> What I find interesting is online you can find a
> parish register for Stratford. There is a
> "William Shakspere,gent."listed there and the
> person who put the book together asterisked the
> entry and said that it was the burial entry for
> the "Immortal Bard":
Here is the original document
My thinking on the subject is continually changing as I become aware of more primary documents, potential evidence, and theories. I highly recommend the book The Apocryphal William Shakespeare by Sabrina Feldman It's scholarly, comprehensive, balanced and laden with great research into important questions that are often ignored by Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians alike. Namely - Who wrote the Apocryphal works attributed to William Shakespeare (A dozen or so plays, the bad quatros, and a number of poems)? -Why was Robert green so hostile to Shake-scene? - And who was the unnamed royal poet?
It's a fantastic reference book for anyone trying to explore this quagmire.
> Someone one named William Shakspere lived there.
> Whether he was the person who was the bard we
> don't know for sure. I suspect the "tomb" was
> added a few centuries later in response to tourist
Certainly monetary opportunities have resulted in endless falsehoods and fraudulent dealings when it comes to all things Stratford. But that trend only really began around 1780 (before that it seems that nobody in Stratford cared about WS). The evidence does show that the funerary monument was in place at least as early as 1649. Most researchers reckon it was in place before 1623 because it is mentioned in the FF. It has certainly seen its fair share or repair and reworking.
As for the gravestone....that's a bit tougher. No name, no date.......no body.
As Amundsen points out in his documentary, the gravestone was replaced at some point. This is supposedly what the original looked like.
> Also they refer to him as a "gent."(which I am
> taking to mean stands for gentleman). The William
> Shakspere was a man of means.
The Shakespeares paid for and received a family crest in 1596, so he had the right to refer to himself as gent. This is parodied in Ben Jonson's Every man out of his humor. Actually one of the best pieces of evidence supporting the Stratford actors claim. Usually ignored by Shakespearean scholars because it shows William to be a "neccessary fool" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Man_out_of_His_Humour
> There is no birth entry in there for him but there
> is a man named John Shakspere living there at the
> time who could have been his father. I know
> sources claim he is, but with no birth record that
> I can see it's hard to tell. In addition if his
> mother was really the daughter of someone who was
> considered "affluent" then I think there is your
> answer about how he could have gained an education
> sufficient to be able to master language the way
> he did.
This is his baptismal record. Usually I would have no reason to doubt the veracity of this document but it is not without its issues.
It is actually not a contemporary recording of his baptism but a later copy produced towards the end of Elizabeths reign. There are something like 20 years worth of records all written in the same hand, indicating that they were rerecorded all at the same time. Maybe not significant at all but it allows more opportunity for manipulation.
Alan Greene does some interesting work connecting to the supposed birth and death dates of William
Shakespeare (4/26) and De Vere (6/24). Very interesting parallels and recurrence of these two numbers. skip to min 30 for the 426/624 stuff
So the baptismal record may have been altered to create this cabalistic symmetry that these weirdos strived to achieve.