Is Shakespeare Portrait Real?

There is new evidence that an unidentified portrait from a private collection may actually portray William Shakespeare. Richard Roth reports.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• is
• shakespeare
• portrait
• real
• evidence
• william

[reedme36]

Anyone with a brain.

[ChristineA67]

Ros Barber's article "Stanley Wells and the Cobbe Portrait" very reasonably questions the merits of Wells's claim.

[Xenu]

Looks like Thomas Overbury.

[edboswell]

There is believable proof that Edward de Vere was bi-sexual. He brought back a 15 year old choir boy from Italy. A spy for the King of Spain substantiated the rumor. De Vere was listed as being in the middle on the Catholic Church debate in England. So no need to bag on him. Without gays and blacks, we would be a sad culture, to be sure!!!!

[edboswell]

Bacon has been supplanted by his relative, Edward de Vere. Bacon was too young, and had too full of a life to do both. I believe he was on the Oversight committee, along with other de Vere relatives, for the 1st Folio, as Bacon had employed Ben Jonson as a secretary.. Baconians are primarily puzzle/cipher fans. MOSTLY, I do not say this to you. DeVere went to Gray's INN, and his daughter was engaged to the 3rd Earl of Southampton at the time of the "procreation sonnets". CHEERS

[skimmer1844]

the shakespeare character is a complete phoney. When you look at the evidence the man could never of wrote those plays. He uses certain legal terms that only a lawyer would use an also some are about the kings court and also are pagan. The truth of the matter is that sir francis bacon is the real shakespeare, and the word shakespeare represents athena the greek goddess whos used to shake her spear. When you look at how he used to sign his name it seemed almost iliterate. Well check it out.

[choosethat]

I agree.

I suppose that diviting into be, gay, "normal" is a "problem" of our time. And it's so strange like to think that red colour is better than blue and apple is tastier then banana )

He was a genius and no matter gay, woman or a group of people.

[BAQASHYAH]

Oh so now Shakespeare is not an historical famous person? and at 45-46 seconds of this video we're not looking at a statue of a 'Black man"? it's a historical fact that Moors populated alot of regions in Europe and even ruled some areas as well thru what's called the Dark Ages and the Middle-ages. So my point is simple, somebody is lying about how Shakespeare looked. My apologies bout the "nice try" comment it was unnecessary.

[kissfool]

First of all, spare us your sanctimonious, passive -aggressive "nice try" remark- it really means nothing but the exposure of an untenable belief.

That being said, I SAW that monument in July of 2007 and it in NO WAY looks like a "blackman," as you put it.

As to S. being "an incredibly famous historical figure," I suggest some real research into DAVID GARRICK and his contribution to S.'s fame.

I'm not sure what your point is, but could you back it up with something?

[kissfool]

Thank you! I had to explain this same thing to a group of Grad students two years ago, and they didn't get it.

[AlanHilter]

Whilst you are sort of right, you are also kind of wrong.

What one must do is dissasociate oneself from the notions of "gay", "straight" or "bi". These notions did not exist in the Elizabethan or early Jacobean world (certainly not the theatrical world!).

People fell in love with people. London in the late 16th/early 17th century was a multi-racial metrosexual city in which creed, colour, gender, sexuality simply did not matter. What a wonderful world!