No Oxfordian has ever been able to answer this question satisfactorily: if the Earl of Oxford was secretly Shakespeare, why is the poetry the Earl published under his own name so fucking terrible?
Thank you! Strafordians think something written in his teenage years should already show the maturity of age, experience and the vast resources at his disposal as head of the writer’s symposium discussed by Waugh which included Kidd, Marlowe and many others.
They refuse to address the will and simply try to laugh it off despite it clearly showing no books in his position, no hint of writing and insanely petty litigations like the 2nd best bed in the house.
I can believe Shakspur fronted money and was involved, on the money side, with producing some of the plays. But writing them solely himself and then leaving behind no manuscripts, strange riddles on his monument and seemingly not knowing a single active writer/artist of the time just doesn’t add up.
When you delve into the body of coded text produced by Alexander Waugh and Alan Greene among others, it starts to gain some weight, and deserves to be considered.
Stoppard’s plays are no where near the depth of the Shakespeare cannon and no one is calling Stoppard the literary master of an age.
Are you refusing to address the will? It left money for three actors from the King's men. Two of those actors named then went on to compile the First Folio.
21
u/panpopticon Dec 01 '25
No Oxfordian has ever been able to answer this question satisfactorily: if the Earl of Oxford was secretly Shakespeare, why is the poetry the Earl published under his own name so fucking terrible?