Shakespeare had a much bigger vocabulary than Francis Bacon, it's easy to analyze.

He had a bigger vocabulary, but was unable to spell his own name consistently? He had a large vocabulary, but his daughter was unable to even sign her name?

Source? I've heard this claim from "black supremacists" but it ended up being some wordpress site/dead end

Which? The inability to spell his own name, or that his daughter couldn't spell her own name?

Judith signed twice with a mark instead of her name.

Wikipedia sources because I need to get ready for work.

Its not that unusual. Even into the 1700s only about 25% of women could read, and 60% of wom3n signed their name with a mark, even if they could read and write.

Sources - Reading, Writing, and Initialing: Female Literacy in Early Modern London

And an admittedly crappy website

My Lord! He spelt his name with an "f"! He must be illiterate!

The English language didn't have standardized spelling back then. You could spell however you wanted. People with different accents spelt words in different ways. It's one way that people have tried to recreate what accent people spoke in back then.

Fun fact: it was closer to modern Yorkshire and pirate accents.

I don't know about the daughter thing.

You are way off base here. Bacon edited the King James Bible, had a very extensive library and was Lord Chancellor of England. His command of the English language was very formidable.

Shakespeare knew the names of all the flowers, Francis Bacon did not, that is just a tiny example of the type of vocabulary Shakespeare had, other examples are medical, etc.

"Knew the names of all the flowers"? What are you even talking about? It doesn't make any sense, and you provided no sources.

Here are some actual facts about "William Shakespeare":

Born in Stratford-upon-Avon to illiterate parents.

Town contained no school capable of teaching the languages, history, or higher forms of learning reflected in plays attributed to Shakespeare.

Only six known samples of Shakspere’s handwriting exist. All signatures. Three of those are in his will. All six spell his name “Shakspere.”

No autograph manuscripts of the Shakespearian plays or sonnets have been discovered.

Never left England.

Owned no library.

Some of Bacon's most famous work survives and it's not as good as Shakespeare's and different in style.

Shakespeare was probably Henry Neville

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/much-ado-about-identity-as-scholars-claim-a-diplomat-was-the-real-shakespeare-317235.html

Good article, thanks for sharing!

Edward de Vere tho!

DeVere was involved in my opinion. Bacon was the ring-leader, though.

As for the "why", I believe this timeline is relevant:

1593: First Quarto published

1611: King James Bible published - Edited by Sir Francis Bacon

1612: First English Edition of Don Quixote published

=>All three above cited works contain distinctive “Double A” headpiece with elaborately curved light-colored “A” on the left, and a mirror image dark “A” on the right.

=>Symbolizes polarities in life that can be reconciled.

=>The “A’s” stand for Athena and Apollo - The two “spear-shakers” of Greek mythology, associated with wisdom and enlightenment.

1613: Final Shakespeare play “Two Noble Kinsmen” produced

1614-1616: Rosicrucian Manifestos published

=>Fama Fraternitatis (1614), Confessio Fraternatatis (1615) & The Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz (1616)

1623: Shakespeare’s First Folio published

Additionally, historian Frances Yates names several Shakespeare plays influenced by Rosicrucian teachings.

=>Hamlet, King Lear, and The Tempest, et al.

Yates also stated that “Shakespeare’s thought in these Last Plays belongs to the evolution of the Renaissance hermetic-Cabalist tradition into Rosicrucianism.”

Rosicrucian societies met secretly, and swore to keep members’ identities secret to avoid persecution for their scientific and spiritual beliefs.

Conclusion: The plays attributed to Shakespeare were written by a circle of initiates to promote and perpetuate enlightenment values and ideas.

Manly P. Hall has some great insight into this mystery in The Secret Teachings of All Ages.

Personally I don't believe that Shakespeare was anyone other than Shakespeare, but the best argument against the FB=WS is the relatively unknown idea of using a secret identity or a pseudonym in that time. Other writers used a pen name, but we know who they really were, and the only people using a secret identity were spies or secret agents, and in that case they would never have wanted the secret name to become as famous and well known as it did in Shakespeare's own time. He was a goddamned rock star at the time, an people knew him.

If Shakespeare was a secret agent or a pen name if someone else (or a group of people) it has been the most successful fake name in the history of the world and it comes from next to nothing. There are so few first hand concrete pieces of evidence to suggest he wasn't just some dude who wrote goodly. Theres more evidence to suggest he was gay than Francis Bacon.

If Shakespeare was a secret agent or a pen name if someone else (or a group of people) it has been the most successful fake name in the history of the world

Or maybe there are more successful cases of fake name we don't even know about exactly because they have been successful.

Any relation to Kevin?

Only about 400 years degree worth of separation.

I've heard various things like a number of writers wrote Shakespeare's plays including Christopher Marlowe.

What was the purpose of creating a false identity for these works and is there any wider conspiracy to the topic?

"Various explanations are offered for this alleged subterfuge, most commonly that Bacon's rise to high office might have been hindered were it to become known that he wrote plays for the public stage."
More info here.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xHiad18ZwcY&t=30s

Anyone seen this? Shakespeare more than just a poet. He may of included hidden knowledge within his work.

That Sonnets cover is no coincidence imo.

According to Mark Twain, Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles (and many other respected researchers), Shakespeare was the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere (the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth, allegedly).

It's also been suggested that "Shakespeare" was a group of individuals with an occult agenda, as the plays not only are chock full of esoterica, but they practically recrafted the English language itself. Bacon may indeed have been part of this group, but de Vere was the mastermind.

Interesting! I ascribe to the theory, perpetuated by Alfred Dodd, that Bacon was the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth (by the Earl of Leicester). Perhaps they were brothers!

Almost definitely wasn't bacon, not that it really matters anyway. You can really see the different parlance and writing style

ill leave this here

this guy has don't more than a little investigation. tobeornottobe.org

he did an AMA here it was very interesting stuff

I know I was there. he just sent me an email recently letting me know his plans have changed. doesn't sound like he will be releasing a book 2 instead he is working with some producer on a full length documentary. he hopes it will bring more attention to the tomb at Stratford and with more eyes brings more pressure to re-sanctify the tomb exposing its secrets. I am excited and bummed about it. Excited to see a documentary on it but bummed I wont get a signed copy of his new book.

Shakespeare/Francis Bacon: Last of the Tudors.

Yes, Alfred Dodd wrote a great book about this: The Secret History of Francis Bacon.

This is the version I have researched to some degree.

It's a wild ride. Under this hypothesis, Queen Elizabeth secretly bore her equerry (her most personal male retainer) named Robert Dudley, a friend and lover since teenagers, two children. Both were farmed out to families that had unimpeachable loyalty to Elizabeth. The older of the two was Francis Bacon, and the younger was Robert Devereux, the Earl of Essex.

Francis was a genius. He traveled through europe, knew several languages, and had a classical education. Essex was a soldier and nobleman. Both of them were known favorites of Elizabeth as they grew up and took on their positions in the state hierarchy, but keeping a lower-status as a cover, like their father, Dudley.

So Elizabeth had a secret "love-family" right in or near her palace, hidden in plain sight, while she used her "marriageable status" for diplomatic advantage for over 20 years.

However, the end game was pretty awful. Both of her sons by Dudley knew or suspected they were of royal blood and wanted to get her to acknowledge them. It is said that Bacon wore the "purple" of royalty when he was just the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Essex nearly started an armed rebellion to force Elizabeth to recognize his claim to the throne. He was ultimately executed by "his mother's" command.

The primary objective of Elizabeth and her advisors was to unite England with Scotland. They believed, rightly, that Britain could only play a decisive role in history if the two squabbling parts were united under a single monarch. That monarch had to be King James VI of Scotland, not Dudley's sons. She was a queen first and a mother second.

Some documentaries and historians come to a conclusion that Shakespeare did exist, but most likely as a front man for a group of writers who held a consistent theme and writing style in the plays. Some of the reasons include Shakespeare not having an education any higher than 5th grade, having found no letters or documents in his handwriting, and the full circle his career made. It’s pretty interesting but in my opinion Shakespeare was a front man for a creative writing club of advanced authors and free thinkers. Some plays address super progressive ideals like “Othello” especially for the time period. A play humanizing the objectified is really odd but holds great literary merit.

I always thought he was King James

I read an amazing theory about Shakespeare being a pen name for multiple writers. I totally buy that Francis was one

I've always liked it was a collaboration.

I agree with this theory, with the caveat that it was a group effort led by Bacon. Edward DeVere was likely involved, since he traveled to several of the locations that appear in the Shakespeare plays.

As for the "why", I believe this timeline is relevant:

1593: First Quarto published

1611: King James Bible published Edited by Sir Francis Bacon

1612: First English Edition of Don Quixote published =>All three above cited works contain distinctive “Double A” headpiece

1613: Final Shakespeare play “Two Noble Kinsmen” produced

1614-1616: Rosicrucian Manifestos published =>Fama Fraternitatis (1614), Confessio Fraternatatis (1615) & The Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz (1616)

1623: Shakespeare’s First Folio published

Additionally, historian Frances Yates names several Shakespeare plays influenced by Rosicrucian teachings. =>Hamlet, King Lear, and The Tempest, et al.

Yates also stated that “Shakespeare’s thought in these Last Plays belongs to the evolution of the Renaissance hermetic-Cabalist tradition into Rosicrucianism.”

Rosicrucian societies met secretly, and swore to keep members’ identities secret to avoid persecution for their scientific and spiritual beliefs.

Conclusion: The plays attributed to Shakespeare were written by a circle of initiates to promote and perpetuate enlightenment values and ideas.

Manly P. Hall has some great insight into this mystery in The Secret Teachings of All Ages.

Any candidate to be the real Shakespeare has to have evidence of writing that he had to vocabulary of flowers, medicine, and everything else in his plays and sonnets.

Any candidate to be the real Shakespeare has to have evidence of writing that he had to vocabulary of flowers, medicine, and everything else in his plays and sonnets.

He had a bigger vocabulary, but was unable to spell his own name consistently? He had a large vocabulary, but his daughter was unable to even sign her name?

I know I was there. he just sent me an email recently letting me know his plans have changed. doesn't sound like he will be releasing a book 2 instead he is working with some producer on a full length documentary. he hopes it will bring more attention to the tomb at Stratford and with more eyes brings more pressure to re-sanctify the tomb exposing its secrets. I am excited and bummed about it. Excited to see a documentary on it but bummed I wont get a signed copy of his new book.

You are way off base here. Bacon edited the King James Bible, had a very extensive library and was Lord Chancellor of England. His command of the English language was very formidable.

Yes, Alfred Dodd wrote a great book about this: The Secret History of Francis Bacon.

This is the version I have researched to some degree.

It's a wild ride. Under this hypothesis, Queen Elizabeth secretly bore her equerry (her most personal male retainer) named Robert Dudley, a friend and lover since teenagers, two children. Both were farmed out to families that had unimpeachable loyalty to Elizabeth. The older of the two was Francis Bacon, and the younger was Robert Devereux, the Earl of Essex.

Francis was a genius. He traveled through europe, knew several languages, and had a classical education. Essex was a soldier and nobleman. Both of them were known favorites of Elizabeth as they grew up and took on their positions in the state hierarchy, but keeping a lower-status as a cover, like their father, Dudley.

So Elizabeth had a secret "love-family" right in or near her palace, hidden in plain sight, while she used her "marriageable status" for diplomatic advantage for over 20 years.

However, the end game was pretty awful. Both of her sons by Dudley knew or suspected they were of royal blood and wanted to get her to acknowledge them. It is said that Bacon wore the "purple" of royalty when he was just the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Essex nearly started an armed rebellion to force Elizabeth to recognize his claim to the throne. He was ultimately executed by "his mother's" command.

The primary objective of Elizabeth and her advisors was to unite England with Scotland. They believed, rightly, that Britain could only play a decisive role in history if the two squabbling parts were united under a single monarch. That monarch had to be King James VI of Scotland, not Dudley's sons. She was a queen first and a mother second.