when the "trophy hunters" dug up Shakespeare's grave they actually dug up his wife's.
> In which case that image is the face of Anne Shakespeare.
>
> http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2016/03/23/18/pg-22-shakespeare-grave-2-arrow-ch4.jpg

++++++++++++++=

very convenient having an open vault ready for a stolen skull: Are we to believe that someone paid grave robbers to dig up a skull from under the floor of a chapel, then stick it on a shelf for a time, then, being scared of exposure (why? the thief was a doctor who dealt with other parts of anatomy, so a skull would not be out of place), gave the skull to someone who travelled fifteen miles in order to dump it? Who could possibly link a skull found in the Avon with Shakespeare? Did a general alert out to find the "hot" skull? As far as it is known the 'theft' went unnoticed:

As for the archaeologist, I don't have a problem with her, just her equipment:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[graham.a...@btinternet.com]

I have not seen any information in any book or anywhere that states the Parish register for Stratford was lost. If you have the e-mail can you please show us the contents.

How do you copy a lost document?

As I said the register was created in 1600, copying from a paper book all the entries. But since the burial occurred after that date it would have been entered into the book.
The script in the book is authentic looking to the 1600, it would have needed a trained scholar to do that. I personally cannot see someone in Victorian times doing a register exactly as it was done. If it had. It would have been well documented and would have been in every Shakespeare book that the register was a Victorian copy. It would also greatly strengthen the case against Shakespeare and be spotted by the Anti-Strafordians as an attempt to pull the wool over their eyes.

The radar survey does detect the grave impressions. Due to the decay process.
The radar operative has used the technique before, presumably looking for burials that were unknown. Which were then dug up. I have seen them use the same technique on Time Team and they dug up the burial to find it to be correct.
Therefore it works. They scanned all the graves not just Shakespeare's showing them all to the depth of 3 feet, all the same type of burial.

The man responsible for hiding the skull did so on his own bat. He was a builder of some description, so would go where the work was. He was supposed to return it to the grave of Shakespeare, with another man. But that man was not able to do the job with him. So he tried on his own. One man could not life a slab of that size on his own. Visit your local rundown cemetery and try moving one of the stones that's fallen over! They weigh a ton!
He broke it doing so hence the slab at the top of Shakespeare's "cursed" stone.

Chambers tried to sell the skull to the vicar of Hatton, but as he tried to tell him, the vicar said "I would have any man whipt who violated that grave"
So he didn't tell him.
Chambers didn't want whipping so he arranged for the builder Dyer to get rid of it.
So Dyer not being able to put it back placed it in the vault at the other church. Where he would be working doing something. Again Chambers would have mentioned to Dyer, if it's not put back we'll all be whipped!
So he would not dispose of it knowing it could be found.

[graham.a...@btinternet.com]

If you look at the positions of the Shakespeare graves in the church you see. that they start up against the very old structure of the wall. But the first grave against that side of the wall was Anne's.
I find this odd, seeing that William's is next.
Wouldn't it make more sense, being that William died first, to put his body up against the wall? Or did the church people, when William was being interred, measure a distance from the wall to leave a convenient space for his not yet dead wife?

I'm even more convinced that William Shakespeare was buried next to the wall and that his wife is under the stone with the curse.

I believe that someone lifted the stones all of them at one time to place at least one body to somebody called "Ashwin" if not others, who wanted to be buried with William Shakespeare. Perhaps paying a very large fee (bribe) to the Church people.
But when they put them back, they put Anne's stone, over William's Grave and William's over Anne. Many years later Chambers broke into the grave thinking it was William's and stole Anne's skull. In Argosy he does say it was smaller than the bust and didn't look like it. Of course a female skull might well be smaller. But even though he was doctor and should have known what a female skull was like, he had no reason to believe it wasn't Shakespeare skull and so didn't bother to check.
The skull wasn't put back and ended up in the Church 15 miles away from Stratford.
Scanned by Collis and confirmed to be a 70 year old woman.
Fake, no because Anne was about 70 when she died.

Nobody to recognise her because we don't have a portrait of Anne.

But I did!!!!

Because when I saw the face on the TV I had a shock. It looked exactly like someone I know.

And it shouldn't have....

[poor tom]

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 1:47:29 PM UTC+1, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
> I have not seen any information in any book or anywhere that states the Parish register for Stratford was lost. If you have the e-mail can you please show us the contents.
>
> How do you copy a lost document?

===============
I said the original was damaged/lost meaning I could not remember exactly

I have not got thr original email from Stratford, but I have requested a copy if they have it, and I 'll show you what they said:
========================

[laraine]

Interesting idea! That lady looks different from what I had expected
for Anne Hathaway, but maybe just older...

Could the skull be analyzed with DNA techniques, if descendants are available?
I think something like that was done for Richard III as well as Anastasia.

C.

[poor tom]

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 1:47:29 PM UTC+1, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
> I have not seen any information in any book or anywhere that states the Parish register for Stratford was lost. If you have the e-mail can you please show us the contents.

=============================

It seems that only half my information was correct: the register was indeed copied into a more robust media, but not during the Victorian era, but the Elizabethan: Many apologies: you were right, I was wrong

==============================

>
> How do you copy a lost document?

=====================================

The information I received said that the original document (from which entries were copied into the new book) was lost: again an apology is in order

========================================
>
> As I said the register was created in 1600, copying from a paper book all the entries. But since the burial occurred after that date it would have been entered into the book. - - - - - - - - -

[graham.a...@btinternet.com]

Glad we cleared that up.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift, was a key person in Parish Register history and as it turns out Shakespeare's records.
He was the one that made them copy the paper book. He told them to check the entries and sign each page. If you look on the baptism entry for William, at the bottom they have indeed signed it.

The Archbishop was more important than William Cecil. He was there when Elizabeth died!
More importantly he was the Bishop of Worcester when Shakespeare got married. It was his records that record both of William's two marriages. That's right TWO. He doesn't make mistakes. In fact he's the type of Bishop that will cross the T and dot the "i" on all his documents. He also HATES Catholics.
So when he gets hold of information on the dodgy Temple Grafton priest that he is performing illegal marriages, especially in the old faith. He's on to him quick as lightning.
So he gets his officials to copy into his own register all the ones from Temple Grafton. It's what historians call Bishop Transcripts. Well John pioneered them as a humble bishop. And then again as the main man
So his transcript records that "it 'became known'(1) that a licence was issued between William Shakespeare and Ann Whately of Temple Grafton. In other words William had been already married. As far as I can tell all of these marriages were simply entered into the day before William applied to the same bishop for a licence to marry Anne Hathaway.
Again that document is simply a thing to ensure that the Bishop in not blame, if for some reason William's marriage to Hathaway turns out to be illegal.

Now I think William married Ann Whately sometime before April 1579. For in April 1579 Ann Shakespeare died and was buried. This has long assumed to be his sister. But the record does not give her age, just being John's daughter. But if William had married her she would have been John's daughter too!
That sister Ann might have died later in life or married. We just don't know.

So John Whitgift was therefore an excellent record keeper and records entries written in a parish register that were done during 1579 or earlier. Maybe there wasn't any dates on the original register. So Whitgift's people entered the current date. I would love to read the rest of the entries, but I can't find out where the original is kept!

This is not unusual in terms of Parish Registers. For even when Bishop's Transcripts came into wide scale use, they only had to collect the information once a year. The purpose being simply a copy of the original register.

======================================================================

Footnote. The first marriage entry is Latin.
(1) became known is the translation of "emanavit".
I also had the FULL translation checked with the Shakespeare Institute. To confirm it was correct and they agreed.

==========================================================================

It's funny how top Shakespeare historians always claim this entry as some kind of clerk's mistake. But they never bother to check that the bloke in charge went on to be the top man in the country!
You don't get to be Archbishop of Canterbury turning a blind eye to bad vicars and making mistakes in your documents!!!!