Dear Veritaserummies,

[MOD EDIT]

To say that Rowling's major influences are more Shakespeare & Wagner than, say, Jane Austen, by itself, is not that radical. The author, after all, is English & European. There is, however, in certain circles, a thing about "Shakespeare".

Most Potterheads, be they Wizards or Muggles, will agree that the author of such wonderful plays as "Henry V", "Romeo & Juliet" & "Hamlet" was a chap born in Stratford-upon-Avon in 1564 who died in the same town in 1616. Not EVERYONE, however, buys this story...& the overwhelming number who don't, believe that the REAL William Shakespeare was one Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. These dissenters are known as "Oxfordians"...as opposed to "Stratfordians".

While all Oxfordians will tell you that there is no evidence to suggest that Stratford Will was anything but profoundly illiterate...& that Oxford, by contrast, is exactly like a guy who would have written the immortal works under the name "Shakespeare", Oxfordians, otherwise, are divided into three such distinct schools that they can hardly abide one another. For example...

First, there are the Oxfordian, "Light Blues" who believe that Shakespeare was the son of John & Margery de Vere, born at Castle Hedingham in 1550 & dying in Hackney, London in 1604. Like the Stratfordians, the Light Blues tend to keep Elizabeth I & her sexual history out of the Shakespearean equation. Roger Stritmatter & Mark Anderson are notable "Light Blues"

Then there are the "Medium Blues". Like the Light Blues, they believe that Edward was the son of John & Margery along with the rest of the birth & death data. The "Mediums", however, believe that Henry Wriothesley, ("Weasley" in "HP"), the red-haired, green-eyed, 3rd Earl of Southampton, widely regarded as the subject of the Sonnets, was the son of Edward & Elizabeth. Dr. Paul Altrocchi & Hank Whittemore may be identified as the leading "Medium Blues".

Finally, there are the "Dark Blues" who believe that de Vere was really the son of the almost-15 year-old Princess Elizabeth Tudor & Thomas Seymour (who was the brother of Queen Jane Seymour & uncle of Edward VI)...& was born in Cheshunt, Hertfordshire, not in 1550, but on July 21, 1548 at One AM. More than that, the Dark Blues, like the Mediums, believe that 3rd Southampton was the son of Edward & Elizabeth. Putting it bluntly, then...that Elizabeth, Edward, & Henry were sociological freaks. Major "Dark Blues" are Paul Streitz, author of "Oxford, Son of Queen Elizabeth"...&...modesty aside, Yours truly, "Gonzalo" , aka, David Yuhas, author of "The Shakespeare-Cervantes Code". Dr. Chuck Berney, at least a "Medium", is a noted Dark Blue "Friendly".

During the Age of Elizabeth, even suggesting that Gloriana was not a virgin was a crime punishable by death...& to this day the life-long virginity of Elizabeth remains a tenet of the Church of England. The idea that Gloriana was the "mother of the son of her son", in polite cirlces, is considered unspeakable.

Thus, in Merry England, Oxfordians are as rare as hens' teeth. Of the four Oxfordian Brits I can think of, only two are up-front about it...Sir Derek Jacobi & Michael York...two others, of equal stature, are still in the closet....& I am not one to "out" anybody.

Those of you who have read my original posting, "The Radical J.K Rowling", might assume that, in so many words, I was identifying the author as a fellow Oxfordian. This would be correct. But there is a big difference between being your Generic Oxfordian...& a "Dark Blue"...(an exceedingly rare, currently, all-male, hard-core elite...individuals who swim outdoors throughout the winter & shoot 165 metre clout-archery with bows of antique design).

A characteristic of Dark Blues is a certain affection for July 21...the birth-date of the "Dark Blue Shakespeare". It's our Red Letter Date. It is also the projected publishing date for "The Deathly Hallows". I just thought I would mention that. G

MOD EDIT: If you have a problem with your previous topics being locked, please do not bother whining about it in public. Send me a PM. This topic is currently under review.

Without going into the whole Shakespearean authorship debate here, because it's really not the place for it and we'd no doubt both be unconvinced, might I offer you some other historical happenings on July 21st? Just so we can give the members here the opportunity to judge for themselves whether she's deliberately chosen this date as a testament to her True Blue Oxfordian Codes . . .which I still don't see why she'd need to dedicate a series of books to point out to us that she's an Oxfordian. Whatever. . .you can have all the fun you like with that.

Other Significant Happenings on July 21st just so we can make this relevent to the HP forums in which you posted.

• 356 BC - A young man called Herostratus set fire to the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus, one of the Seven Wonders of the World.
  
• 1403 - Battle of Shrewsbury: King Henry IV of England defeats rebels to the north of the county town of Shropshire, England (something a little closer to your heart, I guess)
  
• 1865 - In the market square of Springfield, Missouri, Wild Bill Hickok shoots Dave Tutt dead in what is regarded as the first true western showdown. (This has nothing to do with DH at all, but you know. . .people are going to die in the book, too, so maybe it's significant.)
  
• 1954 - The Fellowship of the Ring, the first part of The Lord of the Rings, is published in the UK. (OH! Another Oxfordian!)
  
• 1969 - Neil A. Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin become the first men to walk on the Moon, during the Apollo 11 mission. (I'm sure this is also too American to be significant here.)
  
• 1972 - Bloody Friday bombing by the Provisional Irish Republican Army, (PIRA) around Belfast, Northern Ireland, 22 bomb explosions, 9 people were killed,130 seriously injured.
  
• 1976 - Christopher Ewart-Biggs British ambassador to the Republic of Ireland is assassinated by the Provisional IRA
  
• 1994 - Tony Blair is declared the winner of the leadership election of the British Labour Party.

Moving onto Births:

• 356 BC - Alexander the Great
  
• 1620 - Jean Picard, French astronomer
  
• 1664 - Matthew Prior, English poet and diplomat
  
• 1858 - Maria Christina of Austria, queen of Spain
  
• 1899 - Ernest Hemingway (oh, wait. . . too American)
  
• 1944 - Tony Scott, British film director
  
• 1951 - Robin Williams (Oh, now I'm just jealous at his awesome birthday present)

***
As Edward De Vere was born in April, I'll assume that you mean that the 7/21 date refers to the birth date of the term "Dark Blue." Which, I guess only an Oxfordian can find significant. So, yes, the joke's on us.

Come now, I think we've all seen how you've never failed to put modesty aside. . .

Passerby...

The point I was making about July 21 is that while the encyclopedia says that Edward de Vere was born in April 1550 at Castle Hedingham...& while the "Light Blue" Oxfordians & the "Medium Blue" Oxfordians concur...the "Dark Blue" Oxfordians" who are only a few, & who are known to me personally, are entirely convinced he was born on July 21, 1548 in Cheshunt Herts, in a wing of a convent ( which has since been torn down), arranged by one Sir Anthony Denny. He was born at 1 AM & then whisked into foster care at the home of John de Vere the 16th Earl of Oxford, where he was raised as his natural son.

Is that the only reference to Harry Potter that you can make? Oh wow, someone has red hair! No way!!! My housemate has red hair, perhaps JKR met him and decided to base Ron off him. That's more believeable then your story. At first i thought you were saying how they both had 'sley' in their names, but then I read the hair part.


What has any of this to do with Harry Potter? Besides having the same date as the DH release? Are you sure your not just Googling random HP things and then trying to compare them with English history?


Your not one to 'out' anyone....uh-huh, then why are you posting up these far-fetched theories if not to 'out' JKR? Seems your talking in circles mate. No wonder no-one has the time to read your posts. You don't make any sense at all!


JKR swims outdoors and shoots with an antique bow! Wow!!! Amazing!


You know, I was also thinking about why they chose the 21st of July to publish the book. It could be that perhaps it's also the month that the fifth movie comes out. So you know, have everything out in one go and keep the fans happy. But hey, that's just my theory. I don't have any English references to make, it's just common sense on my part.




Ok, why does the birth date of some random person mean anything to the Harry Potter world? Or are you trying to tell us that JKR is in fact another person and only using that name to stop anyone thinking she's someone else? Seriously! Why do you feel the need to bring her down? Can I ask you something? Do you know the ages of the members of this site? No you don't. Want to know why you don't? Because you only seem interested in trying to push your ideas onto other people without stopping to consider that they don't care. Majority of the members of Veritaserum are in their teens and most probably don't give a hoot about Shakespeare. So what's the point of bring that topic here? The only people who have bothered with you are the ones telling you your not backing yourself up with anything concrete. And yet you continually ignore them and plough on with your useless stream of irrelevant facts. No-one here cares that there are three types of 'Blue' and that they each have their own theories. No-one here cares that things that happened long before anyone here was born might have some reference to HP. You have not backed up your posts with anything concrete, as many people said in the last 'Radical' thread you made. You throw these facts at us and only back them up with other useless facts. Your talking in circles mate, and I feel sorry for everyone who has wasted their time with you because either you can't be bothered reading facts against your case or your just plain rude!

One more thing before I go - What is your obsession with this theory? Are you jealous of the success JKR has had and you wish to show the world what a fake she is because some things in her story ahve the same dates/names/whatever to things that happened too long ago to count? Either way, it's lame man, really lame. As I said in my first and last post of your previous topic *Yawn*.

~Triad.

Edited: I have edited my post as it may cause some offense to the person it was directed at. I apologise if it has and I will make sure it does not happen in the future.

Dear Triad...All right, let's deal with the subject.

I am well aware that most of the posters on this site are probably in their teens & might not be that interested in Shakespeare.

On the other hand, so are the actors in Harry's Hogwarts year, who came to the Academy at age 11 but who are now very much grown men & women who own property, have lawyers on retainer & who are now preoccupied about their futures after "Hallows the Movie".

If I see a site that is called "Veritaserum", my first thought is that it might well be a site for perpetual 11 year olds who go around the house in capes & Merlin hats...but when a see a thread called "All About J.K. Rowling" my next thought is that is might be one for a serious discussion of the most notable literary talent from Blighty since Charles Dickens.

Now...while I believe that JKR writes every bit as well as Dickens...unlike Dickens, but a lot like Shakespeare, this author, I am convinced, writes cryptic, political allegory...that is to say, not-very-politically correct, political allegory. Judging from her treatment of Rita Skeeter, I also get the impression that the author is a very private individual with an icy mistrust of the media who would be very happy if she could just get through her seven book HP series known as nothing else but a beloved author of children's books.

You know, & I know, however, that this has not been the case. Here in the States, HP still remains shut out from many a public library on the grounds that the author is "satanic". Why would anyone think that? No one is this school, lovable or villainous, uses anything but perfectly correct English. Unlike your typical Muggle academy, no one is caned, hit in the chops or sexually abused. What then is the problem? The problem is that grown readers can sense that there is more to HP that meets the eye. They don't know what it is... & they don't like it.

I think I do know what it is...& on this thread, if I can have anything like a respectful hearing, I would like to tell you. To do so, however, I will have to ask for your indulgence. If you don't see the connection between JKR & Shakespeare, please feel free to say so. If something isn't clear, just ask me to explain further. If you want to say "I don't think it's this. I think it's that!", be my guest.

In my previous posting, I made what many might think was a most disparaging remark about Elizabeth I, which I had hoped to clear up on my posting today. The last thing I expected was a response suggesting that I was putting down JKR, who I think is great.

Tomorrow, if I have the time, I would like to explain how Elizabeth Ist came to be the "mother of the son of her son". All I ask is that you pay attention, & not get so hot under the collar. G

You have some nerve, gonzalo!



What kind of a request is that, when you have pointedly ignored at least a dozen posts by members who read everything you said and replied, pointing out instances where they disagree or asking for clarity on certain things. In comparison to your own posts, these replies of ours were absolutely respectful!

Not once did you indicate that you would like to answer our specific questions, but you simply rolled on and posted reply after reply that contained nothing but more unrelated information. I say unrelated, because you did nothing to bring your theories together coherently. I think it is disrespectful of you to ask for our patience when you have shown nothing of the like to any of us!



You are mistaken. They know exactly what it is, and your inability to understand their concerns shows how unsteady your grounds for theorising are. Also, you assume that everyone who opposes Harry Potter has a keen interest in Shakespeare and the politics Elizabethan England, which, forgive me for saying, is ludicrous. It is very clear that witchcraft is the greatest concern to the people who are against Harry Potter. That makes much more sense in the current political and social climate than what you are suggesting.



Pay attention? Why?

What academic authority do you have to be in a position to interpret JK Rowling's work so much more accurately than any of us here that we should be paying attention so closely? I don't mean the book you published though, because getting your own book published says nothing about the quality of the scholarship. In fact, one could even guess that you were not able to find a publisher who would publish your book, but that's just censorship, right? I mean, who in their right mind would grab at the chance to offer Bloomsbury and Scholastic some competition by bringing out a book that uncovers all?

I repeat - just to make sure it isn't overlooked - what qualifications have you that makes you an authority on Shakespeare, the history of England, JK Rowling or literary interpretation for that matter?

Capricorn,

I didn't mean to get your Goat.

With the Superbowl coming up in a couple of hours, let me take care of the unfinished business of Elizabeth I, aka "Gloriana" & the "Virgin Queen" being the "mother of the son of her son".

The first thing to know about Elizabeth is that people in the 16th century were very much like those today with respect to pain & suffering. If, you, gentle reader, had a mother who had her head chopped off by your father...& then a few years later, had a step-mother who had her head chopped off by the same guy...& then had a half-brother who was poisoned...followed by a good girl friend, who through no fault of her own, but only because of the politics of the day, also had her head chopped off, followed by a half sister who had sent you to the Tower, through Traitor's Gate after having incinerated many of your closest friends...AND...if your life, during these harrowing times was entirely in the hands of an older guy, who, through sheer guile, had got you thorough all of this in one piece...then you would be beholden to this individual in the 21st century same as in the 16th.

Now...on July 21, in Cheshunt, Hertfordshire, this 16th century heroine, not quite 15 years of age, enterely in secret, gave birth to a boy, fathered by Thomas Seymour, the brother of Queen Jane & uncle of Edward VI, named Edward, very likely after her poisoned, half-brother.

William Cecil, spirited the infant into the household of John de Vere the 16th Earl of Oxford...&, after John remarried soon thereafter, changed the birthdate of baby Edward to April 1550 making him the legitimate son of John & Margery de Vere.

When Edward was approaching 16 years of age, it appears that John was bumped off & William Cecil took possession not only of the properties of the de Vere's but of the boy Edward who became a ward of the Court, & perforce, was reunited with his natural mother Elizabeth.

Unlike stepmother Margery, real mother Elizabeth lavished attention on Edward...& as far as Edward was concerned turned out to be the most wonderful "step-mother" a guy could have. Both were natural equestrians, natural musicians, natural linguists, huge fans of Ovid, inthe original Latin...leading Edward to fall hopelessly in love with the redhead. It was not long thereafter that he began signing his name with seven slashes...meaning "Edward VII"...a title he hoped to win by marrying Queen Elizabeth.

The reason the Wm Cecil had saved baby Edward & not, say, simply, thrown him into a river, was the notion that if he had a daughter who married Edward, he could become the founder of a royal line. As luck would have it, he & his wife Mildred did have a baby daughter, Anne.

When Edward was about 23 & Anne not quite 15, it appears that the Cecils put Anne up to proposing marriage to Edward, who regarding Anne has his kid sister was dumbfounded at this proposal. Edward did not wish to marry his "kid sister"...he wished to marry his wonderful "step-mother". Already of age, he was in a position to insist that in return for marrying Anne he would have conjugal rights with Elizabeth plus royal status for any children that might come from this relationship.

Elizabeth at this time, was already known as "The Virgin Queen" a title that put her in a great position vis a vis the rural English population which was still overwhelmingly Catholic. Thus she was not in a position simply to tell him "You can't sleep with me Ned...I'm your mother". Edward in any case outranked the commoner Cecil & may well have killed Cecil had he learned what the game was.

Beholden as Elizabeth was to Cecil, however, & knowing that Edward would not otherwise marry Anne, Elizabeth did agree to sleep with Edward, which as luck would have it, in 1574, produced red-headed Henry, who like Edward before him was shipped off to foster care this time with the 2nd Earl of Southampton. This was the opposite result of what was supposed to have happened. During this entire time, Edward, out of loyalty to Elizabeth, refused to live with Anne...& had even refused to consummate the marriage.

It was not until 1586, when Edward was 38 years old, that the man who is said to have understood women better even than they understood themselves, & who had the most intimate knowledge of Elizabeth, found out to his horror, that she was, in fact, his real mother. Hence "Hamlet"...hence "The Sonnets"

What the Sonnets are about in a nutshell is Edward telling Henry..."Because of the love I bear for you & for our mother...we really must put an end to this father-son relationship...which makes freaks of the three of us".

Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton thus married a commoner Elizabeth Vernon whose daughter, Penelope, married one Sir William Spencer the founder of the Spencers of Althorp, a preternaturally red-headed, royal English line.

To be continued

I have a few problems with all of these "facts" that you like to present us with without sources and citations: Context.

I figured as much, actually. Though, I'm sorry to say that I just cannot agree. You've given some very specific details with absolutely no possible way of proving it! Yes, we know that Elizabeth was sent away quietly when she was 15 for about five months, but there is absolutely no decisive way for you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the reason was for her to give birth to a baby! There are myriad reasons why she was sheltered off during this time, and I find it a little offensive that your claim is that the only explanation was for her to have a baby. I'm not going to argue that she was as virginal as they claimed, because that's not the point. You've based this on circumstantial events with no documentation whereas we have birth records for the April 1550 date. And besides the point; even if Edward De Vere was the illegitimate son of the Virgin Queen; it in no way proves that he wrote the works of Shakespeare. Better scholars than you or I have looked into these matters with more conclusive measures than we can and found that there is no legitimate reason to doubt that the works of Shakespeare were written by anyone other than William Shakespeare himself. You and your fellows claim that there is very little evidence or record of Shakespeare's life to prove that he is the author, and yet; when examined against his contemporaries, Shakespeare is found to be one of the most notable and acknowledged playwrights of his time until Johnson. For every claim that Oxfordians make to the contrary . . . scholars of literature and Shakespeare in particular can point you to concrete evidence to contradict the claims that have been made out of ignorance, supposition, distortion of fact, and history taken out of context. Anyone interested in the debate of Shakespearean Authorship deserves to have the other side equally as accessible, an I would invite them to go to this website and read the counters the, as you call us, Stratfordians have for each point made by an Oxfordian. Don't be afraid to click on the links to the essays, they are quite interesting and reliable.

Again, back to the Rowling tie-in. Even given that the release date is July 21st in no way, as I hope to have pointed out in my last post, indicative that she is a staunch Oxfordian with secrets to hide in some sort of Harry Potter political allegory. It may just so happen that July 21st was chosen as the release date by the publisher and not the author herself. I suppose that might be too easy of an answer for your tastes, though.

I do not agree with this statement. Most celebrities do prefer a certain amount of privacy, JKR not withstanding. However, JKR has never once been bitter in any interviews she has; she has been very accepting and open to the press during press conferences, readings, public appearances and the like. The very author of which you speak certainly does enough to draw attention to herself even as she finished writing the last HP book where she signed her name and a brief message to a bust in her hotel room. If she were looking to be left alone and not bothered by the annoying media; she would not have chosen to commemorate her completion by violating an artifact in her hotel room! (Just a note to say that I don't care that she signed the thing, I just think it's funny that her fame offers her the ability to do something like that without prosecution, whereas if average Joe went in there and did the same thing, you can bet he'd be fined a hefty sum!) JKR has been outspoken in her beliefs and opinions since gaining notoriety, and I don't think she would need to hide her true thoughts and feelings under a guise of beloved children's author.


I believe it is under challenge in school systems mostly, by parents or people who find the witchcraft offensive in it; not an underlying political message. It has only been banned in schools, as well, for the same reason. But the list of banned or challenged books is long (see here) and you cannot tell me in earnest that everyone of those books are banned because they are some political allegory that we'd like to keep hushed. Unless somehow the Captain Underpants series by Dave Pilkey is also a very controversial political allegory. . .

I, in the likeness of Capricorn, find this remark completelyl confusing. You were given many opportunities in your previous thread to counter the questions and claims of those who took the time to respond to you, yet you never answered or acknowleded a single one of our quesitons or concerned, yet you plowed right on through with more of your misconstrued history! If you will recall, it was the blatant disregard of those trying to discuss the claims you made with you that got your topic locked.

And yet, again, you ignore her request! She asks of you something simple, I believe, and something that we would all like to know, yet you blatantly disregard her request that you give us some credentials for your scholarships, some citations for your claims before you go on with the history lesson that we're not at all sure you are qualified to give us. . .yet that is exactly what you did. You ignored her request and do the very thing she asks you not to do!

Our requests are simple: Give us credentials. Give us citations for your claims (legitimate ones, please, not citations of those other Dark Blues who are so near and dear to you). Somehow tie it into relevance with JKR.

As I believe I have pointed out before, Edward VI was not poisoned. He died of consumption and/or the measles, as stated here. Yet another one of your "facts" which are, I regret to say, erroneous.

Faulty research, gonzalo, is the mark of a poor argument, I'm afraid.

On a slightly more forums-management-orientated note, I'm a little concerned as to why you re-opened this thread when the other was locked because you failed to directly address the points of the members responding to you. I don't see this one heading along a completely different path and thus will likely meet the same ending soon. Again, I feel I must point that these forums are not a soapbox for you to launch your private research to the masses in lieu of publishing. You must make more of an effort to directly address the points being made otherwise this thread will meet the same fate as the much-maligned Anne Boleyn.

No worries, gonzalo, my goat is still here actually, rolling around on the floor, and if goats could laugh, I'm prepared to swear that's why his butt is missing. These zodiac pets...

Anyways, I don't have much to add, except that I am just as amused that you failed to explain why I should care what you say. And not to mention your erroneous information, which really made my day. That and Louise's Anne Boleyn idea, which, I have to say, is an excellent one.

Edward VI survived measles and smallpox in the spring of 1552, but died of tuberculosis in July 1553. (Cannon and Griffiths, "The Oxford Issustrated History of the British Monarchy" p. 329, c. 1988, The Oxford Press)

I find that amusing. I live for subtle irony, but maybe that's just me.

The following is a passage from the book "Oxford" by fellow Dark Blue, Paul Streitz. The official line that Edward VI died of tuberculosis, like the one that Diana died in a "tragic accident" due to an inebriated chauffeur has the big advantage of sounding respectable...but as the Spanish saying goes..."He who has the facts, has the suspicions"

*****************************************

Many thought the young king would not survive the protection of the new Protector, John Dudley, & they were right. Edward VI had always been portrayed as a sickly youth, but a closer examination of the records does not reveal this to be the case. He was not the robust, hearty athlete that his father was, but he was far from being a sickly youth. The young king has suffered a bout of measles & perhaps smallpox in the spring of 1552, but he was otherwise in robust health.

He rode in a summer progress & engaged in games such as riding, shooting & wrestling. It was only after the death of his uncle, Edward Seymour, & the installation of John Dudley as the chief power behind the throne, that the young king's health began to fail. The diagnosis of the doctors was not a specific disease, but rather an overall weakening of his health. His particular symptom was a strong, persistent cough that has led some to think that the king had tuberculosis. There are reports that he would spit up matter that was greenish-yellow black, & sometimes pink like blood.

Elizabeth tried to visit the king on two occasions, but Northumberland prevented her from seeing her brother. There were rumors that the young king was being given a slow-acting poison. The actions of John Dudley did little to allay these suspicions. The British Medical Journal of 1910 reported on the death of Edward VI under the title "Some Royal Death Beds"..."eruptions on this king came out, his hair fell off, &then his nails & afterwards the joints of his toes & fingers"...cont.

From John Nichols in "Progresses of Queen Elizabeth"

the 15th of August, Robert Dudley( John's 19 year old son) was sworn one of the six Gentlemen of the Bedchamber to King Edward VI...& Sir John Hayward in his Life of this King, says that after his entertainment into a palace of so near service the king enjoyed his health not long...

And...continuing on the curious illness of Robert Dudley's second wife..."When Robert Dudley was disposed to marry the Countess of Essex whose husband he had procured to be poisoned in his journey from Ireland, he caused some ill potions to be given to Lady Douglas, his second wife, so that with the loss of her hair & nails, she hardly escaped death"

The Dudleys (as in "Dursley") were serial hit men & serial arsonic poisoners. When Ophelia in "Hamlet" says "Oh, you must wear your RUE with a difference", de Vere is telling his son Henry a "de Vere" to remember that his comrade, Robert "Devereux", the 2nd Earl of Essex, was a "Dudley" after all... & that Henry should look out that HIS hair & nails don't start falling out. G

I do not know much at all about the Princess Diana incident, but I am pretty certain she died in a tragic accident, end of story. Perhaps if someone else on here presented the case, that actually was from the area, and didn't couple it with another conspiracy about Edward VI, then maybe, just maybe I would believe it. But this, in the here and now, seems to be crossing the line...




Are you suggesting that Dudley and/or the Dursleys are poisoning Harry? Is that what all those lines of text about poison and Dudley were referring to? I hope not, and I hope there is a large surprise coming soon where I will say "Oh!! Now I get it".... because I am sorry to say, I dont get it. I dont see how any of this really points to anything.

Maybe its just me.

~Albus

Out of place and out of line. If you don't care to have respect for the dead, then show some respect for her sons who are still living with the fact that they lost their mother.

You do see the problem here, don't you? Aside from reading something and contorting it to fit your own ideas, which isn't horrible in and of itself. Heck, you may feel free to believe whatever you wish with whatever information you'd like to twist to suit your needs. . .anyways. As far as I know, in my limited knowledge, Edward vi died in 1553, which gives us over three hundred years between the fact and whatever they decide to write down in their medical journals.

And the problem I have with this particular reference is that 1) it is so overly colored with propaganda supporting the Oxfordian Shakespeare that it is not an unbiased account of the life of Elizabeth or the facts of William Shakespeare . . . and 2) Streitz' book is pretty much the only one out there that even tries to tell us De Vere was born in 1548; based on circumstantial evidence, at best, and a complete desire for it to be so.

Given the high place of power that Northumberland gained while in service to Edward, the likelihood of him then poisoning the King is very unlikely. Northumberland wanted to secure his position and his land holdings, and being the, in essence, the puppet-master behind this particular king gave him more power than he could ever have hoped to gain by poisoning the lad! More to the point, had the King lived, Northumberland would certainly have been able to solidify a more stable link to the monarchy with his family than by having to force the feeble command of a dying King that pronounced his sisters as (drat, word I'm not allowed to say here!) illegitimate. Desperate times call for desperate measures, however, and he was able to get that weak proclamation declaring Lady Jane Grey as the new royal. . .allowing Northumblerland to press his son into a marriage. An ill guided attempt to scratch his way into the monarchy which ended up leading himself and a reluctant queen (of only 9 days) to her death. Nice. Doesn't imply he poisoned the king, though. I think it more firmly argues for the opposite. (The idea that Edward was not a sickly child has really only recently become something to question. The extent of childhood illnesses have little to do with someone dying, at any age, of tuberculosis in that time.)

I in no way even dream to claim that the road to the monarchy was without trials, secrets, plots, and indiscretions. They exsisted. I don't agree that they exsisted in the details that you are putting forth, however.

However, we really are treading down a familiar path here. You've had at least to requests for you to cite references for your claims, references to your authority on such claims, and above all . . . for you to tie this into JKR's Harry Potter. As you have not done so, I can only imagine, as Louise mentioned, how much longer this thread will last. This will be my final attempt to ask for you to respond to our requests and not just barrel on in your desire to spread your own agenda.

The ties you are making between HP and any of this "history" you have presented, in my opinion, is only coincidental in nature. She has chosen names that are common in history and mythology, and it is therefore only natural that these names and ideas overlap a bit in writing. JKR is well researched and well informed; she chooses characters for her books to suit her purposes. . .and that is to tell us the story of Harry Potter. As we do have, from the author's own lips (or pen, as in some cases) the history behind her character choices (such as Ron Weasley), I cannot help but to think that you are reading these books as you read most books; searching for anything that will tie into this theory that does not even help to prove your Shakespearean Authorship question. What motivation could JKR possibly have to codify some sort of political message in her works? She has made absolutely no secret of her thoughts on Darfur. There is no fear for her to be suddenly imprisoned and beheaded for disagreeing with the running of the country. If they can produce and delve out oscars to movies such as "The Queen," almost mocking the monarchy of today . . . why would JKR need to put her secrets into a book of Harry Potter? The theory here makes no sense, is unfounded, uncited, undocumented, and illogical . . . no matter how many "history" lessons of suppositions that you cannot possibly hope to prove you give to us here.

Gonzalo, really...this is all just pure imaginings and supposition on your part with absolutely no real proof whatsoever. The Diana comment aside (I'm a conspiracy theorist myself, and I don't deny that there are many questions about that remaining unanswered, but it's not really relevant to your argument here) the symptoms you are describing Edward apparently having are not typically indicitive of chronic and systemic arsenic poisoning. If you can produce evidence of these symptoms really occuring, i.e. the hair falling out, nails falling out, (and I mean from a good, cited, cross referenced source) then perhaps I may be willing to consider the possibility of some other heavy metal poisoning of some kind, such as lead or mercury - but even then, I think you would be very hard pushed to prove that such a poisoning, if it did happen, was deliberate.

If Edward was coughing up blood, and if he had TB (or consumption, whatever you wish to call it), then this would be expected. You are suggesting long-term, chronic poisoning, by the sounds of it, which far from leading to the types of symptoms you are describing are more likely to have caused the type of "madness" that George III experienced - and even then, there are those that would argue he was actually suffering from porphyria.

This is the inherent problem with historical mysteries, you see - proof is extremely hard to produce and all you really have is unsubstantiated supposition and assumption. Hardly a good basis for an argument. Short of demanding an exhumation of Edward's body and looking for traces of poisoning (which should, incidentally, still be there, even after this long) I don't see how you could ever prove this.

Look, just answer two questions for me - and please don't produce more of the gonzalo version of British history...all I want to know is very simple.

1. Where did you study, what is your main discipline, and what qualifications do you hold?

2. What is/are your main sources for this alternate view of history that you're presenting.

Ooh, and one more think, the Dursley's aren't serial poisoners. That, I can prove

To paraphrase my professor of Bibliography, Dr. Paul Daniel Menzer, former managing editor of Shakespeare Quarterly, America's preeminent Shakespeare journal:



So, why should we? As well, I'll quote Rowling herself:



As I have said before (and have been ignored):

So what?

If you can tell my why any of this matters (especially with regards to JK Rowling's work) I'd be very interested.

-Fish

SH...

I wonder if you might give me that JKR quote in context. I really can't grasp it as a disembodiied quote.

Daniel Paul Menzer, who I have never heard of, appears to be an individual with a theatre background. Now...like the canaries in a coal mine, these Shakespeareans, typically are the first to know that something is wrong on the authorship front. They pick up on this because they are given lines they often don't understand...then the ask the director how they should deliver these lines...& he or she is no help... then they think... "What's going on here? If this were a play by Chekov or Shaw, I would simply read a biography...then the meaning of the line would be obvious".

So they read a biography by say, Stephen Greenblatt...& they are as much in the dark as before. To speak with any authority on the "Shakespeare Authorship Question" you really need a background in English history & maybe also in the Sunday Times or NYT crossword puzzles...whose composers are not likely to give you ANYTHING.

Kindly pass on to your buddy Menzer that if he can offer me any proof, that the individual he calls "William Shakespere" could even spell his name, I will send him a cheque for a thousand dollars & will send another thou to your good self.

In the meantime, let me suggest this wonderful book which, just today, has appeared on the Barnes & Noble list...still without its blurbs... ... Best regards, G

[Mod Edit: For a self-acclaimed scholar, that comment was incredibly childish and rude; especially considering how fellow members have patiently asked you several times to simply verify the facts to your theories.][spoiler]P.S. Is the icon of Louise actually Louise? I had not imagined her to be such a looker. The image I had was something rather more like Ian McKellen in drag. [/spoiler]

OMG! I can't believe they are offering that! And I also cant believe your lack of modesty! "In the meantime, let me suggest this wonderful book which, just today, has appeared on the Barnes & Noble list" Hmm perhaps I will write a blurb, wouldn't that be interesting, or perhaps both Fish and I would write something, you'd be up to that right Kyle? Hmm, Im locked in a mental battle here.. order the book and analyze every word of it and write a rebuttal or to simply not waste my money and line your pockets... its a tough decision.

Edited out the silly link in the quote.

I'll give you the link so you can read it in context, though I doubt it will deter you.

Here.

And you do know where this is going, don't you? Good. It will save me some time, at least.

Perfect, because we've never heard of you. However, Paul Menzer (of whom I have heard) has at least one thing going for him that you haven't been able to give us. . .authority on the subject as the former editor of Shakespeare Quarterly; though I can see why this isn't quite your cup of tea.

This is really a laughable request. Anything we give you, you will dismiss or call a hoax anyways. However, while we're on the subject, mind proving to me that even Marlowe could spell his name? How about giving me proof of Ben Johnson's education? Or John Webster?

You'd like us all to believe that the lack of evidence for Shakespeare's attending Stratford Grammar School to be an appalling proof that he was an uneducated, illiterate dope who couldn't do anything. Perhaps we would find this appalling if we were not also knowledgable that there are no records of anyone having attended Stratford Grammar School prior to the 1700s. The lack of a name on a list as evidence makes Shakespeare in line with his contemporaries, not set apart from them to his detriment.

As far as proof goes, however. . .



Those men were born at or around the year of Shakespeare's birth and their father come from similar educational and social backgrounds as Shakespeare's.

At any rate. . . you don't really care for the counters.

Moving on.

Self advertising again? Hopefully you will know from the rules of this forum that this type of advertisement is against this forum's policy. I will be editing the link out. (Tuitus beat me to it.)

I had to read this twice to believe that you actually went there. This remark is uncalled for and not humorous.

You have had several opportunities to answer the questions presented to you, yet you continue on doggedly ignoring our requests. What are your qualifications? What are your references? And parallels to JKR. Three very simple questions to answer. As explained in my previous post (and in your previous thread), as you have not bothered to acknowledge any requests that have been made to you, and as these threads seem not to be about discussing anything relating to JKR but are used as a means to spread your own ideas about the authorship of Shakespeare, which does not belong here, and as a means for you to self-promote your self-published book. . .this topic is being locked. Any attempts to open another topic in this same vein will be met with a similar fate: it will be locked and deleted without warning.

If you would like to discuss Harry Potter, please do so in the forums, keeping to the topics and subjects at hand.

Any questions or complaints can be directed to me via PM (Owl).

Thank you,
passerby
VTM Forums Moderator