Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
History dude

Shakespeare The True Story

Recommended Posts

On a thread sometime ago I mentioned that I had a different approach to the Shakespeare story. So I thought I would post the small piece I wrote explaining why William Shakespeare is a bit of mystery to some people and why others think other writers wrote the Complete Works.

I should point out there is a lot of research into the small piece and it's not a work of fiction.

Anyway have a read tell me what you think, plus if you want to know why I've come up with some of the conclusions, I'll try to explain, but please bear in mind that for obvious reasons I can't give long explanations with loads of facts as the website will run out of space ;-)

SHAKESPEARE THE TRUE STORY.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a thread sometime ago I mentioned that I had a different approach to the Shakespeare story. So I thought I would post the small piece I wrote explaining why William Shakespeare is a bit of mystery to some people and why others think other writers wrote the Complete Works.

I should point out there is a lot of research into the small piece and it's not a work of fiction.

Anyway have a read tell me what you think, plus if you want to know why I've come up with some of the conclusions, I'll try to explain, but please bear in mind that for obvious reasons I can't give long explanations with loads of facts as the website will run out of space ;-)

Due to many unpleasant experiences at school in English lessons where Shakespeare was put on a pedestal as the height of excellence he has come to be a character that I strongly dislike and hate his works. To me he (or his "ghost writer") wrote an utter load of unintelligable crap.

RichardB frequently loves winding me up about my dislike of Shakespeare.

By the wat History Dude, - who is that character that you use as your avitar?

It isn't the Bard himself is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to many unpleasant experiences at school in English lessons where Shakespeare was put on a pedestal as the height of excellence he has come to be a character that I strongly dislike and hate his works. To me he (or his "ghost writer") wrote an utter load of unintelligable crap.

RichardB frequently loves winding me up about my dislike of Shakespeare.

By the wat History Dude, - who is that character that you use as your avitar?

It isn't the Bard himself is it?

Yes it is!

Actually the Bard hated education. There's a story that he was a schoolmaster in the country. But like many tales it got twisted, it was probably he beat up a schoolmaster in the country lol

But you are right it does seem like it doesn't make sense. However it should be translated and when it is it becomes very funny. I will show you with a scene from Hamlet.

Hamlet is talking to a grave digger, the man doesn't know he's talking to Hamlet, by the way. Hamlet asks him how long he's been a gave digger? "Oh since Hamlet was born, him that is nuts, and sent to England".

"Why was he sent to England?"

"Because he's nuts, sent to get better, but if he doesn't it wont matter there."

"Why?"

"No one will notice! The're all nutters in England!"

Hamlet by the way isn't mad at all, he is just not happy with his mother marrying soon after his father's death. Shakespeare got the idea from Queen Elizabeth, when after Henry VIII died Catherine Parr married Thomas Seymour too soon after Henry's death, to Elizabeth way of thinking. She was in black for ages and both Thomas and Catherine thought Elizabeth had gone mad because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the Bard hated education. There's a story that he was a schoolmaster in the country. But like many tales it got twisted, it was probably he beat up a schoolmaster in the country lol

Foresooth, - the Bard was an uneducated lout.

Yet he wieldeth his quill to parchment with such venom he hath the effect of a sixteenth century atomic bombe.

Yet such a weapon is foolishly placed in the hands of one so hateful and without greater worldly wisdom.

What hath this worlde cometh too?

Such that it is these modern times of 1591?

The effects of this fools writings and muses shall last a full 5 centuries to blight the lives of generations of schoolboys

And annoy DaveH to the utmost.

Now is my discontent with his works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However it should be translated

TRANSLATED!!!! :blink:

I speak English, you speak English and 60 million other people just like us that live in this country speak English.

Shakespeare is held up as a pinnacle of the English language and features to this day on just about every English examination specification.

Yet it appears he doesn't speak English at all!

His words have to be TRANSLATED so that the English speaking peoples can understand it. :huh:

I would suggest that he doesn't use ENGLISH at all and he has to be translated from one of those other 2 well known languages

GIBBERISH and RUBBISH lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you are right it does seem like it doesn't make sense. However it should be translated and when it is it becomes very funny. I will show you with a scene from Hamlet.

Hamlet is talking to a grave digger, the man doesn't know he's talking to Hamlet, by the way. Hamlet asks him how long he's been a gave digger? "Oh since Hamlet was born, him that is nuts, and sent to England".

"Why was he sent to England?"

"Because he's nuts, sent to get better, but if he doesn't it wont matter there."

"Why?"

"No one will notice! The're all nutters in England!"

Hmmmm.....

To some people (mainly foreigners) that may be classed as funny, - but to me it sounds remarkably close to the truth. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a thread sometime ago I mentioned that I had a different approach to the Shakespeare story. So I thought I would post the small piece I wrote explaining why William Shakespeare is a bit of mystery to some people and why others think other writers wrote the Complete Works.

I should point out there is a lot of research into the small piece and it's not a work of fiction.

Anyway have a read tell me what you think, plus if you want to know why I've come up with some of the conclusions, I'll try to explain, but please bear in mind that for obvious reasons I can't give long explanations with loads of facts as the website will run out of space ;-)

I read your piece on Shakespeare and found it much more interesting than the official version. I'm afraid I only have the dummie's guide to the life of the bard which is greatly condensed, extending only to 9 pages. So I cross referenced the two to see if they complimented or contradicted each other. Three quotes from the dummie's version :

"Baby William was no doubt fortunate to survive his plague-ridden first year, but nothing is documented of this or the rest of his childhood"

"Pupils usually attended the grammar school until they were about 15 but Shakespeare may have left earlier to help his father who had run into financial difficulties. The next firm date we have in Shakespeare's life, however is 1582 when, at the age of 18 he married Ann Hathaway"

"Between the birth of his twins in 1585 and the first mention of him as a playwright in London in 1592 there is no documentary evidence as to what Shakespeare was doing" consequently this period has been called the 'missing years'.

Officially there seems to be huge gaps in the record of Shakespeare's life. Can you say anything about the source of your research? Also your mention of Shakespeare's bigamous affair with Barbara Stiffe seems to have occured during the 'missing years'. In what sense are they 'missing'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read your piece on Shakespeare and found it much more interesting than the official version. I'm afraid I only have the dummie's guide to the life of the bard which is greatly condensed, extending only to 9 pages. So I cross referenced the two to see if they complimented or contradicted each other. Three quotes from the dummie's version :

"Baby William was no doubt fortunate to survive his plague-ridden first year, but nothing is documented of this or the rest of his childhood"

"Pupils usually attended the grammar school until they were about 15 but Shakespeare may have left earlier to help his father who had run into financial difficulties. The next firm date we have in Shakespeare's life, however is 1582 when, at the age of 18 he married Ann Hathaway"

"Between the birth of his twins in 1585 and the first mention of him as a playwright in London in 1592 there is no documentary evidence as to what Shakespeare was doing" consequently this period has been called the 'missing years'.

Officially there seems to be huge gaps in the record of Shakespeare's life. Can you say anything about the source of your research? Also your mention of Shakespeare's bigamous affair with Barbara Stiffe seems to have occured during the 'missing years'. In what sense are they 'missing'.

So its a cover up of a scandal then,

..asort of Shakespearegate

All scandals have to end with the word "gate"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TRANSLATED!!!! :blink:

I speak English, you speak English and 60 million other people just like us that live in this country speak English.

Shakespeare is held up as a pinnacle of the English language and features to this day on just about every English examination specification.

Yet it appears he doesn't speak English at all!

His words have to be TRANSLATED so that the English speaking peoples can understand it. :huh:

We speak modern English full of words & rules that he would have problems with. There are many words in Shakespeare that are now obselete, or changed meaning. For example the Elizabethen's refer to the word "fair" which in the context of this phrase " A fair lady" today would mean a beautiful woman. You would not ask somebody to answer a question with the words Shakespeare uses "Pray thee", no you would ask "Please tell me". Modern people are always reading words from that time wrong. The most common being "Ye" as in "The Ye Old Tea Shop". But when we say that phrase we are actualluy saying "The The Old Tea Shop".

Most of the plays taught in schools have study guides to help students understand the words and context of each play, though they are not direct translations into modern English. Indeed the words are obscure because they are out of context with what a modern audince or reader would understand.

As for the plays themselves they are popular because there is no context to the plays for the most part. For instance if you take opening scene of Richard the Third....

Act 1 Scene 1 - London a street

Enter Gloucester

Glo. Now is the winter of our discontent.....

We have seen great actors perform this line. Laurence Olivier used a squeaky, serious sounding voice. So we all know how this line should be spoken now, largely because many actors look up to Olivier as a great actor, which he was. However there is nothing anywhere in Shakespeare’s piece that says Richard speaks that way! There's no stage directions, it doesn't say what mood Richard is in, etc.

I like to think that if Shakespeare travelled in time to now some of the people would get a nasty shock who do admire his works. Would the actors at the Royal Shakespeare Company for instance take to a him telling them they were performing it wrong? Imagine an actor giving his lines deadly serious and Shakespeare shouts out “not like that!”

“But that is the way it's meant to be done” says the R.S.C. actor.

“No it is not. No one would laugh the way you say it” retorts Shakespeare.

However we now know if the plays were fully translated into modern english, with full context to how someone percieved them when first performed, they would be so full of crude and rude words they would quickly be removed from schools and never taught again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read your piece on Shakespeare and found it much more interesting than the official version. I'm afraid I only have the dummie's guide to the life of the bard which is greatly condensed, extending only to 9 pages. So I cross referenced the two to see if they complimented or contradicted each other. Three quotes from the dummie's version :

"Baby William was no doubt fortunate to survive his plague-ridden first year, but nothing is documented of this or the rest of his childhood"

"Pupils usually attended the grammar school until they were about 15 but Shakespeare may have left earlier to help his father who had run into financial difficulties. The next firm date we have in Shakespeare's life, however is 1582 when, at the age of 18 he married Ann Hathaway"

"Between the birth of his twins in 1585 and the first mention of him as a playwright in London in 1592 there is no documentary evidence as to what Shakespeare was doing" consequently this period has been called the 'missing years'.

Officially there seems to be huge gaps in the record of Shakespeare's life. Can you say anything about the source of your research? Also your mention of Shakespeare's bigamous affair with Barbara Stiffe seems to have occured during the 'missing years'. In what sense are they 'missing'.

Briefly then, the marriages 3 in total, the first two records are all connected to the Bishop of Worcester. He's a very special character in the Shakespeare story. Its his records that have caused a great deal of confusion to historians. So we have first the tale of two Anne's.

Two events have linked the two Anne's together to most experts, because one is the 27 November 1582 (Whateley) and the other 28 November 1582 (Hathaway). It would be easy to see that these entries in registers are the same woman, if it wasn't for a different surname and that is the crux of the matter. In addition the two names of Shakespeare are also spelt varyingly; leading people to think these are not the same man. Other professional historians, who thought it was the same man, know that clerks who made these entries out, made mistakes and spelled the same person's name differently.

Of course to take any entry at face value in a parish register is asking for trouble. Yet with the registers which contain Shakespeare's two wives, historians have leapt in at the deep end getting them into even deeper trouble. This time the reason is that the two entries are different, and quite simply this was often overlooked when comparing them.

Our ancestors knew future generations would read the registers and wanted names recorded for prosperity. This being a reason (of many) that they were introduced. They also knew that one book could be destroyed, lost, or stolen. So they authorised copies to be made, which became known as Bishops Transcripts.

It looks to me that it is a transcript that historians have got their hands on and assumed that it is a Stratford or Worcester true register, or even one in a proper register. Anne Hathaway's marriage to William could be an actual entry done at, or around the 28th of November depending when the entry was placed in the book, however the entry on the 27th is not and is a record of a marriage licence already being issued. We can say for certain that this licence was not issued on the 27th. Some writers believe that William was married at Worcester on one of these dates. They once again have not read the Latin text of the 27th day entry. It's quite clear you need the previous entries in the book before this begins to sort out where William married Anne Whateley, after reading the Latin text.

This is what I think it says translated (properly) into English: "Likewise / Also to the same place (and) day, similar (it) became known (a) license between William Shakespeare and Anna Whateley of Temple Grafton".

What this shows is the clerk at Worcester copying into the register records passed to him, collected from other parishes and the 27th day may have been when he wrote the entries down. Clearly this is a Transcript and these records, including Wills' marriage to Whateley, could have been originally recorded long before the date we see today. The key words are, I think, 'became known' (emanavit). These certainly point to the fact the license had been issued. It would appear that Transcripts had not yet started in this part of England at this time, if you follow official sources. So this may have been good practice at that time. There's nothing to stop this licence being a couple of years old when it went into the book.

Will did marry Whateley, though they probably married at Temple Grafton, because the Vicar John Frith could be fooled into the marriage. The reason for this is that Will was only 18 in 1582 and 17 (if the marriage was the year before). Pretty young, but he could have been 14! Young marriages were not illegal. Frith had a number of complaints from the church hierarchy about him and if they knew that, then the locals would have cottoned to his ways. The boss of Frith was the Bishop of Worcester, John Whitgift and who historian Nicholas Fogg says 'had a strict ecclesiastical regime'. This would of course explain the good practice of keeping Transcripts, before legally needing to do so. You can add to this, with the benefit of hindsight, the knowledge that Whitgift became the Archbishop of Canterbury; this promotion comes the following year! The same man who gives prayers to the dying Queen Elizabeth. I'm sure you don't get to be Archbishop keeping lousy records or turning a blind eye to bad vicars. The Queen also later considered his judgement more important the William Cecil's.

The second marriage comes under the context of Whitgift again covering himself against any legal action if the marriage was false, as they are sort of a request for Will to marry Hathaway. It's not a marriage certifcate as we would know it.

The missing years are no such thing. There are a number of plays written before Shakespeare is supposed to have wriiten the plays he wrote, which are used by Shakespeare for his plays. Or so historians like to think, but on the other hand you could argue (as I do) that Shakespeare wrote these early plays too!

Also the picture on the first page of my piece shows William at court with Robert Dudley who died in 1588, by that time he was fat too! So the picture dates to the early 1580's, perhaps 1581?

I found out about Barbra from a book on the Internet Archive about Will's family history and the Shakespeare name. She married a William Shakespeare, who has a coat of arms. But the only William Shakespeare with a coat of arms at that time is the bard!

A lot of the other information comes from the fact that William and other writers of that period write what they know about. In otherwords themselves and each other. And they can be quite nasty in what they say.

For instance Ben Johnson calls William "The Sweet Swan of Stratford" . Nice is it not!

But what he really means is you could find him in the Swan Inn at Stratford drinking Sweet Sherry.

Extra update

Just to add that he married Barbra in 1589 at a place called Hatton which is about 8 miles from Stratford. The man was thought to be a different chap so has gone undetected. However in 1589 he's not a gent, but in 1596 at the registration of his daughter called Susannah (another clue because the Bard has a daughter by that name) he is! Which is when the Bard is also a "gent". Barbra dies in 1610, but there's no record of this other William's death. This William also has another daughter called Katherine, who must have outlived her parents, unlike the other who died one year after her birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many words in Shakespeare that are now obselete,

Thanks history dude for yet another of adjectives to describe what I think of Shakespeare's work,

Gibberish, Rubbish and, oh yes, OBSOLETE! ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However we now know if the plays were fully translated into modern english, with full context to how someone percieved them when first performed, they would be so full of crude and rude words they would quickly be removed from schools and never taught again.

Some schools are full of crude and rude words.

I was going to add jokingly "..and that's just the teachers lol ", but the language of many of the students is appauling and it is a real challenge to try to change their ways and better their language.

OK, I swear a bit at times, - but there is an art to switching it on and off and knowing what to say where and when and not just using bad language all the time as the norm.

Many modern English Language (as opposed to English Literature) schemes would include a bit on how language has changed, - yes even from Shakespeares day, and of course the 20th Century language is full of crude and rude words, mainly due to maedia like radio and TV as well as holidays, travel and leisure time which have exposed people to the way others speak in different areas and in other walks of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks history dude for yet another of adjectives to describe what I think of Shakespeare's work,

Gibberish, Rubbish and, oh yes, OBSOLETE! ;-)

However he did come up with many modern words that were never used before. ;-)

However I see him very different to you, if I could pin him down to someone alive now who he was most like, it would have to be Jasper Carrot :)

Imagine him doing Shakespeare lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However he did come up with many modern words that were never used before. ;-)

However I see him very different to you, if I could pin him down to someone alive now who he was most like, it would have to be Jasper Carrot :)

Imagine him doing Shakespeare lol

What an interesting comparison to make History Dude, - that Jasper Carrott is a bit like a modern Shakespeare.

While I am thinking about the intricacies of that comparison as my mind boggles at the very thought of it, here is a video of Jasper Carrott live at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Stratford On Avon.

Although this is the first 8 minutes or so of the full show (part 1 of 8, - like a Shakespeare play in 8 acts lol ) in the first 3 minutes he discusses his venue and Shakespeare in typical Jasper Carrott fashion.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y5qd5SOxODg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might sound a bit petty, but are the following words typos?

1st line page 3. I know 'platonic' but I haven't come across the use of the word 'plutonic' to describe a relationship?

2nd last line page 4. The word 'prows'. Is this a Shakespearian rendering of 'prose'?

This is not meant to belittle your work in any way, I'm just curious and stand ready to be corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might sound a bit petty, but are the following words typos?

1st line page 3. I know 'platonic' but I haven't come across the use of the word 'plutonic' to describe a relationship?

2nd last line page 4. The word 'prows'. Is this a Shakespearian rendering of 'prose'?

This is not meant to belittle your work in any way, I'm just curious and stand ready to be corrected.

They are typos :wacko: tis I thus fortune's fool and the great microsoft word to blame for these faults in such a heavenly piece. he he

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave will love that :)

Dave does love that.

History Dude replying in Shakespearian English.

I did pretty much the same in an earlier post.

I see it this way, History Dude can write like Shakespeare and I can write like Shakespeare, and I admit English was my least favourite subject at school.

So, the chances are that just about anybody can write English like Shakespeare, unless they were a complete failure at English at school.

..and if anyone can do it, what makes Shakespeare himself so important and clever?

I understand that some authorities on his works actually doubt that he wrote his own works and that someone else wrote them or he employed a ghost writer. The experts will even name names of those who wrote some of his stuff but it really isn't my field of interest at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..and if anyone can do it, what makes Shakespeare himself so important and clever?

Probably because what we say today are his stringing together words like this quote from Bernard Levin on him:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably because what we say today are his stringing together words like this quote from Bernard Levin on him:

I take it from the size of the text in this article, and the inadequate provision of artificial lighting, opticians and spectacles in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that Shakespeare must have had very good eyesight lol

For once I found this article difficult to read NOT because it is written in Shakespearian English (it isn't), but because of the size of the text.

...and that was with my best reading glasses on! B)

Good article though, - I like it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DaveH If you click the texts they will enlarge :rolleyes:

According to a German historian he had a serious eye problem, providing that this is his death mask that is! Which she based the findings on.

I believe Hollywood have made a new film, that is all about how the Earl of Oxford was the real writer of the Shakespeare plays. I understand it's called "Anonymous".

He is one of the many contenders for the writer of the works. The others being Christopher Marlowe, Bacon, Mary Stuart, Queen Elizabeth and several more obscure names.

All based on theories by academic historians caused by wrong thinking and dating methods used when some have compared the so called "sources" for the plays. Sadly the same goes for the Stratfordians, they all live in a fool's paradise :P lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DaveH If you click the texts they will enlarge :rolleyes:

According to a German historian he had a serious eye problem, providing that this is his death mask that is! Which she based the findings on.

I believe Hollywood have made a new film, that is all about how the Earl of Oxford was the real writer of the Shakespeare plays. I understand it's called "Anonymous".

He is one of the many contenders for the writer of the works. The others being Christopher Marlowe, Bacon, Mary Stuart, Queen Elizabeth and several more obscure names.

All based on theories by academic historians caused by wrong thinking and dating methods used when some have compared the so called "sources" for the plays. Sadly the same goes for the Stratfordians, they all live in a fool's paradise :Plol

So Shakespeare did have bad eyesight then.

Mind you, given the conditions of his time I have previously referred to I don't think that is at all suprising. I am sure eye problems were very common then.

Couldn't have gone to SpecSavers even if he had wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found this amazing piece of trivia relating to the bard. Quote:-

Probably only Shakespeare has captured and delighted more minds than ...............

And by the strangest chance, they died in the same day, the 23rd April 1616.

Leave you to fill in the blank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New video to illustrate it. Featuring images and notes to illustrate the narrated text. I used a computer generated voice which costs about £26 to do it. He's actually very good and great for proof reading any text at all. He just can't say "Appleyard" though!

Watch in HD and pause the video if you want to check out the notes, as some go by a bit quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×