What the “Shakespeare portrait” controversy can teach us about our relationship with reality
Kit Knightly
Anon undated copy of the Chandos portrait allegedly of William Shakespeare, & currently housed at 10 Downing Street
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is having the portrait of William Shakespeare removed from No. 10, according to various reports across the legacy media.
This has “sparked a backlash”according to the Evening Standard.
People on social media are asking “What does this mean?”
The Telegraph quoted former-Culture Secretary Sir Oliver Dowden:
The Prime Minister spent the election loudly proclaiming his patriotism, but now the election is over he’s succumbing to the usual Left-wing cringing embarrassment about our past […] Not content with removing Thatcher, Gladstone, Raleigh and Elizabeth I, he’s now consigning Shakespeare to the dustbin.
If you want my opinion – well, here it is…
The portrait was removed (or is said to have been removed) simply to create more fuel for the “Labour hates Britain” fire.
The “controversy” is a psy-op designed to outrage those people who probably don’t read Shakespeare but do read Tommy Robinson’s twitter account. It’s another irrelevant non-issue designed to get people screaming at each other in impotent rage.
Just garbage.
Of much much more interest is the portrait itself.
Firstly, it’s not exactly a painting of “William Shakespeare” the playwright.
It’s at absolute best a copy of a painting of Shakespeare, but in fact is quite unlikely to even be that.
It was painted circa 1758, around a hundred and fifty years after the author’s death, and is a (bad) copy of the famous “Chandos Portrait” seen here:
‘Chandos portrait’ allegedly depicting William Shakespeare
…but the Chandos portrait probably isn’t of Shakespeare either.
Or at least it has zero provenance before 1719, and nobody knows exactly who painted it, when they painted it or who it’s intended to portray.
A note in the margin of a book owned by antiquary George Vertue, dated 1719, purports to give a brief history of the painting. It reads as follows (idiosyncratic spelling and random punctuation is in the original):
The picture of Shakespear one Original in Possession of Mr Keyck of The Temple. he bought for forty guuineas of Mr Baterton who bought it of Sr W. Davenant. to whom it was left by will of John Taylor. who had it of Shakespear. it was painted by one Taylor a player and painter contemp: with Shakes and his intimate friend.
Mr Betterton told Mr Keck several times that the Picture of Shakespeare he had, was painted by one John Taylor a Player, who acted for Shakespear and this John Taylor in his will left it to Sr Willm. Davenant. at the death of Sir Will Davenant – Mr Betterton bought it, at his death Mr. Keck bought it in whose poss. it now is.
This note, written 103 years after Shakespeare is said to have died, is the ONLY provenance linking the portrait to him. The rest is “hearsay and assumption”, according to art historian Tarnya Cooper’s book on the subject:
The early history of the painting relies upon hearsay, half-remembered facts and assumptions”
Tarnya Cooper – Searching for Shakespeare, Yale University Press, 2006 (p 54)
And from Wikipedia, emphasis added:
It has not been possible to determine with certainty who painted the portrait, or whether it really depicts Shakespeare.
None of its claims have been independently verified at this time. There is no evidence the painter John Taylor painted this picture. His will is extant and does not include any mention of a portrait of Shakespeare being left to sir William Davenant or anyone else (Cooper, ibid).
There is no hard evidence it was passed on from Davenant to a man called Baterton (or Betterton), no hard evidence it went from him to a man called Keyck (or Keck).
But even if we take this completely unsupported “provenance” as true it only leads us back to William Davenant. To describe this man as a somewhat unreliable narrator would be a profund understatement. He was in fact a “Shakespeare fantasist”, who claimed on different occasions, and on the basis of no evidence, to be William Shakespeare’s godson and/or his illegitimate child.
Again, from Cooper’s “Searching for Shakespeare” (p.55, emphasis added):
There are a number of unanswered questions that make us want to challenge the chain of events recorded by Vertue. For example, who decided this particular picture was a portrait of Shakespeare, and not another fashionable Jacobean urban dweller? William Davenant [who] was known to embroider upon his association with Shakespeare.
So even if “Sir Will. Davenent” did once own this picture and claim it was a portrait of his “godfather/dear old dad”, that does little to nothing to validate it as a genuine artefact.
In a rational world that really should be the end of it shouldn’t it?
Very bad picture of unidentified man with no provenance is worth nothing evidentially and must be dismissed out of hand unless or until some further provenance emerges.
Oh but hold on there. You’re forgetting something way more important than facts and reason.
You’re forgetting the urgent and irresistible need to believe…
You know that lovely warm cozy feeling you get when you decide those pesky facts don’t matter any more, because you just don’t want them to.
The National Portrait Gallery know that feeling well. They think it’s “certainly fairly likely” that completely anonymous, unsourced uncorroborated picture does depict the Bard.
Why? Well, the subject is about the “right age” (though how you determine that without knowing when the portrait was painted is hard to ascertain), might resemble other paintings alleged to be the Bard and…
In 2006, art historian Tarnya Cooper of the National Portrait Gallery completed a three-and-a-half-year study of portraits purported to be of Shakespeare and concluded that the Chandos portrait was most likely a representation of Shakespeare. Cooper points to the earring and the loose shirt-ties of the sitter, which were emblematic of poets
Forget the total absence of any evidence whatsoever. Wipe that from your mind. The sitter’s totally subjective age, his earring and those loose shirt-ties are all we need to tell us it’s “most likely” Shakespeare after all!
Because how many non-poets aged somewhere in their 30s or 40s EVER wore earrings or loose shirt-ties? I would guess NONE!
And if he must be a poet – well then he’s probably THE poet – Shakespeare
Deductive reasoning at its finest.
Most curious and telling might be that the Tarnya Cooper who makes these strained claims for the authenticity of this picture is the same Tarnya Cooper we quote above, making the eloquent point that it is entirely unauthenticated!
She points out the “hearsay and assumptions”, the “unanswered questions” and that a key witness has a history of “embroidering his association with Shakespeare” and then concludes the painting is “certainly fairly likely” authentic…because of the earring.
Welcome to the world of Shakespearian history, where a little fact goes a very long way and “allegedly”, “may have”, “probably”, and “could be” do serious power-lifting as a matter of course.
The final level of strangeness is the same thing that overlays all discussion of Shakespeare – the meta-weirdness of “the authorship question”.
There is good evidence to suggest “William Shaksper, the man from Stratford” and “Shakespeare the playwright” were not the same person, and the name “Shakespeare” was a pen-name for someone else (or multiple people).
So, when analysts discuss the sitter “appearing to be the right age” because Shakespeare was 36-46 when this painting was supposedly painted, they could well be talking about entirely the wrong person anyway.
In summary, for those keeping score at home, the painting everyone is so upset about:
Is a later copy of an earlier work…
…that has no reliable provenance…
…and was painted by an unknown artist…
…at an unproven time…
…for an unknown patron…
…of an unnamed subject.
We’re so many layers deep in speculation and doubt and articles of belief that the truth has long vanished over the horizon.
And to top it all off, the whole story about Starmer having the painting taken down might just have been made up to annoy people.
To return to an earlier question: What does this mean?
Absolutely nothing.
That kind of thing is just interesting to me.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
I think these ‘conspiracies’ concerning Shakespeare or Paul is Dead are mostly envy and iconoclasm. The Shakespeare one is bizarre because it was promoted long ago by the same Oxbridge intellectual snobs who detested the idea of a man who wasn’t one of theirs, writing so well. The claim that this was some sort of committee is very revealing – anyone who has written, acted, or really had to make their living in any way in the Arts knows it would be IMPOSSIBLE (yes loud shouty capitals) to write with what is clearly ONE VOICE of one person using the same sensibilities across all his work, by committee – committees can write plays and novels but they would be totally shit with an indefinite voice incapable of such precise and intimate use of metaphor and similie – its just laughable that it’s not one person. The desperate reaching for a toff (even by people who would normally despise such people) is the class system so branded into people (especially Boomers who think they are educated), an obsession that skews everything and makes everything a fantasy land of abstractions.
The evidence of William Shakespeare writing the plays is sufficient – it would be nice to have more but its enough! The leaping to toffs and committees is a traumatic response to Boomers being red pilled coupled with an inferiority complex and secret worshiping of the magic powers of toffs (as a lot of lefties do). The magic powers of Oxbridge – OMG!!!
The Beatles one is similar – I mean, “I’ve been in a band and we took 18 months to write 6 songs” etc – its usually envy, shattered minds, people unable to evaluate that they aren’t at the same level, and the need to humiliate the so-called Truth community by applying psy-ops to EVERYTHING. It humiliates us all, Look Paul is Paul pre-1966 and post 1966, “Let It Bee” and the recent “Get Back” are authentic documentaries about their artistic process which is quick and intense, even in their swansong days.
Question – Why should we listen to anyone at this time who can’t keep their eye on the ball (Israel wars, Ukraine, Covid, 9/11, 7/7 etc) but goes for goofy, genuinely loony off-topic misdirection which hurts us all?
What is that evidence?
Can you name one contemporary source that identifies the man from Stratford as the author of any of those plays?
All you have is a slight coincidence of name – spelled differently. The man from Stratford was “Shaksper”. The playwright was “Shake-speare.” And it was only after Shaksper died that he was ever identified as the author of those plays.
And also remember that “Shakespeare’s plays” are only known as such because they were gathered together and printed under that name after Shaksper was dead. We know for a fact many of them had different attributions, or no attribution, in earlier years while being performed, and several of the plays included at one time in “the works of Shakespeare” are now thought not to be by him.
So, not only is there a huge uncertainty about whether Shake-speare was ever Shaksper, but there’s no real certainty about what plays were really by him.
It’s quite possible some or all of the history plays were by Marlowe. Marlowe wrote Edward ll and possibly Edward lll before his alleged death. The first “Shake-speare” history play, Richard ll, follows directly on from these chronologically.
You have to remember authorship was not viewed in the same light then as now. Copyright didn’t exist and playwrights were seen as craftsmen rather than artists. Plays were being churned out by many scribblers in the late 16th C, most anonymous and forgotten. Plays would be attributed to popular authors who had not written them, just to increase their appeal to an audience, and many plays were produced with unnamed authors or pseudonymous authors.
So, claiming the fact a play is today ascribed to Shakespeare as meaning it was always considered so or has any historical validity as such is very ignorant and simplistic. Really all it means is that people have decided to agree on an attribution based solely on subjective assessment and tradition.
In truth the name Shake-speare might never have applied to one single man. It might have been a commonly assumed pseudonym – in the way “Alan Smithee” is today used by film directors who don’t want their real name to be credited for a particular film.
It may have been an in-joke, a collaboration. But ironically it does seem least likely that all or any of those plays were written by the seemingly uneducated merchant called Shaksper.
“It may have been an in-joke, a collaboration. But ironically it does seem least likely that all or any of those plays were written by the seemingly uneducated merchant called Shaksper.”
There are around 400 documents mentioning him, his work and his family – its easy to find them, and tedious to list them!! The Shakespeare-deniers just don’t seem to want to acknowledge them because of small changes to the name, extremely common at the time. My favourite is Shogspaw. It was normal for this to happen!
But the key to your answer is, again, the “seemingly uneducated” part. It’s such a challenge that someone can do something extraordinary. Exact same incredulous response for the Beatles – “I can’t do it and I went to Oxbridge/have a high IQ/wrote a play once/ was in a band (etc), so how could they/ he?” Absolute bananas. That’s my point, its all about envy and pride and false projection.
The first clue to the truth of all this is that the works were well known and well attributed to William Shakespeare at the time, unquestioned, published, publicly widely-known. He was praised and criticised by his contemporaries, made monies from his plays. The ‘voice’ of the plays is utterly distinct from Marlow, Jonson etc in the same way that Bach is different from Beethoven, is different from Wagner. It’s soooooo bloody obvious!
The torturous disregarding of all this and trying to read the events of that time through the red-pilled eyes of 21st Century deep state fakery is ludicrous. It’s the same guy – it’s Shakespeare! Paul McCartney after 1966 is the exact same guy in photos of 1964 and 1968, no difference (“oh but his earlobe!” – aaaarrrggghhhh!!!). It’s giving too much power to fantasies coupled with envy of talent – the Beatles were “in the zone for 6 or 7 years” – get over it! They worked extremely hard to get there, harder than most people are prepared to. It’s the natural and obvious explanation. Shakespeare was “in the zone” as a writer – no wonder the Oxbridge lot hated this “jumped up scarecrow” as they called him. Envy of talent that takes a different route to effortlessly make supposedly greater “educated” minds look pedestrian, coupled with lack of knowledge of what “being in the zone” can really achieve, and what it takes to get there, not to mention the almost cult-like delusion about the magic powers of the Deep State though-out history, based on their dominance of our enslavement now.
He must have been educated like a toff to write great plays? Really? This is prejudice and disregarding the obvious – that Shakespeare was a guy with natural talent having spent his whole career making theatre and poetry. Having money, power and expensive education does not make you a good artist, in fact it is the outsider who innovates and breaks new turf, not the good parrot.
And then it sounds like a committee? Have you read even a page of Marlow or Jonson or others next to Shakespeare, they are all completely different from him and each other. It’s so obvious.
That’s exactly what I think, too.
This government is almost as cartoonishly villainous as Klaus Schwab.
…And to me: I was unaware of the facts behind the Chandos portrait.
As for an authentic likeness of Shakespeare, I think this one might well be a candidate…
I am certainly persuaded that DeVere is the plausible actual author, of at least the plays (with the Sonnets having different authorship). The documentaries I’ve seen make a strong case (and Derek Jacoby seems convinced).
Biggest cultural lie in history if true. Gargantuan.
Shakespear was scoundrel and antivaxer. “Out vile jelly!”
Not entirely relevant this, but interesting, nay obiquely pertinent, I think…
There was an art discovery a few years ago, a hitherto unkown painting by Modigliani. The art world went into frenzied overdrive, declaring it to be one of his masterpieces and valuing it in the millions of dollars. A tour of the world’s top galleries was organised and critics waxed lyrical about it’s profound artistic merit… Until, one day, a top bod in his field examined it closely and revealed that it was a fake, beyond any reasonable doubt. Suddenly it was discarded, denigrated, the tour was cancelled and it was consigned to the rubbish heap of worthless gimmicks. And yet it was EXACTLY the SAME painting which, only months before, had been enthusiastically received, praised to the hilt and given a six figure valuation. EXACTLY the SAME one. A wonderful illustration of how blown up and ridiculous is the art world – not the artists or the art – but the art world as a desperate intellectual institution.
Wolfgang Beltracchi is the bast all time art forger and for 30 years completely bamboozled the art world experts with not copies, but channeled similarities attributable to unknown works by famous name artists. His skill and paintings are excellent on their own. But when linked to a “known” artist, the pass the pearly gates into the land of the rich collectors. His work and his life performance is proof that the art market is a complete sham of an elite valuation casino. A stock market of sorts where branded commodities live the Cloud of the wealthy egos. Quality has the back seat to what people think, or have been made to believe, what value is. To them it’s all money. Any other qualities are just frosting on the marketing fraud.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/art-forger-wolfgang-beltracchis-multimillion-dollar-scam/
Thanks for pointing out that the painting which the PM threw out of Downing street is a dubious copy of the famous Chandos portrait of Shakespeare. Like the PM himself ought to be thrown out of Downing street as a dubious copy of the famous Labour PM Attlee.
Free John of Gaunt!
Leviticus 26:1 “Do not make idols or set up carved images, or sacred pillars, or sculptured stones in your land so you may worship them. I am the LORD your God.
Psalm 97:7 All who worship images are put to shame, those who boast in idols– worship him, all you gods!
John 4:23-24 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”
Neither Starmer nor we need no portrait of Shakespeare nor Elizabeth I. We may need the books because they are history, story telling from ancient times, human politics and human philosophy.
But we need no image of neither Jesus nor Shakespeare!
This debate seems an example of the elite class need of identifiable heroes to worship. Of course of their origin, attribution or discovery. Only they recognize greatness. If they don’t “recognize’ you, you and your work don’t exist and later never existed. I was just thinking how few unattributed or anonymous works, other than ancient, become part of the public commons. As someone here said, the message, the work, is what’s really important. But the elite class must have a name and even imaged icons of greatness which reflects their class’s abilities at identifying “greatness”. And of course ownership of same, property, and then their tradable commodity. If Humanity ever does manage to get past the need, or the programmed “need” projected by the elite’s propaganda molded histories, for heroes, leaders and parent-deciders, we may then see individual works as works of Humanity, of us. Meaning, “hey maybe we are capable and don’t need an obsolete parent class”. Someday…
The 1623 first folio engraving; compare to the article images: (The blemishes/scars adjacent to the left eye also seem to present in both the painting and engraving (?))
Just out of curiosity, why am I not allowed to vote for this comment ? Thanks
Follow the money. Starmer is basically a bureaucrat doing that is told and it would be one of his sponsors who fears or despises Shakespeare. It may be relevant that some people read antisemitic sentiments into the Merchant of Venice. The claim from the ‘opposition’ that moving the picture is somehow ‘left-wing’ is also plainly a smokescreen, given that Shakespeare was likely himself a counterculture figure.
I don’t think the authenticity of either Shakespeare or the portrait are the real issues here, the fact is that WS is a British icon in the minds of most people and that is maybe why Steer Calmer doesn’t want it on the wall at number Ten
The 1623 folio engraving and the Stratford bust likely bear at least some resemblance to Mr. Shakespeare. They would both have been seen by many of his contemporaries (wife, fellow actors, Ben Jonson etc), who would surely have objected if they had borne no resemblance whatsoever to him.
The Chandos portrait bears too close a resemblance to the 1623 portfolio image for pure coincidence. One was clearly copied from the other. If the engraving was copied from the painting then it’s an early example of ‘photoshop’ to make Shakespeare seem more respectable (earring removed, loose collar and hair tidied up). If viceversa, then a forger would have made a lifelike image based on the engraving; likely for profit’s sake. Either way, they would still be roughly in the right ballpark imho as far as Shakespeare’s visage, artistic licences aside.
Charles I succeeded Elizabeth I (after James I). Charles III succeeded Elizabeth II. The Karlovian Age succeeding the Elizabethan (and Jacobean). Enter the ‘Keir-lovian’ age…?
As each age rejects the previous (at least to some extent), so the removal of Sir Walter Raleigh, Elizabeth I and Mr. Shakespeare from the corridors of power, may symbolize the same process. Psychologists could have a field day with the removal of the withering eye of Mrs Thatcher glaring disapprovingly down on Mr Starmer (especially if he intends to decolonize the Falkland Islands, as suggested). And especially while Rachel Reeves, his next door neighbour removes all male portraits; only portraits of women or by women allowed. A relationship to watch.
Humans have always been troubled by the elusiveness of reality, so they came up with this idea of “evidence.” Compile enough evidence and reality is subdued, placed inside a box, and can’t get out. Of course, today’s “evidence” could become tomorrow’s laughing stock.
One thing this portrait supposedly of Shakespeare has going for it is that it exists. They didn’t do portraits of just anybody; so there being one at all suggests it’s of somebody of some importance. But how on Earth could anyone do a portrait a couple hundred years after the subject died? Well, how about a “police sketch” type of thing? where someone takes elements of description and, based solely on those, creates a likeness? True, in this case, there would be no one to verify the likeness – but is it any sillier than the portraits of Jesus that abound?
Then there’s the joke about the boy who draws God, and his father says no one knows what God looks like, and the boy says they will now.
So which ‘side’ am I on, Howard?
I must have missed something
Dear Sam,
I don’t know Vagabard or Howard but the reply was far too acid for a simple comment. It could be a misunderstanding, why do we always have to look for “sides” ?
In the context in which the comment was posted, your “side” would clearly be the Israeli side – otherwise why would you post a long comment lecturing the commenter who expressed condemnation of both Israel and Zionism? rather than the commenter who was being replied to?
BTW, I’m assuming you’re using this particular column to reply to my earlier comment because I must not have responded to it within the appropriate column. That’s because every single comment I post goes into Pending and I don’t always go back to visit comments which I have no way of knowing if or when they will have appeared. Sorry – I did not intend to snub your reply; it just gets a little frustrating.
Yes, why ever would you be kept on premod with such a charming attitude. Are you under the impression we’re soft in the head here or something Howard? Are we the ‘staff’ to be spoken to as you wish?
You clearly didn’t actually read my original comment properly, or else you’re ignorant in exactly the prejudiced way I was flagging up – the comment which invited conversation on the topic, btw.
Not to bolster your ego or your ‘bad boy’ status, Howard, rest assured you’re not in premod because you’re too edgy. Your comments always get through provided you aren’t being revoltingly rude. A2
The 1758 version seems to have made every attempt to be less flattering in the great man (top image compared to second image). A less pointed beard, hair further away from the shoulders (right side), fairer / less facial hair eg moustache. Rosier cheeks. A more effeminate face. A less serious expression
Rose-coloured spectacles clearly don’t always portray the past more flatteringly
This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,
Fear’d by their breed and famous by their birth,
Renowned for their deeds as far from home,
For Christian service and true chivalry,
As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry,
Of the world’s ransom, blessed Mary’s Son,
This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,
Like to a tenement or pelting farm:
England, bound in with the triumphant sea
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:
That England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
Ah, would the scandal vanish with my life,
How happy then were my ensuing death!
So Tarnya spent over 3 years studying portraits purporting to portray (sorry) someone who might not exist. Nice work if you can get it. You’d think that someone able to get a cushy job like that would know how to spell her name. My guess is that she doesn’t exist either.
Well done. Thank you.
Whatever the provenance, however sketchy or incomplete it may be, and whoever is portayed in this particular painting is, in my view, all utterly irrelevant in this case. This painting, like it or not, has become an icon of Shakespeare the poet (even if it’s actually of John Gubbins the blind pie maker, who cares? That’s purely an academic point about the possible pitfalls of validating paintings, their subjects, their dates or truth to likeness).
The point is this: that the removal of this icon is a deliberate and potent strike against that most celebrated son of England and English culture which it represents. In the same way that the removal of an effigy of Christ would be to move against Christianty, even though Jesus, if he existed at all, probably looked nothing like it and it was carved as late as 1438 by a stone mason whose name is wrongly logged in the work ledger.
You are right, I think. It’s about morals, not what someone looked like.
It’s a woke gesture, meant to be demoralizing’; turn everything upside down and the other way around. It’s a psychological political ‘bad thing’. (I don’t want to be rude.)
Getting people to believe in or care about an unimportant story about an unimportant painting takes a certain craft.
But getting people to believe in or care about a fake pandemic now that is real artistry.
It is now only new alternative media that now informs me of theses new controversy’s.
I would never of known other wise.
Shakespeare portrait…..
Timing is good for the incoming Tommyunist March in London on October 26. Halloween build up.
In the words of Karen Dunbar ” ah smell shite”.
The idea that Starmer is trying to fuel discord is preposterous.
Next, you’ll be telling me the ‘riots’ and their repercussions, so soon after the election, were deliberately engineered.
Pshaw and pish, I say, sir
“Not content with removing Thatcher, Gladstone, Raleigh and Elizabeth I, he’s now consigning Shakespeare to the dustbin”
what will the prime minister replace these portraits with?
– maybe by trophy heads of state leaders murdered by the us/uk regimes
– Starmer may go ahead and splash on the walls the logos of his masters: WEF pfizer astra-zeneca BAE systems blackrock and vanguard
– portrait of his true unconditional love: some genocidal monster
How big is number 10?
They wouldn’t fit all the trophy heads of assassinated, conventionally dead, “Do what you’re fucking told” leaders on the walls. Surely?
‘conveniently’ 😖
maybe by trophy heads of state leaders murdered by the us/uk regimes
Note to interior design public private partnership contractor – please don’t forget to include John Magafuli
Triumphant Starmer would probably love to hang Jeremy Corbyn, not to hang Corbyn’s portrait on the wall but actually hang the guy literally …
Shakespeare was a team of writers who in reality never existed. This happens all the time. People like to believe that there is true genius, as fi a prolific writer who can make use of up to 4 times as many words as compared with average and who can write comedies, tragedies, histories at the same time is a true genius. Stephen King is a similar true genius. Stephan Hawking was (he even outlived ALS for 50 years, how is that for Superman), and then of course the amount of prolific writers who write above and below the line of various media are true genius.
It’s like the belief in Santa Claus. There are millions of Santa’s in which grown up people continuously like to believe in as it gives them the comfort that someone is watching over them and is willing to give them existence. They are smarter than you are. So sit back, relax, and read your (contemporary) Shakespeare. Don’t think. Consume.
Our time truly is a time filled with decadence. So it was back then, for those who could read Shakespeare….
And then there is this other thing, ie that people love candid camera, either to make or to see. Duping delight for the makers, and a good laugh for the audience who see themselves (through someone else’s suffering) being duped. Schadenfreude. Fun times!
Perhaps the very word “genius” was designed for world leaders and captains of industry to slip into so they never risk standing completely naked before the public.
On the other hand, something like “King Lear” defies description except some way that separates it from, say “True Romance” and computer generated literature. Or maybe it’s just a case of an infinite number of poets scribbling with an infinite number of quills till – Voila! – “King Lear” happens.
Who knows: the day may come when anyone at all who can still write actual words on an actual sheet of paper will forevermore be declared “a genius.”
That there is a 30 year life span difference between the 1st and 2nd longest living ALS sufferers is explained by Stephan Hawking having been replaced a la Paul McCartney
‘I have heard of your paintings too, well enough. God hath given you one face and you make yourselves another’
Hamlet (act3)
Precisely! Lets not forget Shakespeare is all Theatre.
Beykyn, Baechin, Bacon!
Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.
Precis of Starmer: Philistinism describes the attitudes, habits, and characteristics of a person who deprecates art, beauty, spirituality, and intellect. As a derogatory term, philistine describes a person who is narrow-minded and hostile to the life of the mind, whose materialistic and wealth-oriented worldview and tastes indicate an indifference to cultural and describes a person who is narrow-minded and hostile to the life of the mind, whose materialistic and wealth-oriented worldview and tastes indicate an indifference to cultural and aesthetic values. Starmer is further “left” than Corbyn, Starmer is a Pabloist- far more cunning and far more political than the average communist/socialist- Corbyn is old school socialist- his aims/goals go no further than economic “fairness”. Pabloism focuses on the hearts and minds strategy of destroying the family and fabric of society to increase reliance and dedication to the state.
(have a look at Pabloist Red-Green ideology and you’ll soon workout where we are heading)
Who or What will replace the portrait of Shakespeare by SIR Starmer?
Will he denounce his Sir-ship?
Methinks he dost protest too much.
Everybody are beating an innocent dead man who cant defend himself. Disgusting! Just saying.
Edward de vere
As power is obtained by mass brainwashing, it’s hardly surprising that there may be plenty of things deemed as ‘part of our heritage’ that are nothing of the sort.
There are those, after all, that say that Shakespeare didn’t actually write half of ‘his’ plays. I have no clue who’s right on that, as I don’t have the inclination to dedicate my life to something rather less important than what the plays actually say. The message is always rather more important than the messenger, once you have grown beyond groupiedom, a disease which infests the minds of many teenagers and rather more adults than appropriate.
The Bible is another example of things that the powers that be would rather were not examined too closely. ‘It’s the word of God’ is the way to create millions of subservient, non-thinking gabblers after all. Religious archaeologists have created a veritable treasure trove of doubts as to the origins of the Bible, what may or may not have happened three thousands years ago etc etc. Far, far more important to argue about what a few fishermen may or may not have said 2000+ years ago than to actually treat your neighbours with respect, after all. Not……
Now if the Germans had won WWII, the Jews might just be a footnote in history. If Israel exterminates all enemies in Palestine, Lebanon and other surrounding nations, one shudders to think what lies the Jews will spread over a few centuries to bury the truth of their genocides. They’re no different to the British Empire, the American Empire, the stories of Conquistadors etc etc. They see the truth as a danger to their power, after all.
Mozart et al live on through their music, not their portraits, after all. Shakespeare, Goethe, Schiller et al live on through their words. Van Gogh, Michelangelo etc live on through their paintings, not primarily through their portraits.
You won’t necessarily find their lives represented God on earth, they more likely represented the manifestation of extreme mastery of some small aspect of life on earth. Some of them will have been adulterers, some will have taken the shilling of repressive leaders, some will have been hard drinkers and some were undoubtedly homosexual at a time of extreme homophobia.
How much is the question. How much of the information passed as history is just made up,
Anyway this comment “People on social media are asking “What does this mean?” No. Never had any social media user looked for the meaning, of anything. They ask is this the current thing that’s about it
What clearer sign you need that Starmer is another anti-British culture Globalist a la Bliar?
Neo Marxists are quite similar to the original Marx in London and Paris: upper middle class offspring who hate the source of their parents income but keep on taking it, expanding to taking other’s money too. Full of hypocrisy like controlled uniformity for the global masses except for themselves: leaders by non-example need force.
I was born after WW2 had ended, and I did climb though bombed out mills, with my friends from school – we had no fear…
We knew a bit about the genocide in Eastern Europe – many of our friends had Polish, and Humgarian surnames …
But we never thought this was going to happen in England, or ever again…
Now look at the State of Us in the UK – an Embarrassment to the entire world
We have never been like this before
We are an Island Nation, and Provide Sanctuary
We do not Torture People – We try to help. We do not shoot Children in the Heard
“Panicked Zionist “elites” who run western states are lashing out in fear at their opponents. As their popular support evaporates in the face of clear evidence of appalling Israeli atrocities, they are resorting to the methods of fascism.”
It seems more than likely that “they” want more than just a pound of flesh.
Regardless of who is pictured in the portrait, everyone recognizes it as Shakespeare, one of the most notably recognizable figures of British, indeed, global cultural history. Doesn’t matter who it really is, it’s Shakespeare, and by extension, Great Britain and England.
But this effete swine of a PM has repeatedly indicated that he’d prefer to (is more beholden to?) work with his Globalist buddies in Davos than to work with, or for, his own countrymen.
Thank you ! I was trying to put it in words but yours are better.
It just means ‘they’ have been lying to us throughout the ages, not just since 9/11 or even WWII.
No portraits here, because there’s no walls left:
https://www.winterwatch.net/2024/10/ominous-whats-happening-in-north-gaza/
Some alien dude I take it?
And what have we learned from Shakespeare’s insights of the human condition?
Fuck all.
Meanwhile, these blokes with ‘loose shirts’ are gonna save us from the next BIG ONE:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-21/vaccine-makers-in-race-to-keep-up-with-new-covid-19-strains/104483684
I guess the letters warning about the shots from Port Hedland Council to all Local Councils Australia wide haven’t had an impact.
What a surprise Plenty got drawn into the Theatre of that charade
Methinks of the “bloke”, Russell Brand
Excuse my bit of off-topic but we in Australia are currently “blessed” by a visit from our King and Queen. He’s pushing his climate change agenda as usual. Sickening to see fans lining up to see him. I wonder if a large percentage of fans have been jabbed?
“King Charles has used his Australia and Samoa royal tour to launch an initiative close to his heart. The Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) launched the King’s Commonwealth Fellowship Programme today.
It is inspired by Charles and “his life’s work to create opportunity and to tackle contemporary challenges including climate change and inequality.”
Charles made a “significant” personal donation to kick off the program that will offer fellowships for mid-career professionals, undergraduate scholarships, and PhDs for those living in Commonwealth Small Island Developing States (SIDS).”
Take ’em both diving to see the coral – back to normal.
Yes coral gets old and white and dies
That is why we have sandy almost pure white beaches in the Indian Ocean, South Pacific, and The North Atlantic
Is that the same King that owns an ocean liner, private jets, castles, mansions, stables of stock, piles of jewels, a shitload of money etc etc.
King Hypocrisy, surely.
“The instruments of darkness tell us truths.”
All nonsense of course ..
https://x.com/TonyClimate/status/1760488362711126301
Over 90% of all Australians have been jabbed!
Wondering what images Star-mer will use to replace the discarded ones. A big picture of Lenin or Bill Gates and his other doners??? Suggestions please.
Oligarch$$$$$$$$$ and CEOs,
wall to wall.
Baphomet.
Epstein’s portrait of Bill Clinton in a blue dress.
Tony Blair
The good ol’ one of Karl off
guar….course. All Liberals love that one.I don’t GAS about whether the painting is true Shakespeare or who painted it or when, why or how.
Only thing I want to know is, what art currently occupies wallspace @ Downing Street.
Scarfe’s Torydactyle? https://geraldscarfe.com/product/margaret-thatcher-torydactyl/
A spitting, or should that be salivating, image?
I can understand removing the portrait of Thatcher since its significantly larger than other portraits of past Prime Ministers. I’d have thought that there would be a gallery of portraits of everyone who’s served as PM, possibly lining a corridor or staircase, just as we have a set of past Presidents in the White House.
(Shakespeare belongs in a national collection along with other prominent artists and scientists. He’s important but he’s not the only playwright or author of prominence, even from that period. I’d expect that such pictures and other cultural artifacts of national importance to be rotated through No. 10 and similar buildings.)
It HAD to be larger Martin.
To fit her ego and her arse in.
Thatcher killed all coal factories and made millions of coal workers unemployed, but as a green PM she saved a clean environment, the clima, and the lgbt movement of Britain.
F’ck The ShakesPeare Poet I said what I thought of him, even when he was Director of Public Prosecutions, and wouldn’t let Julian Assange go…
The set up was completely obvious
I was interested in Julian Assange, cos he does computer stuff is poised, refrined, gentle and nice
So even before Craig Murray had heard of him (so far as i know), I watched almost live when Julian Assange was invited to Sweden give a TED Speech…
I knew he hadn’t raped either of them…After the gig, they had a party – and some journalists working for Aftonbladet Swedish newspaper(like the Sun and Daily Mail, reported everything they could find out) and reported it almost live
Neither of The Girls, ever accused him of Rape
The entire story, was quite obviously an American Set Up (CIA/MI6 – I doubt Mossad were interested – even though I thought he may have been working for them – possibly without knowing.
But it was our Bastard (English UK) who wouldn’t let Julian Assange Go
Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB KC (/ˈkɪər/ ⓘ KEER; born 2 September 1962) is a British politician and barrister who has been serving as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since 2024 and as Leader of the Labour Party since 2020.
TOTAL DISGRACE
Similar to the recent erection of the Daniel Andrews monument in Melbourne
All to generate maximum outrage and to psychologically mess with the population
🎶Oh Danny Boy, the pHarmers the pHarmers they are calling🎶
Love the ‘harmers’ in Pharmas – the ‘harmtosuititall’ products. So many words and names seem to contain the clues to their purpose or provenance. The Yah-yah Sin-War for example. Like we’re in a cheap knock-off simulation game where you know the baddies by their names. And Shakespeare was a perfect example – Shake your spear being a call to write in rage or flaunt your male sexual prowess. Starmer himself is great in reverse: REM rats. We’re all in a nightmare where the baddies boast their badness and Trump wins (as of course his name foretold) while Biden was just there as a place-holder, biding his time. But what does it all mean? Really nothing. Nothing is real.
What does ‘The Science’ (TM) say ?
Much ado about nothing? I enjoyed the film “Anonymous” which explores the identity of the author of the Shakesepare plays. Mark Twain once wrote a superb piece on this story which has been running for centuries now.
Yes, the man from Stratford did not write the plays and poems, as any decent biography of Edward de Vere makes plain.https://coloradodrama.com/who-wrote-shakespeare.html
The Chandos portrait is important to them because of that earring – it suggests that “Shakespeare” was dangerous, unconventional and a bit gay. The two actual images of Shakespeare closest to his lifetime – the engraving in the First Folio and in the figure in the Stratofrd monument – are anything but (and don’t much resemble each other either). They do however more resemble the man who hoarded grain or litigated against neighbours over petty debts or who left his wife his “second best bed” while not teaching either of his daughters basic literacy.
The analysis is good as far as it goes but I see an extra level – they are mocking nationalists by making them cheer for a false idol.
They are humiliating nationalists by shitting all over one of the nation’s foremost cultural heroes.
But the earring was on the “correct” side (at least in the portrait), and these guys love gay ?
And yet for all that mystery and confusion, the man in the portrait (any of them) seems to have more humanity and reality than the Starmer dummy.
😜🐷💰💰💰🙈🙉🙊💉🦠💉🦠💉
“ I feel within me a peace above all earthy dignities, a still and quiet conscience.”
William Shakespeare