tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39896157349579202702024-03-28T20:28:54.337-07:00Real Life And Real ChartsA non-academic historian explores real life and issues.
Incorporating the Real Chart.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-1037116615629873582024-03-23T09:30:00.000-07:002024-03-23T09:30:30.650-07:00Making a Model Railway Catch Point in OO<h2 style="text-align: left;"> <span style="color: red;">Making a Catch Point from an Old Point in OO Gauge </span></h2><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">First what is a Catch Point? Well in real life railways they are a point or switch to derail. You might be thinking that the whole purpose of a railway is to keep the rolling stock on the track. But before wagons were fully braked, they could run down the track and block or hit another train. So Catch Points were added to the start of the siding before it joined the main line, so that any rolling stock running away, could be derailed before it hit the main line. </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">In Model railway terms not many companies make them and they are not cheap to buy. The one featured in the following picture is made by Peco. Typically priced between £10 to £15 online, but that does not include postage! </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSno6skUiP0YgXMfbquw65WfpTdHaN1G3V6BN1CtJ0YO4H7_iRwlw3nt-Q5kzJ-p2dJer-qNUFT53Vo_mqoWUsCuVcMfmN5ufGwQ-o7dBnZGxrMT0y20xxYhZVr39p_yPDfAAFhk1lDXEfxq3VlDBoCA4A-AwRtmRYuKl_XkaC0gqjdIaxK9UAL3dmyL8C/s3948/Peco%20Catch%20Point.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1521" data-original-width="3948" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSno6skUiP0YgXMfbquw65WfpTdHaN1G3V6BN1CtJ0YO4H7_iRwlw3nt-Q5kzJ-p2dJer-qNUFT53Vo_mqoWUsCuVcMfmN5ufGwQ-o7dBnZGxrMT0y20xxYhZVr39p_yPDfAAFhk1lDXEfxq3VlDBoCA4A-AwRtmRYuKl_XkaC0gqjdIaxK9UAL3dmyL8C/w641-h252/Peco%20Catch%20Point.jpg" width="641" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">This one is set not to derail. They do look better if you weather them, remember the rail to nowhere would be covered in rust, even on the top! Loco's will loose power on the painted rail, but it's going to fall off anyway! See below:</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6cmUWTEizLAxoeGqj6YkcJ1HZbslVsvLERPcJPTlHapvn1eHJ179Tn_Tln3NQJhQrrrulfdjUxFZNUbFnjwi0TacKBPkfYzP78ngrmC85l6d2fTcJZPEE0Xuld9Bi8rkqAb9vfJBwrSKds5fSpz2RreGgwK517ruPisd1kJM7zKNt2L18lgJ8itAX3zSw/s4013/Peco%20Catch%20Point%20weathered.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1549" data-original-width="4013" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6cmUWTEizLAxoeGqj6YkcJ1HZbslVsvLERPcJPTlHapvn1eHJ179Tn_Tln3NQJhQrrrulfdjUxFZNUbFnjwi0TacKBPkfYzP78ngrmC85l6d2fTcJZPEE0Xuld9Bi8rkqAb9vfJBwrSKds5fSpz2RreGgwK517ruPisd1kJM7zKNt2L18lgJ8itAX3zSw/w659-h258/Peco%20Catch%20Point%20weathered.jpg" width="659" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">However looking at the real things I discovered that most do NOT have the wooden ramp! </span><p></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiCbQ5VnT0rrtAHJb_dyPLXZKftJaXSMSJmxMv3FCHihfoubqJXDmUG3CApXrFM-0lk7CcSoQTf1qLIfabJGCb5oja5kG-J8Xev3qb-U9RwOpqRJ_RCHTUTqmgdScMD8E3M-G4iOEY1janTLX-Yfhsm4F4f8MR-BQ6_a2v7xbb5VsPAnq87KglpImjB_kiv" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="132" data-original-width="220" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiCbQ5VnT0rrtAHJb_dyPLXZKftJaXSMSJmxMv3FCHihfoubqJXDmUG3CApXrFM-0lk7CcSoQTf1qLIfabJGCb5oja5kG-J8Xev3qb-U9RwOpqRJ_RCHTUTqmgdScMD8E3M-G4iOEY1janTLX-Yfhsm4F4f8MR-BQ6_a2v7xbb5VsPAnq87KglpImjB_kiv" width="320" /></a></span></div><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">So how do you make one? You need a damaged or old point. Needless to say you must have a switch blade of the point that can still be moved. Plus it must be the side of the deflection line. </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">You then go to work with a track cutting tool. The picture below shows you were to cut the track with the cutters using the arrows as a guide. I find the best tool are "snips" which will cut through anything. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIggt9vRLCPwBj6v1qLDT6gK0TEQwkt7pOqy-G3r6tr_DhoZkK8Dk0GECorCaLgsX0Qqhnkm5gzCKOGqxRFIHyLhY2vfysBlDT5KRKpdn8-rE4opnaCeLPj7mfG-zgTuTOEltwTWPQv1rLwCc-nM37k-VJYsB2iFwfkL4mVNQyegh2qNMPhhMMM4PcxP1i/s4249/Peco%20LH%20point%20marked%20up.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1440" data-original-width="4249" height="227" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIggt9vRLCPwBj6v1qLDT6gK0TEQwkt7pOqy-G3r6tr_DhoZkK8Dk0GECorCaLgsX0Qqhnkm5gzCKOGqxRFIHyLhY2vfysBlDT5KRKpdn8-rE4opnaCeLPj7mfG-zgTuTOEltwTWPQv1rLwCc-nM37k-VJYsB2iFwfkL4mVNQyegh2qNMPhhMMM4PcxP1i/w673-h227/Peco%20LH%20point%20marked%20up.jpg" width="673" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgzjUPIwwX1snF_yXz5wXrU-MiR-J4lrpbFnpiqQAqA0qTeEgNLcHcDGnjTxFjZP_sJ1VLl8N5vCDUAXCl9IK9hsqzTPBjjy_aZIPd_8BGOr25Alttf14HCw1ciooKc4x6Ggu-uie6jv-nr3oKz5a--RvoSF83VYRjAOAz-v_MZuz5_hZpNK8EHB8kOsE2b" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="673" data-original-width="894" height="508" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgzjUPIwwX1snF_yXz5wXrU-MiR-J4lrpbFnpiqQAqA0qTeEgNLcHcDGnjTxFjZP_sJ1VLl8N5vCDUAXCl9IK9hsqzTPBjjy_aZIPd_8BGOr25Alttf14HCw1ciooKc4x6Ggu-uie6jv-nr3oKz5a--RvoSF83VYRjAOAz-v_MZuz5_hZpNK8EHB8kOsE2b=w674-h508" width="674" /></a></span></div><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br />You must also remove the unused point switch blade, plus the remaining rail that takes it to the other track. </span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">File away or cut away the where this rail lay. In the case of the completed point (seen below) I have not completely lost the scarring of the sleepers. As this looks it might have indeed been used once, or more, causing the wheels of a wagon to damage the sleepers. Metal on Wood! </span><p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVnkDxmWsaNSTLxD4m6UkdKorryn7L1EUWNLiqWVX6_lHjf-GIZooT43m5Mq08yC7YROQ3rGHaaihH0mfkZ8II1J6BLdVccY4-YyDmzJfm5hfhTv7NSr2s5RRArjav49pygsE78zwPw3mYkZ2FxffydfYqwCasUX5C-LO9AReyteBbIubieS34DSiIjTpC/s4180/Peco%20converted%20point.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1960" data-original-width="4180" height="316" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVnkDxmWsaNSTLxD4m6UkdKorryn7L1EUWNLiqWVX6_lHjf-GIZooT43m5Mq08yC7YROQ3rGHaaihH0mfkZ8II1J6BLdVccY4-YyDmzJfm5hfhTv7NSr2s5RRArjav49pygsE78zwPw3mYkZ2FxffydfYqwCasUX5C-LO9AReyteBbIubieS34DSiIjTpC/w674-h316/Peco%20converted%20point.jpg" width="674" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">You can also do this to a Hornby point. I have started on the one below. Hornby point blades do have a circular clip that holds them on, but you can cover this up with a thin balsa piece. I have yet to remove the unused point switch and cut away the remains of where the rail layed. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmjUm4Rh5hOZMXryDLnABdjasPXikNnlEANQtUnjWQxx3bDMFmxrOhIZ4fEPmVA6HAzm_1VnUVEr90O29-cVW1yPdMRLybiws6itOmt1zZnB6tDBd4C3_Rc1fNwlLMBy4ujqzfe6RyxlozlK-aVZkQ05teDruYdmBovrSTaCcxX-EqbC_1mtKWe_OOMTcQ/s4143/Hornby%20point%20RH.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2119" data-original-width="4143" height="344" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmjUm4Rh5hOZMXryDLnABdjasPXikNnlEANQtUnjWQxx3bDMFmxrOhIZ4fEPmVA6HAzm_1VnUVEr90O29-cVW1yPdMRLybiws6itOmt1zZnB6tDBd4C3_Rc1fNwlLMBy4ujqzfe6RyxlozlK-aVZkQ05teDruYdmBovrSTaCcxX-EqbC_1mtKWe_OOMTcQ/w672-h344/Hornby%20point%20RH.jpg" width="672" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><br /></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-72043233586711361962023-11-12T04:17:00.000-08:002023-11-12T04:17:52.823-08:00Switching from Windows 7 to Windows 10<p> <span style="color: #38761d; text-align: center;">My computer system was getting a bit old and so I was looking at building a new system. If you are building a computer up from scratch I have found an excellent site called PCPartPicker. This allows you to select the various parts and shows you what is compatible with any parts you select. It also compares the parts prices on websites. It can be used by anyone around the World as it will select the supplies in your region of the World. It's free to join and doesn't cost you anything. There's even a forum that you post questions about your build. </span></p><p><span style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff00fe;">PC Part Picker</span></a><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d; text-align: center;">Everything is purchased for the build. I have gone with an ASUS Z690-A motherboard. The test was carried out, but I hit a problem with the memory modules. I went with the Corsair Vengeance DDR5 32GB. It comes in two 16GB sticks. But the yellow light on the computer board came on, indicating a problem with these. I tried them all in each of the four slots, both together and alone, but no result. Checking around the web showed this was a problem with them and that motherboard. So I purchased two Kingston Fury Beast and fitted them in the suggested slots. Still no result! So I removed one and it worked!! It still wouldn't boot! This time the light came on for a problem with the hard drives. It doesn't tell you which. I suspected one or more of the SATA cables. Four altogether! So I order some more, these came in threes so I ordered two packets. These came during the heatwave. So I wasn't going to mess around with the computer in that! So the operation was put on hold till the following week. </span><span style="color: #38761d; text-align: center;"> </span><span style="color: #38761d; text-align: center;">When I made some progress with the device. I did replace the cables, but it made no difference! Looking on-line I found a helpful result. Apparently the green/yellow LED also tells you if you have no operating system installed as it can't boot from that! Also that the direct HDMI connector to the Monitor doesn't show the motherboard system. So I used an adaptor which had the multi pin and one horizontal flat pin to an HDMI connector. And the screen came to life! I quickly was able to establish that all the Hard Drives were working, but it seems some of the fans were in the wrong sockets! So I changed them over. It's not clear which sockets are for fans as some are listed for both the fan and water cooling devices! I was also able to fit the other Kingston in the first black socket and got that to work. </span></p><div><span style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #38761d;">You can see the new computer in the following photos:</span></span></div><div><span style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGvDLjWLeH0QXvQ8IYSoxCqGvvEfFIfRRBr7YSJm0-FQO5Ta6EGTQB55pzrJ5Z2PRYmTLm1ObIMpMSgtvKHI9_CzbBp0qcvi6rr1CjsgfQEJANLfKh3k2NfNosfpntf10nRsGnDluLqx9NQRuqVzznT5VYbmbxfErDPAsgCUOAihXRk2KF5S_nNb4XboeR/s4288/New%20Computer%20working%2014%209%202023.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3216" data-original-width="4288" height="433" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGvDLjWLeH0QXvQ8IYSoxCqGvvEfFIfRRBr7YSJm0-FQO5Ta6EGTQB55pzrJ5Z2PRYmTLm1ObIMpMSgtvKHI9_CzbBp0qcvi6rr1CjsgfQEJANLfKh3k2NfNosfpntf10nRsGnDluLqx9NQRuqVzznT5VYbmbxfErDPAsgCUOAihXRk2KF5S_nNb4XboeR/w578-h433/New%20Computer%20working%2014%209%202023.JPG" width="578" /></a></div><br /> <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTvVaa7VmIPx2A83LMf3_gIPWhkppKR0fopvw6kXPGKYJ3GVpulKupVjRhdmLX2-nPMmiLtCGlIXke7t6er40hqBNG_qTyLbOoERit19rE3gJkEB-n3CLqvFRPPjGFZeziNmWkQWphhhKY6bBXTe1XVWERz4XpDUp-nIh4lrn2krxBC6uAg0G3qdTsIP-L/s4288/Graham's%20desk%20with%20new%20and%20old%20computer%2014%20Sep%202023.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3216" data-original-width="4288" height="438" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTvVaa7VmIPx2A83LMf3_gIPWhkppKR0fopvw6kXPGKYJ3GVpulKupVjRhdmLX2-nPMmiLtCGlIXke7t6er40hqBNG_qTyLbOoERit19rE3gJkEB-n3CLqvFRPPjGFZeziNmWkQWphhhKY6bBXTe1XVWERz4XpDUp-nIh4lrn2krxBC6uAg0G3qdTsIP-L/w583-h438/Graham's%20desk%20with%20new%20and%20old%20computer%2014%20Sep%202023.JPG" width="583" /></a></div>The first photo shows the side window with the workings. On the bottom the big box is the Power Supply with all the thick white cables coming from it. Just above you can see the graphics card with the metal cooling on it. Above that with the two white cables can be see the cooling fan of the CPU. To the right is the holder for the disc drive and one of the hard drives. The other two being in a case to the right of the power supply.</span></span></div><div><span style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #38761d;">The second picture shows the unit in place. The old black computer at the side powered on. The black keyboard is for the old computer, the new one behind is the same type with a dust cover on it. The power bank on the wall has the two supplies for the monitors resting on it. The one to the left is for the new one. At the side of the keyboard is the large calculator I use for adding up sales. Then the A3 scanner with the A4 scanner and some setting up tools sat on top. </span></span></div><div><span style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: red;">Ongoing.... </span></span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d; text-align: center;">When the brand new Windows 10 Pro DVD was tried, the disc worked and took me to the language selection and then started. Only to be greeted with the message of missing drivers! Searching the net produced little solutions especially from the Microsoft site. There are a couple of YouTube ones, but I had no success with any of them. One video tells you to go to the intel site for a file, but then in the comments points out it has been removed. The chap placed it on Google Drive, but gives no instructions as to what to do next with it. I tried the file anyway and it did nothing! Next I bought a flash drive, costing £18, which supposedly fixes Windows 10 problems. I tried it and still got the same missing driver screen. I tried the repair part of the disc. But the computer hung up. So I had to remove the drive. When I tried it again it didn't do anything! I tried it on my old machine and that treated it as blank storage device! So something must have erased or corrupted the USB stick. So I have finished up with an expensive USB stick! I went to the ASUS website and downloaded any drivers and files from them. I did try them last Sunday and it worked! So I began the adding of the software that came on discs to the new computer. I had a very old Microsoft Works Suite from 2004, which on the Windows 7 system always needed permission to access things like Word. So I was convinced it wouldn't work at all! But it did and it doesn't ask for permission either. Haven't tried to see if it crashes during operation though. Page Plus X7 used to do the charts installed and works. The Video editing software that is most uptodate I have works with 10 anyway. Next operation was software from the net. Most of these were free versions so I had no problems with them. Except one - Freecad. Looking at the blurb on it it was only suitable for Windows 7. No Windows 10 version has been issued. If you have installed the Windows 7 on 10 and it works OK. Let me know in the comments. There's a number of Apps to still install. I like the Easy Audio Editor software. But you have to download it and they charge you every time you do so. Which is annoying. The main thing to transfer is the bookmarks and logins for the browsers. Which is explained as being simple to transfer, especially by the browser people, but is far from it. One thing you cannot do is link to computers to the same internet connector using a splitter. Either one will connect and the other will not. Some take longer to connect even if the other is shut down. It's like the signal is going to the other computer before getting to the one working first! Since I back up the the files on a portable hard drive(s). It should be easy to transfer them to the new computer. </span></div><div><span style="color: red; text-align: center;">15 October update</span><span style="color: #38761d; text-align: center;"> - Managed to transfer the bookmarks, but attempts to put them on the browser bar at the top, didn't work and I finished up with three sets of the same bookmarks in folders marked "imported". The passwords were easy to transfer, but you have to do it separately. I have noticed a display problem too. Where the screen looks like you get on a TV when a 4:3 aspect is made to fit a wide setting. The text also is not as sharp as the LG monitor too. Both of these problems were answered by the fact that the Samsung monitor has a lower resolution than my LG! I tried the LG on the new computer. It did look a lot better, it was even possible to connect them both and switch between screens! I discovered that the best way to transfer the bookmarks to the browser was to find the place they are located select them all and then copy them. Then open up the browser folder where they would sit and past them there. They then appear! There was an old set of bookmarks, but I couldn't copy them to the USB stick at all. I couldn't get Firefox to export that individual set of bookmarks, it simply transferred the lot! I am going to try copying the original bookmark file and see if that will work on the new system. There's is one more issue to solve. The number generator for the PayPal system. These issues are stopping any complete transfer to the new computer. So work and even doing this blog is still on the old system. </span></div><div><span style="color: red; text-align: center;">29 October update.</span><span style="color: #38761d; text-align: center;"> The original bookmark file did copy to the browser. So that is set. And I did sort out the generator for PayPal. The last thing now was to copy all the old files from the back up disc to the new computer. This take about five hours! </span></div><div><span style="color: red; text-align: center;">5 November update</span><span style="color: #38761d; text-align: center;"> - two problems happened. First on Thursday the Canon scanner was acting up. I eventually got the problem solved by going to the Canon website installing the software for Windows 10. The next issue was the Authy App, which produces a code for signing in to PayPal. It produced the code alright, but the site didn't recognise it! I contacted both PayPal and the Authy App sites, but that produced no results. So I started up the old computer, log on to PayPal and used the Authy App to sign in and then took 2 party authentication off. When I signed in it asked for a phone number added the landline and it produced numbers on the computer which I had to use on the phone. That solved the problem. I have deleted the app from my new computer. I reckon if I wanted it to work, that I would need to delete the Authy account. Then create a new one, adding all the devices again. I would need to delete it from the old computer of course!</span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d; text-align: center;">Got this message also from Authy Support:</span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d; text-align: center;">My name is Jairo and I'm a Support Engineer here at Twilio. We pride ourselves on
delivering a great customer experience but I understand the app on the
new desktop did not work, I want to ensure your questions/concerns have
been addressed.<br />Please note that the reason why the new desktop
the codes displayed there didn't work on your account, is because your
old device it's unsynced from your Authy account, therefore any new
device won't sync the token seen in your old device. I strongly
recommend enabling backups in your old device and make sure the codes
displayed in your old device is also seen in your new device, to make
sure both are synced. <br /> <br />Please take a look at the below article to understand how Backups works and enable this feature.<br /> <br /><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://support.authy.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058321994-What-if-I-Don-t-Backup-my-Authy-Account-?source%3Dsearch&source=gmail&ust=1699877624318000&usg=AOvVaw0wEqsRhpTRdFQX0lMdCdog" href="https://support.authy.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058321994-What-if-I-Don-t-Backup-my-Authy-Account-?source=search" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">What if I Don't Backup my Authy Account?</a></span></div><div><span style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #38761d;">. </span></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-505866036680378202023-03-23T04:20:00.001-07:002023-06-28T13:01:20.060-07:00Enlargement of a map to a big size and printing it? <p> <span style="color: #38761d;">This is a problem I need help with. As some of you are aware I want to build a model railway of the Sheffield Victoria and Nunnery area in OO/HO gauge (4 mm Scale). To do this I have to make the railway board about 10 feet wide and 70 feet long. Where to house this is another problem, that I won't go into in this post. Now to get it as accurate as possible, I have got a map from the Ordinance Survey which covers the section. However the map I have is only 11.5 inches longs (29 cm) and 1.5 inches (3.3 cm) wide when printed to an A4 Sheet. Now if the map was scaled up to the 4 mm scale it would come out at the 10 feet (275 cm) wide requirement and I think the length would be 70 feet (2133.6 cm) about. The problem is that I don't have the ability to enlarge the map to that size, or print it off. I have tried scaling the image to that size without success. What happens is that the original image has space around it and it scales the space - not the image. Also because there is a curve section making the image look like a sock, I can't using the software I have cut the image away from the space. Or at least when I do the saved imaged still has space around it. So that is my problem! </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">Obviously I don't expect the image to be printed on to a massive sheet of paper 70 x 10 feet! I was thinking that it could be printed on some of the larger sheets of paper A3 upwards in sections. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">So can it actually be scaled up to that size and then printed out in sections? </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">If you can help or you are a commercial printer get in touch below. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">The image is below. As for the costs, I have a figure that I could stretch to at the present time, but I don't want to encourage someone to offer to do it at that price, when it could be done for less by posting it. I do know it won't be cheap. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5_PLRIxoG8Rgm70PVHfLyekV1SK5EsLIFE-j1akPkpjd3A2A5H8mJRX27wWtsWyq-RR8YvwUfJq7DGY2T56Glh1s1Zf9awdV1Ix6NTwrNA5MCDQaAXvwjEU1-no2oyevW_rpROVMq38fVS3CZ4qYiR0i8DmpCJYtLOjQGSO_nROiRpbRGnozjlvPq6w/s6890/Railway%20area%20plan.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: red;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1573" data-original-width="6890" height="146" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5_PLRIxoG8Rgm70PVHfLyekV1SK5EsLIFE-j1akPkpjd3A2A5H8mJRX27wWtsWyq-RR8YvwUfJq7DGY2T56Glh1s1Zf9awdV1Ix6NTwrNA5MCDQaAXvwjEU1-no2oyevW_rpROVMq38fVS3CZ4qYiR0i8DmpCJYtLOjQGSO_nROiRpbRGnozjlvPq6w/w645-h146/Railway%20area%20plan.jpg" width="645" /></span></a></div><span style="color: red;">Update 28 June</span><div><span style="color: #38761d;">I have imported the map into Templot. This is free software that allows you to scale maps to model railway sizes. It was really set up to allow you to build your own track and make your plans to construct the layout. Now it does take a lot of figuring out to work it. And though I was able to get the map into the software, if it was printed out at the 4 mm scale each piece of A4 paper would have a very block effect on the map so you would see the individual pixels of the drawing and not a solid line or shape. </span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;">The way around this I have discovered is to simply enlarge the map slightly so it keeps the detail, but use the blue square grid of the software that divides the map into 1 foot square sections. From that you can transpose the detail onto the model railway baseboard by dividing the board into one foot square sections that correspond to the map. This way you can see where each part of the map takes up the space. So a building can be marked off in the square it sits and measured up. </span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp64EnVx41FEh0xOjYzmu5o9c04xQ4NgD6v5FtwPuqzocUwGKaZhBRnQmaFsNyRF3KtFXZHWIEcUyDu_DrCJqT-TJke91G4izp-5kBjSm0LwTGNNggoLoGnt7MREE8ZzSNy6oCVUs1RieQVE9ZgrRwkzQa9gcowO2CyrY7IQ87QKHKFY8VbAeRAEvnrKz9/s2463/trackpad%20%20map.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="857" data-original-width="2463" height="219" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp64EnVx41FEh0xOjYzmu5o9c04xQ4NgD6v5FtwPuqzocUwGKaZhBRnQmaFsNyRF3KtFXZHWIEcUyDu_DrCJqT-TJke91G4izp-5kBjSm0LwTGNNggoLoGnt7MREE8ZzSNy6oCVUs1RieQVE9ZgrRwkzQa9gcowO2CyrY7IQ87QKHKFY8VbAeRAEvnrKz9/w633-h219/trackpad%20%20map.jpg" width="633" /></a></div><br /> The above map shows the scaling down each side and more details of the surrounding area, which I won't be using. The blue lines are the tracks that you have to put in to get the map to print out in the software. </span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYcERwFipRW7rvYxovm-2g0Csh362MJE212XI-2MqXQ5zH7oPTHQUa0qLCfXsPdcHTGEZe15q3fcttzs5iX2Whrb4BzkzheNwuEPGOFI7WpIMLeMogxAvNXBEbeP1ySWjNLwE35lEjZdmr0rCcZxv-1_x1nG8LsccilT0LX1nolk1KbCZY1xuAW-bODj85/s2463/trackpad%20%20map%20alter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="857" data-original-width="2463" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYcERwFipRW7rvYxovm-2g0Csh362MJE212XI-2MqXQ5zH7oPTHQUa0qLCfXsPdcHTGEZe15q3fcttzs5iX2Whrb4BzkzheNwuEPGOFI7WpIMLeMogxAvNXBEbeP1ySWjNLwE35lEjZdmr0rCcZxv-1_x1nG8LsccilT0LX1nolk1KbCZY1xuAW-bODj85/w625-h217/trackpad%20%20map%20alter.jpg" width="625" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #38761d;">The next map is a cut down version of the other map. It would have to a couple of feet on the upper end of Victoria Station to take in the Wicker bridge. But it looses a foot on the Woodbourne Bridge end. This makes the whole thing about 76 foot long! </span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;">You can see a more detail section on the map below. </span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl24UoGKf7-YBFrft3Imr5lgNIWND4ErVR8vbcJlxgXq6KiasJBPM0_DNQzJSSZs8YzprTdvy9bWZfy4GE2ojEkxpTNkteAv1Nr7Zokchha4FshZztVo8wEBGWfvgVQjEdY5jryh5OOYkSDBVh0zB61WTWA6HYPPdSFhdMfDv8Zr0L5JgQoViW4TmcZ7M9/s1303/Canal%20Bridge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="925" data-original-width="1303" height="443" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl24UoGKf7-YBFrft3Imr5lgNIWND4ErVR8vbcJlxgXq6KiasJBPM0_DNQzJSSZs8YzprTdvy9bWZfy4GE2ojEkxpTNkteAv1Nr7Zokchha4FshZztVo8wEBGWfvgVQjEdY5jryh5OOYkSDBVh0zB61WTWA6HYPPdSFhdMfDv8Zr0L5JgQoViW4TmcZ7M9/w624-h443/Canal%20Bridge.jpg" width="624" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #38761d;">This is a larger scale map and dates to 1970. Ignore the red balloon and the green track TL001. As you can see the yellow track from the software matches the distance of the map track. The blue squares stand out more, the the map also had grid reference squares which show as grey black lines. </span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;">The scaling of these maps helped to find the kink in the track starting position. Up to that point from Woodbourne Bridge the boards would be standard width boards. I have yet to decided on the width of the layout. I think I could get away with an 8 foot width. As I would have to have a strip down the side to get more in. Most plywood sheets come in fixed sizes, so an 8 x 4 foot, if they were laid along the straight section, that would use up 14 boards. I think that would be better than having them laid along the section in two's, thus avoid creating a join along the middle of the layout. As the layout is full of different levels. The plywood could be as little as 5 mm thick. Since no track will actually be at that level. The final kink section would take another 5 boards. </span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span><span style="color: #38761d;"> </span><p></p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-3833595126274501602022-10-28T14:05:00.001-07:002022-10-29T07:30:26.718-07:00Am I That Good Looking?<h2 style="text-align: left;"> <span style="color: red;">Looking at dating sites</span></h2><div><div><span style="color: #38761d;">A couple of weeks ago I was checking my spam box to see if something important had slipped through. Especially as I switched from BT Mail to G-Mail a few years ago. And though the former e-mail address are redirected from the inbox on BT Mail, the ones marked spam by BT are not and sent just to the spam box. So I saw one that looked like someone I knew was trying to contact me. Of course it turned out to a web site link to a dating site called MyDates. Not only that it created an account there using my e-mail address. Giving me the generic age of 42. Now I have never used a dating site before so I thought I would give it a go. So I corrected my age and uploaded the photo I used at the start of my Shakespeare video. Plus some details which to be honest I thought would put them off me. But nothing did. Within a short time I was snowballed with women from all over Yorkshire and some further a field. </span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;">I was only on the site a few weeks and in that time over 140 women and put a "like" on me. One even said she went all "weak in the knees" at my picture. They were aged between 31 and 65. So what went wrong. Was I really that good looking to women? I couldn't tell from the site. The problem is that in order to talk to others you have to have "coins" and one message costs 50 coins. The good thing is you can send very long messages. But I guess that most uses use mobile phones and thus do not send ages on a monologue to send. This site is quite generous when it comes to the coins, it starts you with so many free coins and allows a wheel to get free coins, one free spin a day otherwise a gamble of 25 coins! Even so an expensive call to make. I did pay for some more coins, about £10 worth, just to see if it could go anywhere with some of the women. But when I ran out I gave up. The profiles of the women were basic. Most had not filled in the about me section. I suspect that again that would be down to the mobile phone thing. Which also explains why everyone is always on line. Some people have said this is due to the operators of the site have paid staff working for them and even if this is the case, which I seriously doubt, they would need a call centre of staff to deal with it. Automated sometimes, but some replies I got back were too detailed to be fake. I also knew that it is common to use a fake picture, something got from another site. So I download every picture of the women I was interested in and put them on a search engine. I found only a few fake ones. Mostly from the Yandex image search. Ironically the Google search found nothing, since it's so security conscious these days, that it also protects the people scamming you. Microsoft's Bing search is brother chip to it. Recently Yandex has tightened it's search criteria giving you a more bland image search. It used to have three settings, one which was totally safe. The site doesn't even have that option now. One woman I thought was to good to be true, turned out not to be from Yorkshire, but was from Prague. (See picture)</span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjndZxTQwx4jfYa0CWgRPKlh1WyWz1D8P6ixAEuD6vGmjP2SraMBRs9CFhUGBfMcXyu05-Zz86bUleM1UzYd67NFWJ4pqCgrGXfju6FJHdh_iRFBhumDnpDII2IPJQI5BTmH3ZnYGa3icpwoPAfT2hBo4FT9rmp2dBH0hte8z4WVT1V1OABC84AIOomRw/s1080/Tum%20Tum.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1080" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjndZxTQwx4jfYa0CWgRPKlh1WyWz1D8P6ixAEuD6vGmjP2SraMBRs9CFhUGBfMcXyu05-Zz86bUleM1UzYd67NFWJ4pqCgrGXfju6FJHdh_iRFBhumDnpDII2IPJQI5BTmH3ZnYGa3icpwoPAfT2hBo4FT9rmp2dBH0hte8z4WVT1V1OABC84AIOomRw/s320/Tum%20Tum.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><span style="color: #38761d;">I put this to her and she ignored me. Giving out more messages of love. </span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;">I told one about my system of looking at picture of people </span><span style="color: #38761d;">(see the Strange But True page of this blog). </span><span style="color: #38761d;">You would expect some kind of reaction. I got "have you ever smoked in bed after sex?" </span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;">I added to my profile to visit my blog site to get to know me. But not one mentioned it or visited my blog. After the site I tried the dating site Match. But I soon discovered that in order to message or even see the people who liked your profile you had to pay a fee! The only thing I got was lot's of profiles, but you could only answer yes or no to them, never maybe, before moving on to the next profile. Every day I got e-mails of these, but no actual contact from women. So I quit. </span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;">Next was another website owned by the MyDates people called Flirt or something like it. Again coin based, more profiles, but less free coins and no wheel to get more. I got an interesting woman called Caroline, who did react to my question about pictures, which freaked her out a bit, but didn't put her off. She even said that I was a blogger! </span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7rjNS2I_L6hNhfH2k3XgjXmlcmeQUbL_IKXjqUWPhdK10C0-UdzbnPr70VhGpS6VoweP0p6QyKjCf0PFnIuF_HVJyKRH4OcwjQ_pYpklbr5UQ446mOKzlN-Cuz-rezoD8mdKx4QQjvquXN8AXrjARyX-x1npbuKMPjXY41Ov7U47GHCYGpK4jpaDLQA/s1080/Caroline%2046%20Hucknall%20Torkard.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1080" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7rjNS2I_L6hNhfH2k3XgjXmlcmeQUbL_IKXjqUWPhdK10C0-UdzbnPr70VhGpS6VoweP0p6QyKjCf0PFnIuF_HVJyKRH4OcwjQ_pYpklbr5UQ446mOKzlN-Cuz-rezoD8mdKx4QQjvquXN8AXrjARyX-x1npbuKMPjXY41Ov7U47GHCYGpK4jpaDLQA/s320/Caroline%2046%20Hucknall%20Torkard.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;">Again loads of women, though nearly all where not "my type" to put it mildly. With both of these sites if you looked at a person's profile, you often got them messaging you back, saying what was up. This was because the notification system would send you a message every time someone saw you profile or liked you, not just who sent you a message. Another indication was if you looked at a profile, that someone would look at yours and not then do anything about it. Clearly they were put off and thus at least a real person. I first paid another £10 for coins, but when this ran out I went to get some more at that price only to find that the minimum was now £24. So that was that. I went on two more sites, both very naughty ones. Called Extreme Chat and MILF room. These are sex chat sites. However NOT one of the pictures there are the women behind the profiles. For Yandex showed them all to be porn stars. Or sex pictures off the net. I noticed that even a fully clothed women had the logo of a porn site on it (hamster). </span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;">I have to say that some of the women from the dating sites, did pass the picture test. I told a couple of them that too. One I asked her to try my picture using the same technique. But she thought this was strange. However that's me! </span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;">I have to say that if these sites are true I would have hundreds of women chasing me. And in my entire life I have not found that to be true. Even when I worked alongside many women. So I will leave readers to decide how good looking my profile picture is or was. </span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuM8WBxYl4hZr82hhb7vSRmaVrJe3-eRUghygX4YIVvphPDcTpp2r9aG1DTrsCv9lF8fsdzJcUO70VBkPWLi8P2Z9E-cl35f8oamoc2iO4LJOdDdKV5xWfrpEZoNEa1NpvazgY0NCjAAclEB6lHJlJs5d_xmX6R8ymKOyRMFV5cS62Zp46_FG9djlxVg/s1944/Graham%20Avator.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1426" data-original-width="1944" height="271" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuM8WBxYl4hZr82hhb7vSRmaVrJe3-eRUghygX4YIVvphPDcTpp2r9aG1DTrsCv9lF8fsdzJcUO70VBkPWLi8P2Z9E-cl35f8oamoc2iO4LJOdDdKV5xWfrpEZoNEa1NpvazgY0NCjAAclEB6lHJlJs5d_xmX6R8ymKOyRMFV5cS62Zp46_FG9djlxVg/w369-h271/Graham%20Avator.JPG" width="369" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;">As for me I have done with the dating sites. I did try a completely free dating site. The same sort of profile. Not one message, about five visitors, three of which had no profile picture! I looked at another site, but by the look of it profiles are not removed, even though by the look of it the first contact was over 10 years in some cases! And the number of women on the site was small in number, compared to men and many were very restrictive into what they were looking for in men. It is called Love Awake, but I think it would be a waste of time joining it. </span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #38761d;">There was one last thing one woman called Nikki who said was from Doncaster on one of the sites, that I picked up on just before my coins ran out. So I wasn't able to get back in touch. It was the site wanting lots more money for coins. I suddenly had visions or my imagination running wild with me, of her being in my house. I sought of saw her sat aside me once while watching TV. I have had these before. Nothing comes of it, but this is what she looked like anyway just in case she does find this site. </span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUXeNiLjwcJ5LgQRWiRpQ5qtp7hEx0P5GO_ZX5QBSZGLXDmHl67rZMoNJdyYqcMuNwHBfW0c3JYnYvjuji5CLBjZ5wgIHTLNLqXCGSSlWEdR4Pqt7Gr7gIRdaCdGgzBsxjJd9EGino6SkBoP-1XV49SlFeQpIIRSt6LoDVlseVhVcY7J2XI1cepnhHyA/s1080/Nikki%2041%20Doncaster.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1080" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUXeNiLjwcJ5LgQRWiRpQ5qtp7hEx0P5GO_ZX5QBSZGLXDmHl67rZMoNJdyYqcMuNwHBfW0c3JYnYvjuji5CLBjZ5wgIHTLNLqXCGSSlWEdR4Pqt7Gr7gIRdaCdGgzBsxjJd9EGino6SkBoP-1XV49SlFeQpIIRSt6LoDVlseVhVcY7J2XI1cepnhHyA/s320/Nikki%2041%20Doncaster.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #38761d;">Just a footnote to add. The other day I was checking the MyDates link and seeing if it had deleted my profile. Of course the dam thing signed me up again. So I thought I would see what will happen if I put my picture on and added something to the profile to say that I was back on. I was also given 200 coins enough for four free messages. So that's what I did. I visited each one of the women that had "liked" my profile and waited to see what they would say. The strangest thing then happened, first I got messages from the same saying I was new on here. And not one of the women recognised me. Not even the one that went weak at the knees over my picture. So the entire lot seemed to have no memory of me or the conversations we had. So using my 200 coins up I contacted four of them, telling them that. Including the "weak in the knees" woman, saying that she had lost her mind. She replied thanking me for the compliment!!! And that she would go out with an older man. In fact none of the replies got acknowledge that I had been on before, even though it was in my profile. Some members that had not contacted me previously also message me after being on, saying I was "new". By the way the Prague woman has now moved to Sheffield. I can't help but think that the entire lot were paid operators by the Dutch company that operates the site. Where they get the profile pictures from is anyone's guess. Maybe they are from former people that have used the site, quit after forking out some cash. It strikes me that there are just too many women on the site. Plus I noticed a lot of names that were all the same. For example lots of Isabells. I noticed to a lack of more common names such as Carol and Susan. When I was being message they always used the profile name. The site for example picked graham.appleyard. They would quote that too. If I was responding to the person I would have said Graham, or Mr Appleyard. One last thing the online reviews of the site are dreadful and I am surprised that the firm hasn't being prosecuted under the law. Those profile pictures must belong to real people and they are taking 1000's of them from somewhere. I have since deleted the account again. So you shouldn't be able to see my picture there. If you were to look. If you do go there and see my picture (the one above) let me know and will take action about it. </span></div><div style="color: red;"><br /></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-87268257522426016332021-09-20T08:26:00.001-07:002021-10-12T07:03:32.431-07:00Is it the Titanic or the Olympic at the bottom of the sea?<p><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">Is it the Titanic or the Olympic at the bottom of the sea? </span> </p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">I came across these photos today which pose and interesting question. Back in 1912 the Titanic struck an iceberg and sunk to the bottom of the sea. In 1985 it was found and images were taken of it. However some of the images do not match the actual photos taken at the time of the ship. Clearly something is wrong. The photo's do however match the sister ship of the Titanic, that of the Olympic! </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">So which sunk? </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">There are several differences between the two ships mostly around the names and the portholes. Here is a comparison between the two ships:</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtKaQIe-toC4ohBQ5GRbjAtgOe0gPWBIMyVtGM25UdLcXZR7tWHN9l51LzgutibQk1ewoJwKfFtrj-l-FDXuJiKqxXeIY3On9IP6CC0LA4aFmIwu1WJUYP-vQa7_epTpOnNd3UcKXF-B4w/s759/original.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="328" data-original-width="759" height="253" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtKaQIe-toC4ohBQ5GRbjAtgOe0gPWBIMyVtGM25UdLcXZR7tWHN9l51LzgutibQk1ewoJwKfFtrj-l-FDXuJiKqxXeIY3On9IP6CC0LA4aFmIwu1WJUYP-vQa7_epTpOnNd3UcKXF-B4w/w588-h253/original.webp" width="588" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #38761d;">As you can see the Titanic has larger windows. Also note the rectangler hole on the Olympic just below the curve of the structure. Not present on the Titanic. </span><p></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">Now have a look at the wreck pictures and comparisons with that. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4I2Ir3IpUYlwkUOCM44sfdVR8KKArAbU5d2rODgHRgBpfkBi4PTNxXvmOPsAxepmSsdWmBupDJgq8QbO0d8Nvzatg2MJZiUz7NkOx85DgQtOpviozbKxB8udbA98ZNh9BLR_YYMWjw0o9/s943/titanic.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="943" data-original-width="804" height="651" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4I2Ir3IpUYlwkUOCM44sfdVR8KKArAbU5d2rODgHRgBpfkBi4PTNxXvmOPsAxepmSsdWmBupDJgq8QbO0d8Nvzatg2MJZiUz7NkOx85DgQtOpviozbKxB8udbA98ZNh9BLR_YYMWjw0o9/w556-h651/titanic.webp" width="556" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;"> As you can see the windows on the wreck do NOT match the Titanic, but do match the Olympic! </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">And the hole is present too! </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">Why would it be? Well the theory, branded one of those conspiracy theories of course, is that the two ships had be switched. With some quick alterations such as changing the name of the ships. This was due to the Olympic being so badly damaged, but still capable of sailing, after a collision with a UK warship. Apparently the Olympic ship would have been worth only the scrap value. So it was decided to have it meet with an accident at sea and claim on the insurance. But since the insurance companies would not ensure a ship that had already been in accidents (there were more than one). It was renamed the Titanic on it's maiden voyage! </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">This isn't anything new of course. There's even a TV documentary about it. But even if you think the insurance thing is nonsense. That doesn't take away the evidence that the wreck does not match the images of the real Titanic. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">Remember the Olympic was launched before the Titanic. </span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Footnote:</span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">There is a book on the subject by Steve Hall and Bruce Beveridge which looks at the evidence. I haven't had the book long so I haven't read all the details, but the conclusion basically is that it is the Titanic on the seabed. However the book has flaws in it. Despite extensive use of photographs nearly all of them are from the time of the ships. The actual wreck pictures you can count on one hand. I suspect the reason behind this is down to the fees charged for more recent pictures. Therefore a lot of the comparisons are between the contemporary images. Though they talk about putting things in laymen's terms, the photos describe the deck details and then equipment on them, which the laymen doesn't know. In several images which are in black and white, they point out "brown" fixtures, which reminded me of the guy on TV describing a snooker match to black and white viewers saying "the black ball is next to the pink". </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">So far I have not seen any reference to the rectangler window being unique to the Olympic or the Titanic. The book mentions James Cameron's exploration of the wreck, with High Definition cameras, but of course none of the images are shown. Saying state rooms for certain people that were only on the Titanic. However a lot of the work is based around details such as ventilation systems being different on the two ships. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">The book lacks several things, including an index. However they have included large sections on the life of the other White Star Line ships, which are nothing to do with the two ships. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">It points out that both ships were under-insured, so there was no reason to fraud. But even so setting sail with a damaged ship, would cause any insurance company to not pay anything out at all if anything then happened to the ship, especially if it turned out that the ship sailing was supposed to be brand new! And as far as I know they did a payout for the accident. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">For me the story either falls flat or not on the Thomas Andrews issue. Being the designer of the two ships Andrews would have known the difference between them. So if the ships were switched he would have known. And therefore had to be in on the plot. Question for me would be what was the designer doing on the ship? Was it common practice for the designer of the ship to sail all the way on the maiden voyage of a ship? </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">It does open up his character a bit more. For in the stories of him, he is seen as a kind helpful man doing his best to see passengers get off the boat and giving advice to those stuck on it after the boats are gone. One of the few men onboard who knew how to survive, but yet doesn't. Eyewitness say he made no attempt to escape and for a man with a wife and children seems odd to me. However this can be accounted for by two reasons. First that he really felt himself to blame for not making the Titanic able to survive the disaster and knowing that nearly all the people on board were going to die. And the second reason being guilt for his part in the fraud and switch. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;"> </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-87211839049674017612021-03-19T09:18:00.005-07:002021-10-12T08:01:31.851-07:00The Ultimate Ego Chart <p><span style="color: #38761d;">On the UKMIX Forum is chart claiming to be the "Ultimate Chart of the Sixties". Plus </span><i style="color: #38761d;">The Definitive Chart Of The Fifties And Sixties" </i><span style="color: #38761d;">But over the period of time that it's been running it's revealed that it's more about someone's ego than record charts.</span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">It started with the premise of correcting the faults associated with the BBC's own chart of the period. A little history is needed at this point. After the NME produce a chart (in 1952) based on what record shops were selling as opposed to one based on sheet music sales. A few years later several other music papers started to do the same. By the middle of the 50's there were several competing charts from all the papers. They all used the same method. They asked record shops to send or phone in a list of the best selling records for a particular week. They did not ask them to send in the actual sales of each record, just what was selling the most. Most sent in a top ten. Though years later the papers were asking for a top 50. Rather than print these top tens from the shops, though Record Mirror did for a time - naming the shops too! The papers assigned points to the positions so the number one would get the most points. And depending on the asking total, the lowest position would get the least points, or just one point! Each paper used different numbers of shops talking part. Judging by the Record Mirror these shops were mostly London area. But since none of the other papers listed the shops used, we can't tell the spread of shops over the UK. Although they all claimed to produce a national chart. So that's the background. Now the BBC needed to broadcast a chart and since they couldn't use a chart that was made by a private enterprise. And certainly didn't want to pay one of them for it. They devised their own chart. To get a top twenty, they took all the music press charts and then assigned points to them. I don't think they used 20 points for the top spot and one point for 20 on each chart, but reversed the figures. However which way they did it they were simply adding up the points to produce a top 20 of all the papers. The problem however was they didn't do a very good job of these charts. And under a points system you get records that end up with tied positions. In fact many of the component charts suffered from this same problem. Another obstacle was the fact the BBC saw each paper's chart as the same. Even though many had far more shops taking part than others. In the end the BBC had a real problem as by the end of the 60's many of the Papers started to stop compiling a chart due to the expense. Some just published another's paper chart. This cut down the number of charts used by the BBC. And in one week the BBC chart suffered a several way split for the number one record. With that the BBC had enough. The got all the chart papers together and said to them all we need a national chart based on counting the records purchased and not based on points. Unfortunately both the NME and Melody Maker could not agree to this, mostly because of the cost of making this chart. So carried on using the old system and making their own charts. The BBC got together with the Record Industry and asked a marketing company called The British Market Research Bureau to compile a Top 50 based on sales from record shops, sending in the figures rather than a list of best sellers. At first the BMRB chart was not very accurate at all and had loads of teething problems. The number of shops willing to do this system was small at first. But on average around 250 shops were sending in diaries to BMRB. When the first British Hit Singles book came out in 1977. The compilers of the book decided to use the Record Retailer chart for the chart of the 60's. Despite it being the least accurate and using the least amount of shops. The BBC at some point also adopted the Record Retailer chart and confined to the dustbin the averaged chart they had used at the time. The BBC doesn't even like talking about it. Of course the use of the Record Retailer chart as the "Official Chart" for the 60's upset a lot of people. And some thought that the BBC chart could be sorted out to produce a chart of the 60's.</span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">Enter Mr Tibbs on UKMIX. He had the idea of adding the points up of all the charts of the 60's and then factoring in how many record shops each chart used. He developed a spread sheet to do this and put in other factors to stop tied positions. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">Of course the original charts were flawed as they took no comparison to the size of each shop or to how many records they had sold. In one shop the number one might have sold 20 copies and in another 150 copies. Each shop got the same points for the number one record. Mr Tibbs also selected the most shops they had on board for each paper. But during the period covered reports vary on the amount that each paper used. Plus of course stores such as Woolworth never took part. By 1964 some 8,000 shops were selling records. Melody Maker was sampling at the most 110. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">Since not all charts ran a top 50, and NME only did a 30, Mr Tibbs had to stick with a top 30 only. But his intention was only to make the BBC chart more accurate. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">So He began posting the top 30 on UKMIX and several posters started questioning things and adding other details. So on the 106 post he had a meltdown and posted this:</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgYhiMJR1QhuIIDk3cTeMZK3L2k7QBFfoeCnE8ejyav1YUKDYU5zropS3IJxkmWPWYAcsQf27XYOmkK1PQtzMRQPNrIKOJ1JnB49kpTKgML_-WVqf_EkYIz_lA6GggL7KeRi_QMGZwsO92/s1177/The+Ultimate+Averaged+Chart+-+The+BBC+Chart+Re-Imagined+106.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="130" data-original-width="1177" height="73" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgYhiMJR1QhuIIDk3cTeMZK3L2k7QBFfoeCnE8ejyav1YUKDYU5zropS3IJxkmWPWYAcsQf27XYOmkK1PQtzMRQPNrIKOJ1JnB49kpTKgML_-WVqf_EkYIz_lA6GggL7KeRi_QMGZwsO92/w671-h73/The+Ultimate+Averaged+Chart+-+The+BBC+Chart+Re-Imagined+106.jpg" width="671" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;"> After a great deal of reassurance from people he continued to post the charts. But it was the first sign of future trouble with him. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">In post 190 he's now thinking his charts on the best thing since sliced bread! </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6D-qt7lSH8kqh1k_qhj5DnLJBm78n1TlkEAozWwF5-lBG1Z0ij9Dt84GAHxPEsblw3hDiLO6fgINIwVBVv_KDi_wTDHoT2G_ftTwpJLrTb9Ur3dKu6tK4CfkJM0RFOlUTr1Asxysv6FYf/s972/The+Ultimate+Averaged+Chart+-+The+BBC+Chart+Re-Imagined+190.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="162" data-original-width="972" height="111" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6D-qt7lSH8kqh1k_qhj5DnLJBm78n1TlkEAozWwF5-lBG1Z0ij9Dt84GAHxPEsblw3hDiLO6fgINIwVBVv_KDi_wTDHoT2G_ftTwpJLrTb9Ur3dKu6tK4CfkJM0RFOlUTr1Asxysv6FYf/w670-h111/The+Ultimate+Averaged+Chart+-+The+BBC+Chart+Re-Imagined+190.jpg" width="670" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">Of course we do know the sales figures from that era, that's what's the Real Chart does! But he never acknowledge the Real Chart. The criticism of his methods would however come up again from several posters and at times the moderators of the site had to step in and control the situation. Resulting in posts being removed. Also several posters (including Mr Tibbs) altered or deleted posts. So what on UKMIX now is not a true reflection of the messages. But you can get an idea in post 267, which again resulted in a threat by him to stop posting the charts. At the time I thought he was acting like a spoilt child. But he's not a young man. In fact he's older than me and I'm 60! In Sheffield we would call him a mardy bum! </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_NEV9MdyUaaSHBPHo6NNqPNTtofgSOInlWS5HSPi3QPev9LVwmlOPJVY7ZFC5AD4BtNwv0etgXT8CsGlW3cHRlyJTDI-zeq4AWJrowWg4tJaen4L_2MeA6FgUzhyzq8ouynKfWcS27FOQ/s957/The+Ultimate+Averaged+Chart+-+The+BBC+Chart+Re-Imagined+267.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="293" data-original-width="957" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_NEV9MdyUaaSHBPHo6NNqPNTtofgSOInlWS5HSPi3QPev9LVwmlOPJVY7ZFC5AD4BtNwv0etgXT8CsGlW3cHRlyJTDI-zeq4AWJrowWg4tJaen4L_2MeA6FgUzhyzq8ouynKfWcS27FOQ/w669-h205/The+Ultimate+Averaged+Chart+-+The+BBC+Chart+Re-Imagined+267.jpg" width="669" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;"> Nevertheless when challenged as to how made up his chart was, since in some cases record entered the top 30, from one chart having the largest number of shops, which were on the Real Chart at 70! He continued to defend his chart. But as far as he knew the chart, might have used only 60 shops not the 110 he said and even then only a small percentage might have that record at 70 in the Real Chart, in their best sellers list. In post 457 he claims that his methods are open to all, which was a dig at the Real Chart. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFO2oIk647kXW6LRB8sVfDE2-AL0GnGiyP2yZqxnD7dAHvSoAHYXgwgMVe7CP_KBSK6LA8jeycgunsDUW11Mv_CRgCRHC_fwx89XJ-m2p7KKvfG5isTBDloYQ9XoolNkpLRN5Bevsac-gL/s947/The+Ultimate+Averaged+Chart+457.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="76" data-original-width="947" height="54" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFO2oIk647kXW6LRB8sVfDE2-AL0GnGiyP2yZqxnD7dAHvSoAHYXgwgMVe7CP_KBSK6LA8jeycgunsDUW11Mv_CRgCRHC_fwx89XJ-m2p7KKvfG5isTBDloYQ9XoolNkpLRN5Bevsac-gL/w667-h54/The+Ultimate+Averaged+Chart+457.jpg" width="667" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">I pointed out to him on several occasions that any charts of the period would by definition copy each other as they were displayed in shops and the public who bought the records also looked at the charts in the music papers. One time I listed the Real Chart positions aside the top 30 he came up. This being done to show how often close the positions on the Ultimate Averaged Chart were to the Real Chart. With only about five records that were selling better than the papers and the odd Woolies record in the 1965 period when the store was only selling the Embassy Label records. Not included in any chart of course. But in didn't like it one bit, as of course it showed that his chart, excluded records. For example a record might be at say 7 in the Melody Maker chart, which had the most shops, and much lower on the other charts. His averaged chart, would probably give a position either halfway between the lowest places and the highest place. Sometimes even the lowest place. When if you looked at the Real Chart the Melody Maker was quite correct in the seven place and all the other charts were wrong. And then again it could be the chart with the fewest shops, which was always the Record Retailer that had the correct slot. But in post 464 he tells me not to post things to do with the Real Chart and gets all protective about his chart. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi31x-KOhYVo-whYLg5YzyXSYHyhmzcR7DYisNJoZlaRueVfiutOXLZ0LG_NfYhsAjl7wj5tCqsIGKICSfK00VKrceE4KYkycNk3IfA96YuzDbNNOM_xUG51q7qxsqb9F3NSVX4F2uwwKT8/s962/The+Ultimate+Averaged+Chart+464.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="139" data-original-width="962" height="96" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi31x-KOhYVo-whYLg5YzyXSYHyhmzcR7DYisNJoZlaRueVfiutOXLZ0LG_NfYhsAjl7wj5tCqsIGKICSfK00VKrceE4KYkycNk3IfA96YuzDbNNOM_xUG51q7qxsqb9F3NSVX4F2uwwKT8/w668-h96/The+Ultimate+Averaged+Chart+464.jpg" width="668" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;"> Later on things get into a heated debate and the moderators take action once again he pulls out and lots of the posters urge him not to do so. He also requires people to use the "like" button and clearly he needs it as an ego boost. In 635 he has another childish tantrum.</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRZ3WSk5LMRou5uYxfnU_Whl05NwMI0Iy2SmysVvGRNyAtXJCHz4RnKm3FyyykMpVbQAEh7gJBAnTCpSNUQW5Bcgk8J2AkRSOw5nYvAhyphenhyphensJE5Crx8MPNPBPE6-57B1uS142MIYg_4Ko2Rb/s971/The+Ultimate+Averaged+Chart+-+635.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="314" data-original-width="971" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRZ3WSk5LMRou5uYxfnU_Whl05NwMI0Iy2SmysVvGRNyAtXJCHz4RnKm3FyyykMpVbQAEh7gJBAnTCpSNUQW5Bcgk8J2AkRSOw5nYvAhyphenhyphensJE5Crx8MPNPBPE6-57B1uS142MIYg_4Ko2Rb/w670-h216/The+Ultimate+Averaged+Chart+-+635.jpg" width="670" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">The next message has nothing to do with his charts at all really, but gives him a real ego boost. Many forums, like the film and music industry, have awards for the year and like them things get nominated that have no chance of winning. Largely because nearly all Forums are cliques and they have their own agendas with the same things winning each year. However due to the fact of the size of the Averaged Chart thread it got nominated in the UKMIX awards. So in post 1355 Mr Tibbs is pleased. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7QuXqM9fIcB_s7Ho_2OejI0DRwD7jbDxHHC7LPzFodCcQRJP6oTVTS0RPNiUONwwQI720xvTsRzPHq_fiIDkb2Dzwnrjk60st9I52mpA38aERXyAC7xXkP4EF1VYVpNNUUZ8l7tls9Tv1/s972/The+Ultimate+Averaged+Chart+1355.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="192" data-original-width="972" height="132" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7QuXqM9fIcB_s7Ho_2OejI0DRwD7jbDxHHC7LPzFodCcQRJP6oTVTS0RPNiUONwwQI720xvTsRzPHq_fiIDkb2Dzwnrjk60st9I52mpA38aERXyAC7xXkP4EF1VYVpNNUUZ8l7tls9Tv1/w669-h132/The+Ultimate+Averaged+Chart+1355.jpg" width="669" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;"> It doesn't win of course and Mr Tibbs ego suffers a real bashing. Even though nobody had been having a go at him for ages. He has another tantrum and threatens again to pull out of posting the charts. Post 1414 shows how much he wanted to be "famous" for posting these charts. At least on UKMIX. He talks about "friends" and that he felt snubbed. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLPqlKUbvVn6YGygyAUZKx77bkiUn3KPV-eelaYlYeKP-TJWVQzRe-9gKJDs1Oo6BRG0f2emVNV05FY5z3j7xO2EDApFm1JAGUsL0Nk4YhAv2BN-qRSHkXOuIYtzaihqxKbsSeBMYJyTN7/s960/The+Ultimate+Averaged+Chart+1414.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="157" data-original-width="960" height="109" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLPqlKUbvVn6YGygyAUZKx77bkiUn3KPV-eelaYlYeKP-TJWVQzRe-9gKJDs1Oo6BRG0f2emVNV05FY5z3j7xO2EDApFm1JAGUsL0Nk4YhAv2BN-qRSHkXOuIYtzaihqxKbsSeBMYJyTN7/w669-h109/The+Ultimate+Averaged+Chart+1414.jpg" width="669" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">He didn't of course, even the award organiser of UKMIX had to post a message assuring him that it wasn't meant to be the way he talked about in post 1414. These days the chart has continued after completing the charts up to the point when BMRB stepped in and put and end to the BBC chart. He continued to do the earlier 60's. But these days he's well protected. He even changed the name to the "<i>Ultimate</i> Averaged Chart" . I pulled him up on that making out it was the best chart going. He also has developed a policy of indirectly attacking my comments on his charts. In one chart of the 60's I told him a certain record was top that week. It was outside the top ten on his chart. He told me in plain ways that it was impossible for the record to be number one that week and his Ultimate chart proves that. In the early 60's the papers used even less shops and I told him that his 300 shops do not account for all the shops in the UK at that time. He must have known that I was talking about it being top on the Real Chart, but he ignored that. My resulting post resulted in an infraction, this is what I put:</span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;"> <i>The Definitive Chart Of The Fifties And Sixties" is pretentious to say the least. Not at least the ones done at the time! Some might object to that if the people that did them were around. </i></span><span style="color: #38761d;"><i>And if you knew who I have been, you would know that sarcasm could have been my middle name. But there's more heaven than meets the eye my dear Mr Tibbs.</i> </span><span style="color: #38761d;"> </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">Correcting the BBC chart of it's faults was one thing, but saying what he has done on the back of the objective shows a level of ego beyond belief and that the whole of the Ultimate Averaged Chart was just one giant ego boost for Mr Tibbs. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">He now intends to do the same like what he did to the 60's charts and 50's for the 1969 and 1970's charts. Even though the BMRB chart was using sales and the NME and Melody Maker used points. I have looked at both the NME Chart and The Melody Maker charts for the year 1970 and compared to the BMRB chart. They both suffer from the lack of effect of Top of The Pops performance on the chart after the show. Whereas the BMRB does indeed at times respond to the TOTP effect, sometimes not as much as the Real Chart, but it's there. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">He did at one time say he wouldn't go there (posting charts after 1969) and recently I posted a message saying to Robin of Loxely (a user name of course) that it really shouldn't be done. Straight after Mr Tibbs posted a message saying he would do it. That was the last straw for me. I couldn't let him continue to belittle me and it's impossible to have any dialogue like this without getting a complete ban on UKMIX. So I decided it was best to make this special post to show that Mr Tibbs "Ultimate Averaged Chart was really only about his ego and not a chart of the 50's, 60's, or if he goes there, 70's. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">There are in fact many ways that such a chart could be made up from using the charts of the period, his being actually a poor way of doing it. </span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Update 17 June.</span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">A few weeks ago Mr Tibbs started were he left in 1969 doing the Ultimate Chart, even though the BBC had dropped that way of compiling the chart and started the British Market Research Bureau (BMRB) chart. He also made the extraordinary decision to use a sample number of 85 Shops. The same as what the Record Retailer chart used. For some reason he's got into his head that the new chart compilers simply couldn't get shops to take part. However from the few Record Retailers that are online, one a few weeks into the new chart clearly states compiled by BMRB from 300 retailers! Before I quit posting on the thread I argued with him and others that BMRB would have been contracted by the BBC and the others engaged in funding the chart and they wouldn't have stood for a chart compiled from the original 85 stores of Record Retailer. It's highly likely that BMRB had the 300 shops filling in diaries of sales to send to them. It's likely too not all 300 diaries were posted in time to produce a chart. But I doubt for one minute that it was as low as 85! Judging by known later reports the average might have been around 250. But Mr Tibbs doesn't intend to change to above 250 till well after 1970. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">Of course the real reason is that he doesn't like the BMRB chart at all. And giving it 300 shops would make it dominant. As the largest paper based one he uses he only puts on 250 shops. Of course the odd thing is that we do not know if the other charts had shortfalls in the number of shops supplying them with information. But Mr Tibbs on the other hand uses the BMRB honesty on shortfalls in shops against them. But the other charts tended to remain tight lipped about the levels of shops taking part. And though he has been told there was a drop off in the shops used by Melody Maker (currently 250) and the NME (200 shops) he doesn't know when these happen. Most of the archive of BMRB is however not accessible and the number of reports of low levels of shops are not commonly available. Few have been published too. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">I asked him to start another thread for these charts using BMRB, but he didn't and when I accused him of taking the "piss" - I censored the word on the forum to P*** - after he posted them with only 85 returns. I received another infraction notice from the forum for swearing. I suspect he reported me too.</span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">So I said my goodbyes and haven't posted on that thread since. But I ask you would the BMRB make a claim that the sampled 300 shops when they were only using 85? It's a different kettle of fish when 300 diaries are sent out to the shops and thanks to either bad staff practices at the shops or the Post Office losing diaries in the post or delivering them after the day when the count has to be started. BMRB can't be blamed for that! But it would be ridiculous to think that three quarters of the 300 diaries were not sent back to BMRB. Though at one time I thought it was only 250 shops sampled, apparently it was always 300 shops. Though postal strikes caused them serious problems, there were plenty of shops willing to take part. BMRB just had a problem getting the really big stores to take part. And up to 1975 they had no Woolworths taking part. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">One last thing is that we can't be certain that many of the same stores were being sampled by the chart makers. Especially after the BMRB chart started. I think it's almost certain that some of the Melody Maker and NME stores were supplying sales information to BMRB, with 300 stores, there was bound to be an overlap. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;"><span style="color: red;">Update 15 July 2021.</span> </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">The nonsense continues. Several people put in a link to a website that has the information that following the introduction of the British Market Research Bureau Chart, in 1969 that by the end of 1969 both the New Musical Express and Melody Maker reduced the sample size down to 100. So when he started the 1970 charts, what does Mr Tibbs do? Nothing of course! He maintains the NME chart numbers to at 200 stores and Melody Maker at 250! Though he claims that the reduction wasn't done till 1971, when the BMRB chart he claims got more respect. Which I don't see any evidence for at all. The real reason of course it would mess up his system. For some completely unknown reason he has the shop returns for BMRB at 125. When of course they were using 300, with at least 250 returns on time for the chart. That aside if he knocked both NME and Melody Maker charts down to 100 each there would be no difference to the points system he uses and if two records were at say 10 on one chart and 11 on the other and the same record was vice-versa on the other chart he would have a tie as to where to put the two records. But again the main reason why he's not knocking the shop numbers down is that would give the BMRB, even on his lower shop system, the advantage over the other two. Which is why he didn't want to use the 300 shops in the first place. Even giving the 250 returns for BMRB, that would cancel out Melody Maker's control of the chart and give the same point system ties. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">At the end of the day Mr Tibbs chart therefore for 1970 is even more flawed, than the 1969 chart he's just completed. For one thing he's done no personal research on the charts published by NME, Melody Maker. He's simple gone on the hearsay or talk of various people. Some of these people did do some research talking to various people involved in the production of charts. However in many cases they were going on the general facts of the chart production, not the week to week running of the charts. So Mr Tibbs has never contacted anyone from the NME to find out if each week they did have 200 shops taking part, or if the numbers varied from week to week. Which by the sounds of things happened to the BMRB chart, but he refuses to give them a 300 shop count. Nor has he contacted anyone from either paper or look around to confirm that these papers were still using the figures he quotes after the end of 1969. He says he's going on what Dave Taylor said about them, that the change didn't happen till 1971. Dave was a chart fan and worked in radio. He contacted me about the Real Chart and thought it was very accurate. He even told me once that he found evidence that the Official Charts Company was fiddling the charts. That aside, Dave died a few years ago and so can't now confirm the information Mr Tibbs said. In looking into the compilation of the charts for the two papers, I have come across a book on the history of the New Musical Express and have ordered it. I should have it by next week. It might answer the question of the chart compilation. But I doubt it!! </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">Although Mr Tibbs said the 1969 to 1971 charts are just for fun, the attacks by himself and other members of UKMIX on the BMRB chart in the thread are constant. Whereas nobody attacks the other charts for there many faults. He's just started the first 1970 chart. And one of his component charts - the NME - has a Jonathan King record at 30. It was only 62 on the Real Chart. The record therefore being hyped into the NME chart to get it that high. Hardly surprising with Jonathan King. He probably had people or himself buying up the record that week in the known NME stores which could be got for a fee. Indeed many writers of books have commented on the practice of getting hold of the lists for a fee. However I can't find any trace of anyone who has one of the lists. If anyone does have one let me know! </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">I have tackled him on the issue, but he hasn't changed his mind. While he was doing the 1969 charts, I couldn't get any jibs in having not yet got around to them myself. But he's doing the 70's charts now so I can now get the digs in using the Real Charts, which as you can gather will annoy him. He doesn't quote me. He either responds by using someone else to respond with or just makes a statement. He thinks I am the only one that doesn't agree with him. But on that he's wrong, as I have private messages from UKMIX members saying the same thing as me. The book about the NME doesn't answer the questions. But it does make it clear on some things. For instance each member of staff had to phone one of the shops on the chart list and get the results of sales. But later on one member of staff had a team of six to do it. But even by 1967 it was only 150 shops! Allowing the staff to phone up the shops could have resulted in chart fiddling. Since one staff member could have put greater numbers or a higher slot for the shop for a favourite artists. Plus if record companies got to know this was happening it would be easy to bribe staff to get higher slots for chart records. Wages on the music papers seemed to have been linked to the paper's sales. So it wouldn't have been too difficult to slip staff cash on the side. They could even bank it and due to the fact that weekly income could vary, the tax man wouldn't pick up on either! </span></p><p><span style="color: red;">A new flaw</span><span style="color: #38761d;"> </span><span style="color: #38761d;"> </span> </p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">Currently Mr Tibbs has gone back to doing the 1950's charts. Using NME, Record Mirror to do the 1956 charts. Using a the same method of shops. Later in 1956 Melody Maker started a chart. And he added that chart on the basis it was 20 shops. However the Melody Makers are available for that period on the American Music and Technology paper and book site. So I was looking at the papers and discovered that Melody Maker actually listed the amount of shops and who they were as this example shows:</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuaZ7_xLxHyP6LoCVR9XLXwv5s1Cxp91WAF8s1VaB5ObBa6IT6T3LiXBHShl689na-SK7jPMwJsfrj73Rvns_3Ki_44OeRr-tGzUyOaP4GJA0pQx0k2C9W4qfRYEcTJSUwiNs2SKluCcus/s617/2021-10-11+15_48_19-Melody-Maker-1956-06.pdf+-+Adobe+Reader.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="187" data-original-width="617" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuaZ7_xLxHyP6LoCVR9XLXwv5s1Cxp91WAF8s1VaB5ObBa6IT6T3LiXBHShl689na-SK7jPMwJsfrj73Rvns_3Ki_44OeRr-tGzUyOaP4GJA0pQx0k2C9W4qfRYEcTJSUwiNs2SKluCcus/w665-h202/2021-10-11+15_48_19-Melody-Maker-1956-06.pdf+-+Adobe+Reader.jpg" width="665" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">I only looked at a few papers, but it shows that the amount of shops was between 30 and 33 shops each week that varied. I posted the same image on the site. But Mr Tibbs afterwards didn't say anything nor did anyone else. Instead he posted the next chart still with only 20 shops for the Melody Maker. The fact that he never bothered to check to see what was in-front of eyes or look at the Melody Maker shows that his calculations are wrong. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">One thing you notice in the image above is that Brian Epstein's NEMS (North End Music Store) is listed. This is also listed in the shops from Record Mirror. Thus proving that some of the Record Stores supplied the same papers. Chart Researcher Alan Smith, who Mr Tibbs quotes the numbers of his stores calculations regular, stated that the papers did NOT use the same stores. I never did believe this as the case, so we now have evidence for this. Unfortunately the New Musical Express never listed the stores taking part, even in the days before hyping meant such things needed to be kept secret. The one thing that Mr Tibbs chart needs to be accurate on is the number of shops taking part and they are NOT the same shops taking part in each chart. However I reckon Epstein at some point supplied them all. Indeed some say that Epstein's sales of the Beatles first single was the result of his shop alone. But since these were point based charts, Epstein's store alone could never a put a record into the top 20, even if the record sold thousands of copies. Though is Epstein's store was in 5 charts, when you combine them, his shop would have got four times the amount of points then any other store. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">As you can see also the spread of shops opens up some representation problems. With London accounting for many sales, while Yorkshire is represented by one Leeds shop! Wales and Scotland don't do so bad. While the small coastal town of Scarborough has a say! </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">Apparently there is information that lists of the chart shops used by such as NME could be purchased on the "black market" when chart hyping became a thing in the late 50's. However I have never seen one of these lists, nor has any other chart researcher that I have known. So if you do have a list of them from that period, I would love to see it. </span><span style="color: #38761d;"> </span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-83944028555160342192021-03-18T16:38:00.002-07:002021-11-19T14:00:55.616-08:00How They Waste Money On The NHS<p> </p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Covid 19 has shown that the NHS is not safe with the government controlling the purse strings. The need to control the infection by the use of vaccination has shown how spending can be wasted. Not because the vaccines don't work, because they probably do. It's the way they have done the vaccination program. It was clear from the start that resources were not going to stretch to everyone getting the ejections straight away. So it was necessary to target to those most vulnerable first. These days computer systems can soon knock out the list of who gets done first. So why did the employ lots of people in centres and invite them in one at a time to have the jabs? Vaccination centres only make sense if anyone can just walk in and get the jab done. The first thing to waste money was having to employ people and hire the places out in the first place. The second waste of money was sending letters out to people to invite them to make an appointment to go to one of these vaccination centres. Plus the need of a website and phone system and staff to man the appointment system. A third waste of money comes from GP practices who also have contacted patients to have the jab, often after, or before a letter to make an appointment is sent out. Most people in the most vulnerable category have transport problems or require the use of public transport to get to these centres. This seems silly to me when you asking people such as them to stay off public transport. Lastly due to the fact some of the people are housebound they still require a member of the health service to do a home visit, thus duplicating the systems and cost on the NHS. The same sick and vulnerable often do not use mobile phones or smart phones or understand computers to make appointments, so that was also a flaw in the logic. </span></p><p><span style="color: red;">So what could they have done?</span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Developed a full list of all the patients needing a vaccination. And have the vaccination team equipped with this list. The team itself, fully equipped with PPE, would then visit everyone at home and give them the jab. As some people on the list would live together they would get the jab at the some time and are ticked off the computer list. Areas and streets of high Covid could have been done first and if someone is not in they move on to the next person and do the jab on them until the team need to return to get more vaccine. </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Side effects? Presumably they must have had a plan in place for someone doing home visits and the person reacting to the dose. Though people in the centres were told to wait around for 15 minutes before going home. As reported on TV anyway! I know this wasn't done with at the home visits. In fact the nurse who did my dad spent about less than 5 minutes in the house before getting in her car and driving off. It turns out that I, as a carer, am on the list to. But the nurse did not inject me too! One of my relations went to the vaccination centre and his son drove him there. The doctor asked if his son was a carer, as he could have done at the same time. He wasn't, but if he had it would, if you think about it, mess up the appointment system the NHS is using. His son by the way doesn't live with the father, being married himself, thus breaking guidelines in transporting him. But since his father has MS it was the only way. </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">I know from my own street that at least five people qualified for the jab and some have had the jab in a block of five houses. One nurse doing our block would have got them all done in less than one hour without the need for letters and travel and the need for any of the vulnerable people to leave the house. And having contact with only one member of NHS staff, fully protected, sent from a hospital or GP surgery. </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">At the moment staff have to wait around for patients to turn up from the appointment system and often they don't come in. But if the government had consulted with GP surgeries they would have known that many patients do NOT turn up for doctors appointments anyway, even before the epidemic! </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">At the moment I have been sent a letter from the NHS and also had now two phone calls from the my own doctors to have an appointment for the jab. It's not that I refusing to have the Jab, I am just refusing to go to one of these places. I asked if they would do it at my home and they refused. </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Why won't I go? Well two reasons. I look after my father and he cannot be left alone. In normal times I could ask a relative to look after him, or a neighbour. But these are not normal times. Secondly I am refusing to wear any face masks. So I cannot go on public transport or even enter such a centre. As the masks are compulsory. Mind you I would be risking myself and thus my father by travelling to such a place. Since masks only prevent the spreading of the infection if a person has it. They do not stop you catching the bug. And even with one dose a person is not safe. I have had no need to wear a face mask. I am at home, all shopping is done online, so I don't need them. Even before Covid I was never really going places. My local Co-Op for milk and bread was the highlight of my journeys! But thanks to Amazon Prime we can get those delivered. Home is sounding more like a luxury prison everyday!! </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">I walked around our estate only a short distance the other day. And without really paying attention to the street spotted four of the standard blue face masks on the ground in hedges, or even on the pavements. God knows how far they have spread around Sheffield!! </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">So that's my other reason for not using them. Such masks are not environmentally friendly and were not made to be so. Since they were largely made to be worn in clinical places where once done with they are disposed off in special bins. If you ask me the masks themselves being dropped in the street by people who are more concerned with their own health than where they live. Well life doesn't work that way and having a mask on means that people with bacteria and virus' a lot worse than Covid 19 could effect the country just by not burning or destroying that mask they dropped in the street. Some bugs can live on a discarded mask for ages! </span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">What's even worse is that the Government doesn't care. There's no TV advert telling people to put the mask in the bin after you have done with and NEVER drop it in the street! </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Perhaps if the government had used the above system then they could have paid the NHS staff more than 1%.</span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><i>Update 26 March.</i> Another letter from the NHS, plus two phone calls from the Doctor's in the last seven days. My doctor's surgery is now trying to work out if they can jab me at home. But the person on the phone doubted it! To be honest there's people more at risk than me that should have it! People who have to mix with people. </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">19 November. Still no visit from the doctor for me. In fact the doctors are not even now interested in my health (nor I suspect anyone's else) now. Apart from flu jabs notices, which they even send out after the patients have had them! Doctors get a good income from doing flu jabs, they don't like you getting them from chemists. As they don't get paid if the patient has it there. </span></p><p><span style="color: red;">We cocked up. So you have to pay. </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"> The biggest wast of money on the NHS is the amount they pay out when things go wrong. It was recently reported that a great deal of the yearly finding of the NHS goes on payouts and fighting claims. Even if you are trying to suggest ways around a problem that you encountered dealing with the NHS then they jump on the defensive. It's highly likely that many medical problems or situations will lead to someone getting annoyed or pissed off with someone in the service. For example this happened in a true story. The patient a woman nearly 90 years of age was sent to hospital on a wasted journey. A transport ambulance was all that was required to pick her up from home. However that day was a Friday which means the drunks are out in force keeping ambulance crews busy. Waiting since three in the afternoon for this transport ambulance. At 9 pm about, a paramedic woman phoned up. Asking questions as though the people had just dialled 999. Not simply waiting for a transport ambulance! Sometime after that, a paramedic car pulled up with a paramedic. Again he started acting if she was an emergency case. When we explained to him she had NO PAIN at all, he agreed that she clearly had not broken anything. It was suggested to him that as the ambulance service were very busy and this was no urgent case, that transport could be arranged for another day. He agreed and said he would look into it. He then went to the bottom of the person's stairs, but could still be heard - every word he said - and he phoned Ambulance Control to book the job in. At no point did he mention her condition or delaying the job. Instead he was told that another paramedic was working on his own and that he could team up up with him and bring her to Northern General in an emergency ambulance. He said he would return in about 20 minutes with the ambulance to take her to hospital. </span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">At 2 am Saturday mourning the person looking after her had opted to go to bed. Ten minutes later a phone call from Northern General Hospital saying if it was all right to send her home and they said yes. So they waited. At 4 am she still wasn't home. So back on the phone. The Nurse in charge answered. She said she was waiting for an emergency ambulance to send her home. “Can you give me a time” the person enquired. “Could be anything up to four hours”. “What about a taxi?” “She would have to pay for it” she said. The person was pretty angry especially at that remark. “You pay for it ” “No” she replied. “I can sense your not happy” she said. “No I'm not, what about a medi car?” “No” she said. She also pointed out that the patient was under her care and that she needed 'trained people' to take her home and so she was not prepared to send her home in a taxi for that reason. Contradicting what she said about paying for one. </span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">The conversation ended with her going on about the complaints procedure to me. And on about her patient care. But clearly thought nothing about possibly keeping an elderly person up all night or waking them up if they had gone to sleep, if she had found an ambulance to take her home at 5 am in the mourning! In the end it was 10 am the next day. </span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">She explained she had been kept waiting till about 1.45 am. A doctor came into see her and said the X-ray was fine and she could go home. He didn't ask her any other questions about her health. She was in the “blue wing”. And they took her to A&E waiting area for transport home. She was on hospital trolley bed no 36. The staff tried to lower it, but it was broke and would not go down. She requested the toilet. She was not taken to any toilets for disabled people. But instead a commode was brought for her. This she described as being more suitable for a young person, with a small water holding container. It had no arms to hold onto. As she had been waiting hours, her need was great and filled it. The nurse when taking it away spilled it on the patient's pants and since she had brought another pair, since she thought she was staying in, she had to change them. </span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">They wanted her to get back onto trolley 36, but it was too high and she couldn't get on. The nurse actually said “jump on”. So they got her a plastic “reception” chair to sit on ALL NIGHT! </span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">They needed to get her blankets to keep her warm and a footstool. </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">The family sent a letter complaining about the situation with ambulances, pointing out that many ambulances are uncomfortable and not suited for elderly patients to travel in (especially emergency ambulances). However the hospital denied everything, wasn't interested in ambulances services. Then went on the attack with the person who phoned up being abusive to staff. </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">I have to say it was very similar to the fictional incident in BBC's <i>Doctor's</i> recently were a member of hospital staff had abused the Practice Manager's mother. And when the Practice Manager went to see the staff. The staff, including the boss of the department accused him of being aggressive to the staff. They were so on the defensive that they failed to take into account that the person's life had been put in danger. Of course there was racist element to the situation. But I suspect that the staff would have defended the nurse, even if both patient and son had been white. I myself came up against this type of prejudice while living in the working class estate of the Manor in Sheffield. There was of course a violent element of people on the estate. But it was a case that if I lived there I was brother chip to them. It involved ambulance crews. Who were sent out several times to my mother who had shocking nose bleeds for no apparent reasons. The first time it happened the crew took her to Northern General and told her that they (the crew) would transfer her to Hallamshire for a procedure to seal the vessel. At Northern they didn't. Waited for it to stop and sent her home. This episode happened several more times. One doctor said the last time to have them send her to Hallamshire if it starts again. It did, the ambulance crew however would not take her there only back to Northern. So I played hell with them, that's when they started to use the abuse thing and even said "Manor". They asked the Hallamshire, who would not accept her. So she went to NG and then to Hallamshire. Where they finally sealed the blood vessels. But all that money wasted. </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">General Practitioners are not much, better and in the UK there's a growing shortage of them. I remember being in the Urology Department under going tests myself and there was this old chap in that was told by the doctor (infront of me) telling the daughter (I think) that he was full of prostrate cancers. His own doctors had done nothing! It's one of those strange things that sticks in your mind to this day. I had no idea who this guy was, but felt like that he was such a lovely man and while I was there he acted like one too. Of course some practices have only one or two doctors. But I suspect they are that tied up with rules and budgets they just don't have time. Others are just a complete waste of time. Prescribing pills that should only be short term, but patients are on for years. But even when there are lots of doctors and each time you go to the doctor you rarely see the same one again. It doesn't mean they are any better. With smoking a big problem for the NHS, anyone who smokes or did smoke automatically is filled in that category and the doctors look for signs of that in any diagnoses. But they can assuming that, get things wrong for years. Often at the patients expense. For example somebody coughing something up becomes part of the symptoms of COPD. Symptoms of COPD · increasing breathlessness, particularly when you're active · a persistent chesty cough with phlegm. But if the patient says after eating something such as Yorkshire Pudding they cough up phlegm? Is that COPD? The answer should have been no. That is due to a gall bladder problem, where the body can't deal with fatty foods. But I can tell at a doctors surgery in Sheffield, where at least ten doctors work, not one spotted that. And when it became known that was the cause it was too late for the patient. There was on TV recently a young girl who was seen by doctors. One of which said she was "playing it up". The girl was diagnosed not by the doctor, but by an eye tester. Where she was found to have MS. </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;">By the way a doctor can refuse to treat you. And strike you off the list for no real reason at all. So be careful what you say to these people. </span><span style="color: #6aa84f;"> </span><span style="color: #6aa84f;"> </span></p><p><span style="color: #6aa84f;"> </span><span style="color: #6aa84f;"> </span><span style="color: #6aa84f;"> </span><span style="color: #6aa84f;"> </span><span style="color: #6aa84f;"> </span><span style="color: #6aa84f;"> </span><span style="color: #6aa84f;"> </span><span style="color: #6aa84f;"> </span></p><p> </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-5823833693909625032021-03-04T08:00:00.000-08:002021-03-04T08:00:36.865-08:00Did Shakespeare Rape Someone?<p> <span style="color: #38761d;">In the section of Shakespeare's life I called "A Tale of Two Anne's" and under a sub-heading called "Not so sweet Ophelia". I mentioned the death of Katherine Hamlet, who drowned in the Avon. The story being that Katherine was in love with Shakespeare and had a fight with Shakespeare's first wife, which resulted in her death either by accident or by murder. The resulting guilt driving her to drown herself in the Avon and the source of the death of Ophelia in the play Hamlet, who floats down the river. However when you think about Ophelia (in the play) doesn't commit murder and if Shakespeare knew about her dealings with Anne, would have found some way to add that to the play. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaU9prs_rfyrN3jlDI1NfUn0uFahaVwV3fly2akSKl9ZjzQwzv3is9lTJfrDvtwedYSlR3KAXwOyQgMXufFTrf1y0F8ZNpoW7tb2YKFGyff216xjSZuGMScgccEhOQkONyzs-rieVrB2ik/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="318" data-original-width="768" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaU9prs_rfyrN3jlDI1NfUn0uFahaVwV3fly2akSKl9ZjzQwzv3is9lTJfrDvtwedYSlR3KAXwOyQgMXufFTrf1y0F8ZNpoW7tb2YKFGyff216xjSZuGMScgccEhOQkONyzs-rieVrB2ik/w631-h263/image.png" width="631" /></a></span></div><span style="color: #38761d;"><br /><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">So what else would have caused Katherine to drown herself in the Avon? So I went back to the fact Shakespeare had quite an attraction to women, which I have established in other parts of his life as being true. And that Katherine did indeed pursue him. He could have of course rejected her, with unrequited love being the cause of her suicide. However unlike the character called Hamlet, Shakespeare never seems to rejected any female, from my research on him. So I do not buy into a rejected and broken heart theory. But that leads to another more appalling theory on her death. That of sexual violence. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">I don't believe that Shakespeare needed to find some female, grab her then rape her. Since basically he could pick and choose who he wanted sex with. Everything points to the fact that Katherine knew William and probably had feelings for him. Nevertheless having feelings doesn't give a person an open invitation to have sexual intercourse with someone. And Shakespeare could have forced himself on her. From what we know of Elizabethan times the saying of "no" by a woman to a man wasn't treated as seriously as it is today. This is because they viewed women as property. The first form being the property of the father. After marriage the property of the husband. Indeed even the word "rape" is derived from the Latin "raptus" meaning theft of property. And even though rape carried the death sentence it was really about the disgrace of the father or husband and not the woman that was considered the most important aspect. If there was no father the crime would not have taken as serious. And it was only taken serious in the husband's case if another man had raped his wife, had the husband forced himself on her the woman had little chance of getting a conviction, unless the husband had actually caused bodily harm to her. Indeed for many married women it was just the case of lie back and think of England, when having sex. Especially for the arranged marriages. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">That leaves us with the position of the woman in that time. For most women in order to have a decent life it required them to be a virgin on the marriage bed. This was an aspect of the marriage ceremony and rituals itself. With the sheets from the marriage bed showing the blood being used to say the marriage had been consummated. In the case where the deed had already been done by the couple before, then some animal blood would have been obtained and dually deposited on the sheets for those wanting to know how it went. However that applied to only those who had already had sex together before marriage. A woman that had already lost her virginity was soiled goods in the eyes of an Elizabethan man. Unless she had already been married of course and the husband was dead. Therefore a raped single woman was certainly not a price of any future husband. And the woman would have know that. Still that doesn't change how a woman would feel about being raped and that hasn't changed over time. The shame and guilt as well as her status in society then would have made any woman suicidal, just like it does today. And even if Katherine Hamlet had a family, telling one or more of them about it might not have most likely helped her. They would have had their own prejudices on the subject and they might well have been more favourable to Shakespeare than her. Especially if she had made it clear to them she had feelings for William. We have no idea of Kate's standing in her family. She could have been the black sheep of it. She could even have been an inspiration for Kate in the Taming of The Shrew. Kate the cursed. Though clearly not the inspiration of the "man hater" concept!</span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">So to sum up an alternative reason of why Katherine Hamlet drowned in the Avon, was that Shakespeare had forced himself on her and she could not live with the shame of the act and so drowned herself. </span></p><p><span style="color: #38761d;">It must be pointed out that we do not know if she was raped, or was guilty of causing the death of Shakespeare's wife. We do know that drowning wasn't uncommon amongst women back then, due to the need to fetch water from rivers and ponds. Elizabethan clothing for women also made them less likely to float in the water, as the materials they were made of often took in the water making them very heavy. So somebody falling in on a slippy bank had much difficulty getting out of the water due to their clothes, than what a modern person would. </span></p><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-3199257816726953372020-06-03T09:43:00.002-07:002020-06-11T15:44:11.329-07:00Problems removing a faulty storage Hard Drive that Windows has made a boot disk<span style="color: #38761d;">This post has been edited from a post where I couldn't post any charts one week, to one that people still using Windows 7 might find useful. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;">F Drive Error</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">I was working on a 3D printing program, when it suggested I should update the version to get better printing result. So I did, but things started to go wrong with the application. I should explain first of all that I have several hard drives on my computer, two of which are set aside for the operating system and programs. Drive C being the one that has Window 7 on it. The other was set aside for programs called F drive. Basically the idea of having two drives, being that if the main OS drive fails for whatever reason, it can be simply reinstalled on a new replacement drive. Leaving some programs, which are from other software companies on the separate drive. Especially as many of them these days are download off the net and have no CD or DVD rom disc to reinstall them on. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">All my other drives except drive C has an external back up disc. Drives E and G being storage for files. Now F drive has the DTP software application on it and also the Word Processing software I needed to do the charts. So if anything goes wrong with that then although none of the work or files is lost, which are on E. I just can't access them! </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Drive F had been acting up funny for a week or two before. Perhaps because the video editing software I sometimes use (the earlier versions Magix 2005 etc) tend to crash vary easily. Making errors on the F drive. A couple of times prior a check disc operation would start as soon as a booted up my computer at the start of each day - checking F drive due to errors! </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Back to the new software download and I ran it to put on drive F. The software detected the old version and removed it. Then started to install the new. Until it failed. So I had to close it. Trying again to install it there, this time drive F had vanished! When it does that you have to often restart the computer and so I did. Disc Check on F started again. It started to talk about "bad sectors" on the drive. But I couldn't get the software to install on drive F. Bad sectors can be caused by physical problems on the disc itself. Which because of things like dust or scratches on the disc are not fixable. However most are caused by file errors and the like which are fixable. </span><br />
<span style="color: red;">Wipe The Drive</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Now has I have a back up disc of the files, which due to the nature of the program files disc doesn't need a weekly or even a monthly back up. So all the files on the back up date to 2017 and 2018! When they were working all fine! I thought I would wipe the F drive, then restore the files with the back up drive. Easy you would think!!</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">So I reformatted Drive F and then ran the Disc Check to see if it was OK. When it was done it showed no bad sectors, which meant there were no faults on the disc which would mean it couldn't safely be used to store stuff on. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">So I set the restore software going. And it failed. Drive F would vanish from time to time and re-attempts produced file errors as it copied the files. Later on I found that if you go into "Device Manager" and select the drive you need and then hit refresh, when the software can't find the drive that is restoring the files, the drive will pop back on. And you can hit the retry key. Nevertheless some files would just not load, even if the drive F was on and when that happened it would stop. </span><br />
<span style="color: red;">Naughty Windows </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">After I looked at Drive F, I could see the file folders, but eventually worked out that's all they were! No actual system or program files in them. So I checked the files on the external drive. It had stored all the files in about 150 zipped folders. Opening one of these (number one actually) showed that all the files were there and the program files too. So there was nothing wrong with the back up. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">So I decided on a new course of action. Replace Drive F with a new SSD drive. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">So I ordered a new drive that would come the following day. </span><span style="color: #38761d;">See photo at the end! </span><span style="color: #38761d;">So I decided to remove the F drive. Which wasn't as simple as it sounds! For starters both F and C drives were Western Digital 500 GB. Which looked the same on the outside. But each has a different serial number. But these don't show up in Device Manager. Instead drive F shows up as: WD500AAKX-D8ERMA0. And it also doesn't tell the letter of the drive, till you go into one of the sections of the properties and click "populate". Fortunately my computer has a drive status program on it, which does tell you the serial numbers. Though again doesn't say the drive letter. But it also gives the device code number as above. So that's how I could tell the difference! To be on the safe side I put sticky labels on all of them! The photo shows the Front end of the drives with labels. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGzb90I8iSe3GIVkyw7b64pP4mhItjpZfzsbpTCRz-lA2Yw6GRjczDPK0WU3qZGXk1aRE-_jzRQRJU-18YnKDoS5iyqSnhvn5ofNHcwKpbAffGwUhLXyZ4Za0nQ2vF8ZRB_e8oE3mivWij/s1600/DSCF0369.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGzb90I8iSe3GIVkyw7b64pP4mhItjpZfzsbpTCRz-lA2Yw6GRjczDPK0WU3qZGXk1aRE-_jzRQRJU-18YnKDoS5iyqSnhvn5ofNHcwKpbAffGwUhLXyZ4Za0nQ2vF8ZRB_e8oE3mivWij/s320/DSCF0369.JPG" width="240" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #38761d;">So I powered down, took the sides off the computer and removed drive F. Powered back up, to reveal a boot failure! At first I thought I had took drive C out, but no I had not. Putting Drive F back. I tried a different approach. I would remove F from computer by using the delete hardware option. It did that and requested a restart. So I did. And then Windows after loading back, reinstalled the drivers for F and reinstalled it!! </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8xP6AD5tekeWyR3F-GYNpeVgPuF2zYpjFKZwWZvCBR8ewGjUeeoS4TgJqqQ2dSLDdm72XcSX6-aqYSOHeugnLZvErgyoDEQIWLIw_Xlfm_rIhzG1CK-CqWWWC9TGellQKVldbAbc36yXV/s1600/DSCF0371.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8xP6AD5tekeWyR3F-GYNpeVgPuF2zYpjFKZwWZvCBR8ewGjUeeoS4TgJqqQ2dSLDdm72XcSX6-aqYSOHeugnLZvErgyoDEQIWLIw_Xlfm_rIhzG1CK-CqWWWC9TGellQKVldbAbc36yXV/s320/DSCF0371.JPG" width="240" /></a></div>
<span style="color: orange;">Mass of connections to the hard drives. The coloured wires are for power and the black and light blue are data connections. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">The next step I did was to remove the drive from the system as above, then power down, rather than restart and then remove the drive (physically) after it shut down. Powered up again - BOOT FAILURE! </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Put the drive back in and restored operation, but the system reinstalled drive F again. </span><span style="color: #38761d;">I then looked at the Device Manager again and this time noticed that under this drive where two sections: Drive F and something called "System Reserved". Which turned out to be only 100MB in size. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">So of course I had to look up what the System Reserved was and found out it was part of the boot system to windows. Which explained why when I removed drive F completely Windows wouldn't start! </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Normally it is hidden and is not assigned a letter. But you can assign it a letter and it then shows up in Windows Explorer. For most people it will be on the same one as the operating system. But naughty windows has put it on my drive F. It sometimes also puts on on another drive if you have a dual boot system. But you can't remove it. </span><br />
<span style="color: red;">Crash Test Dummy</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Though you can move it. Or so I thought!! I found how to do this in a well laid out online guide.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"><a href="https://www.diskpart.com/articles/move-system-reserved-partition-4348.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: magenta;">system-reserved-partition</span></a></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">You start by running </span><span style="color: #38761d;">Disk Management </span><span style="color: #38761d;">in Windows. This shows all the drives up in a block diagram. The drives are colour coded to show "</span><span style="color: blue;">Primary Partition</span><span style="color: #38761d;">" which is </span><span style="color: blue;">blue</span><span style="color: #38761d;">. And "</span><span style="color: #38761d;">unallocated space</span><span style="color: #38761d;">". </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/1t2WG.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="414" data-original-width="800" height="331" src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/1t2WG.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #38761d;">Which is </span><span style="color: #38761d;">black</span><span style="color: #38761d;">. It's the unallocated bit you want. If there is sufficient space to stick the 100MB in that section of space. Then you can create a new simple volume in it. Windows will tell the space available. But if there is more than the reserved than you need than, you can just make it the same size as your S R. The rest will be left as unallocated. In my case I needed there to be space like this on drive C. And of course it was all blue! There is sufficient space on the drive C to get loads of stuff on. But not one bit is unallocated! It does say you can shrink the Volume to produce the the stuff. But though the option is there. Mine doesn't allow it. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">The guide gives another option of a free software (well a 30 day trial version) to clone the bit. However this too requires you to have unallocated space. Otherwise cloning could interfere with the operating system, since you could be putting the boot into the working part of the OS. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Getting nowhere with that I thought I would have a go at the option to boot directly from drive C using the Gigabyte motherboard, which comes up when you start the computer. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqSjxzX7NKZPKeA9fQ-DxNOSvTKC_srRWoA3lIufu1xPgHZrU4eeP2t-r5-2HhYXbcvG9Ymb4vCzm4OD88jDVC6IPiCxXKLi2BqVZN2RXn7bgae2XzM6K-F4q9LdMVDTu_g9_-Aw2wrn6N/s1600/DSCF0370.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1201" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqSjxzX7NKZPKeA9fQ-DxNOSvTKC_srRWoA3lIufu1xPgHZrU4eeP2t-r5-2HhYXbcvG9Ymb4vCzm4OD88jDVC6IPiCxXKLi2BqVZN2RXn7bgae2XzM6K-F4q9LdMVDTu_g9_-Aw2wrn6N/s320/DSCF0370.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="color: orange;">The above photo shows the drives and the connection. The one at the top is Drive F. With The label of C showing below it.</span><span style="color: #38761d;"> </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">So I removed drive F and started the computer and selected the boot option for Drive C on the boot set up on the motherboard. It didn't work. So I went back. Put back Drive F and went back to the settings on the motherboard boot up. But for some reason the computer froze on me and I couldn't save and exit properly. So I powered down and then back up again. But this time the fans ran and power was there but there was no signal on the screen at all. </span><br />
<span style="color: red;">Old Laptop To The Rescue</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"> There was no option but to get the old laptop out, which is as slow as hell. And needed lots of updates to get working. I eventually found a video on YouTube of another Gigabyte board that had failed and he mentions two Bios chips. </span><span style="color: #38761d;">He got his computer to start by shorting one of the chips. Which he didn't recommend doing. But first he said try removing the battery overnight. Mine is located in this photo after the word "Ready". The board above it being the video capture board.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoaCiCCSBVTvLK52OgSP01_MkD3nLtnR6UnbuloMK41Yje-EQ14OyxhS8p_Isiumbz0ZR5aN2FeEUUQd-UgUffBOvhUsmQeE6asYjdvZVA8xzpcWG0eYr1G3MiCMBwbxDMAj4CBsP7ayjL/s1600/DSCF0368.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1201" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoaCiCCSBVTvLK52OgSP01_MkD3nLtnR6UnbuloMK41Yje-EQ14OyxhS8p_Isiumbz0ZR5aN2FeEUUQd-UgUffBOvhUsmQeE6asYjdvZVA8xzpcWG0eYr1G3MiCMBwbxDMAj4CBsP7ayjL/s400/DSCF0368.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #38761d;">Which I did and after a few false starts the screen showed what his did. That the bios chip was corrupt and that it would use the second chip to start and correct the problem. So I got it back. With only the clock saying 2012! </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhTOmyNbbN8sWTtuufWJIxBs7mlvDSam8MJm44zM57sCYYejjtLqIqIOCSq39R0CPzkxnTCH_SBVGtdsCCBQR04QggzyBMbSGgl4v0G1oMnaUvVnbn3h110FvcJlNf6wR6Ri5h4916H4lt/s1600/DSCF0372.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhTOmyNbbN8sWTtuufWJIxBs7mlvDSam8MJm44zM57sCYYejjtLqIqIOCSq39R0CPzkxnTCH_SBVGtdsCCBQR04QggzyBMbSGgl4v0G1oMnaUvVnbn3h110FvcJlNf6wR6Ri5h4916H4lt/s640/DSCF0372.JPG" width="480" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span><span style="color: #38761d;">Above is a picture of the new SSD drive resting on top of the motherboard manual. I did consider a new board, which I thought was only £79. But when I looked at it, it wasn't the same thing. Not the number in the photo above And my board turned out to be the rarer type and selling currently for around £200! Just put that number into Google and see the prices! </span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;">Problem Solved</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">I managed to find a clever bit of software which is FREE that creates a new boot system on my drive C. It's called Easy BCD</span><br />
<a href="https://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/209885-bootmgr-move-c-easybcd.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: magenta;">easybcd</span></a><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #38761d;">The above link will take you to the Forum and the instructions of how to do it. The first download link there doesn't work, but if you go to page 15 you will see one that takes you to The Major Geeks site that will have the download. It creates the new file on the drive you want. Once done all I had to do was change the Bios on the the motherboard to drive C and it started from drive C. I closed it down removed the faulty drive F and it starts Windows from drive C all the time! I have installed the new SSD drive and kept the name Programs and Drive F. After installing the software back, using the old system disks, it worked fine. Some of the systems only needed to be repaired to put the links back to drive F. Even though it's a new disc! I was even able to get the software stored on the back up drive back on the new drive. I just used the selective "folder" option on the restore software. Picking the folders that I didn't have system program disks for. I left off any folders of programs that might cause errors. Especially the Magix earlier Video editors. As Windows stores the thumbnails of the desktop, even when they were working again, the thumbs were not showing right. So I had to clear the Cache, by going to drive clean up in windows and select Thumbnails. In the image below it gives you the option to get rid of Windows Update Cleanup. But be careful with that one as I did tick that box. But afterwards Windows spent several hours installing new updates and it lasted about 8 hours doing that. Since there are no new Windows 7 updates these days, or rarely! It must have reinstalled those which where "cleaned up". So I won't do that again!! </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"> </span><img alt="How to Reduce the Size of Your WinSXS Folder on Windows 7 or 8" class="n3VNCb" data-noaft="1" height="154" jsaction="load:XAeZkd;" jsname="HiaYvf" src="https://www.howtogeek.com/thumbcache/2/200/d2de4d6829232b9f25c7b25de760af06/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/windows-update-cleanup.png" style="height: 282.692px; margin: 0px; width: 735px;" width="400" /><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #38761d;">The one thing I have learn't from this is when you are installing your system. Only connect up the operating system disk first and install Windows to that before connecting any other disk drives. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span><span style="color: #38761d;"> </span><span style="color: #38761d;"> </span><span style="color: #38761d;"> </span><span style="color: #38761d;"> </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-47023772507109424102020-04-13T09:07:00.001-07:002021-11-19T12:00:28.304-08:00A Way To Live Special Post - London Needs Cutting Down To Size<br />
<div align="CENTER" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;">London Needs Cutting Down To Size</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The simple truth is that if the UK allows it Capital City to keep expanding it will spend a fortune on just moving people around. Money that could be spent elsewhere. And boy is it expanding!! London has currently 8 million people living in it. There are more Londoners than Scottish people (5.3 million) and Welsh people (3.0 million) put together. Having said that London's population hasn't always been on the increase. World War Two saw it fall drastically and it kept falling till 1979. Of course in the year the Conservatives took power and with their empathise on the financial sector started the population rising again. It's currently estimated to 13 million by 2050.
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Most of the rest of the UK has no big populations centres that even compares to London. And as the picture shows there populations can fit into London with plenty to spare for others:</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU5n7UYVkWtWwzQMbgbZdIQ6zsoAQkqRAQ7vHrgTk_GUEP6G5ozmNzlsA4mXUWXiLenCSAlQeG31xvoKCLHZUYRqkEcGv5yLXj02PObTmY1BlKOIg8KWJK2AfsMXPagu95S0PeyocCOZK_/s1123/London+size.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="889" data-original-width="1123" height="530" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU5n7UYVkWtWwzQMbgbZdIQ6zsoAQkqRAQ7vHrgTk_GUEP6G5ozmNzlsA4mXUWXiLenCSAlQeG31xvoKCLHZUYRqkEcGv5yLXj02PObTmY1BlKOIg8KWJK2AfsMXPagu95S0PeyocCOZK_/w670-h530/London+size.jpg" width="670" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"> So why are all these people there? Well if you look at the statistics of what they do for a living you find a disparage between types of workers, compared with the rest of the country. London workers fall way behind on manufacturing and agricultural jobs. Surprisingly there's less secretarial workers in London. And less manual workers and skilled workers there. But you probably know who are there in greater numbers. Banking and money people 26.2% on 2018 figures. Much higher than the 17% of the rest of the UK. The boss and management are also there in higher numbers too. A lot of professionals and technicians are there too. This is probably not as surprising as it's likely than professional based organisations such as The Royal College of Surgeons or other research bodies have been based here in the past. Indeed many such places and bodies were founded in London. They simply have not needed to locate elsewhere, in fact they have all their needs met by the Local Authorities in London and of course Central Government. However Governments have tried to move certain parts of the structures out of the London area. Some commercial bodies too. But many of these were due to pressure being applied by areas outside London to relinquish control to them, rather than Central Government having the money and power. The most recent being the Scottish and Welsh democracy movements. In general most decentralisation schemes have hit snags and due to the fact that places, that have received these schemes, are operating with the unfair disadvantages that they always have under the present system.
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Despite what seems to be lots of new developments in London, construction type jobs are slightly below the level of those in the rest of the country. But only just. London's total workforce stands a 6 million up from 4 million in 2005. Yet the UK's workforce only rose by 4 million in the same period. Which means that London jobs accounted for half the jobs created between 2005 and 2019.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Of course to get them to and from work requires a transport system that simply is not coping with the demand and has required massive investment already.
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">However in a Transport for London document</span> <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwja4Jjd3eXoAhVeQUEAHXhvBjQQFjAAegQIBBAB&url=https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Transport%20Supporting%20Paper_3.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1d4b4IR0LIAaVOdNRifQE9"><span style="color: #ff420e;">Transport Supporting Paper 3</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;"> it highlights the need for more transport and gives a very strange conclusion</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><i>Dense cities and public transport also support more sustainable growth. </i></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #38761d;">It also further argues:</span><br />
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.39cm; margin-bottom: 0.07cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: blue;"><i>Some
people argue that London’s growth should not be encouraged. Given
the pressures, this is understandable but unrealistic. Our city’s
growth matters – both for London and the UK as a whole.</i></span><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt;">
</span></span></span>
</div>
</div>
<ol>
<li>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.39cm; margin-bottom: 0.07cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span black="" color:="" font-size:="" style="color: blue;" xx-small="">
</span></span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Of course the systems already in place make alternatives doom to fail. But if the Way To Live practice was in place, the economy would actual benefit. For example not needing to transport people to places would cut the transport bill vastly. It does away with congestion charges and all the associated costs of making roads. Even if companies decided to move away wanting to use London as base, but were not allowed to. They would find that any city still employing the old system, would have greater costs and they would see ongoing costs laid at their feet as these places have to find ways of dealing with costs such as pollution.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">But the document shows what might be required to keep the City of London a world leader.
</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><i>The overall scale of transport investment set out in this document (around £200 billion)</i></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" western="">
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Much of this however would need to be car based. Since the road system isn't working.
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i><span style="color: blue;">An efficient road network is key to supporting employment and economic vitality more widely across London. </span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">parts of the A12 catering for more than 100,000 vehicles a day and the North Circular exceeding 120,000. Overall, the road network carries 80 per cent of people’s journeys and 90 per cent of freight. Already each day in London it caters for around 10 million car trips, more than 4 million bus trips</span></i><br />
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.39cm; margin-bottom: 0.07cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span font-style:="" normal="" style="color: #38761d;">With such problems the report also mentions what a lot of people do too!</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.39cm; margin-bottom: 0.07cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span left="" style="color: blue; line-height: 0.39cm; margin-bottom: 0.07cm;"><i>
more than 6 million walking trips
</i></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span left="" style="color: blue; line-height: 0.39cm; margin-bottom: 0.07cm;"><i><br /></i></span></span>
<span style="color: #38761d; font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Meanwhile as traffic will continue to rise the actual income from tax measures will actually fall. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Duty and VAT on fuel currently raise about £32bn annually</i></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Vehicle Excise Duty which raises £6bn annually, is declining as people buy more fuel efficient, cleaner cars</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span left="" style="color: blue; line-height: 0.39cm; margin-bottom: 0.07cm;"><i></i></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>So, despite a projected growth in traffic nationally, revenue from motoring taxation is set to drop by £13bn a year, or 35 per cent, by 2029 </i></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">It's therefore no surprise that London has a massive transit system already in place. Accounting for 12.1% of Jobs and much greater than the rest of the UK. But moving people around is dangerous in many ways. All transport links have been targets for terrorist attacks.
Underground fires and crashes have taken place. Railway trains have collided with each other. And we have the latest threat of people spreading diseases just to the close proximity with each other. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbdw8En1L-sYOXSO-c2HL42KpqLifPLsoxc6A4-26OhW2F8xZbOk4QoeS9I4cZcmj3syWhP5opubGiqvn0UGkJ8Ygw3xXvm1krB98cShhQl6wuJu1Pw5ivCnwnwNETs7ahlpvuzPytunB2/s1600/2Tube+packed.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="815" data-original-width="809" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbdw8En1L-sYOXSO-c2HL42KpqLifPLsoxc6A4-26OhW2F8xZbOk4QoeS9I4cZcmj3syWhP5opubGiqvn0UGkJ8Ygw3xXvm1krB98cShhQl6wuJu1Pw5ivCnwnwNETs7ahlpvuzPytunB2/s640/2Tube+packed.jpg" width="635" /></a></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The same report acknowledges that overcrowding will get worse. </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.39cm; margin-bottom: 0.07cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>By the early 2030s we estimate that there will be a 25 per cent increase in the volume of Underground travel in crowded conditions, and a 65 per cent increase by 2050. </i></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Even if the people above don't catch a germ that might wipe many of them out. Most will suffer from the stress of these conditions. Arguing with other commuters and trying to get a seat. Waiting for cancelled services, or getting to work late, which could mean a loss of the job. And the boring nature of this form of travelling. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Tourism </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"> Without doubt lots of people visit London for the historic places. And of course London would still be a place for people to come to see. Nevertheless the places are all in a area that is smaller compared with the whole of London. Since they were all constructed when London was much smaller. They really do not the City to expand in area or in numbers of the population to grow. In-fact they would be better served if most of the traffic vanished. The existing rail links are actually quiet adequate to move around tourist and any person connected with the trade. Monorail links could be incorporated to move people shorter distances. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Other Trade </span> <br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">To some extent some shopping streets would not need to be touched. And would benefit from being converted to being more suitable for people rather than the Taxi's and Buses. Do all the theatres need to be in the West End? Many places would benefit from having them in their area. However as long as they don't see the need for an army of people to keep them going and they can be easily incorporated into the Way To Live concept. They could stay where they are. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">But much of the financial sector needs to vanish from the city. Along with other sectors removed from Central London. This will take much of the commuter traffic out of the picture and put an end to many of the suburbs of London.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Central Government</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">I have discussed this already in Way To Live. With each centre running itself having the Houses of Parliament running the UK would be silly. If the UK requires some elected figurehead then it can still use the Number 10 system for it. But it must be pointed out that the Prime Minster is really just the First Lord of The Treasury. And since the Treasury is just the way the country spends things, all such functions would be down to a more local level, so in a way it would be obsolete. In the end the P.M. Would simply be an elected King or Queen. And we have an un-elected Queen already. </span> <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-56863717883477414482019-05-21T13:53:00.001-07:002019-05-21T16:49:13.473-07:00Lightweight Shelves for Model Paint storage<span style="color: #38761d;">I was having a problem storing various model paints which come in all sorts and sizes. I have purchased commercially made stands, though they tend to take up lots of room. So I came up with this clever idea.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">As my rooms walls are not the strongest things to put things on. I realized that what I needed to build had to be strong, but light of weight. Now I could have made the shelves out of hardboard, or small plywood. But instead I came up with the idea of using Correx Sheet, or as some people call it Sign Board, </span><span style="color: #38761d;">which is what they make signs from of course. You can get this in various sizes and thickness, but the size I got was only 4mm thick. </span><br />
<a href="https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00LFKG2TM/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1" target="_blank"><span style="color: magenta;">Amazon Correx Board 4mm</span></a><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">It's much easier too cut then the wood materials. There were some big sheets of it on Amazon so I got them. I cut one of them to the size of the backboard that I wanted. I used another to make the sides of the unit. I glued the sides on with a strong adhesive. You can use the Strong As Nails type or any glue that will stick plastics together. For the shelves I used L angle plastic strip, that you can get from hardware stores. I found it cheapest at Screwfix. Depending on how wide you want the shelves depends on how large the bottles and tins you want to store. I found that 30mm angle was enough for my needs.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO1lJzvE4kmsN3r1Kskyuy4xOuPyQ1FND0ddWOFERsrGKHwdhFHywlu729PC2Z_MVyPzx3qvus4iK4IW3On99dyeMxKubiHVkLXQlSNmzQs-i9KMPxnDqoeIDAEgE-aUxNKsaBZN8MmvGw/s1600/Angle+Strip.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO1lJzvE4kmsN3r1Kskyuy4xOuPyQ1FND0ddWOFERsrGKHwdhFHywlu729PC2Z_MVyPzx3qvus4iK4IW3On99dyeMxKubiHVkLXQlSNmzQs-i9KMPxnDqoeIDAEgE-aUxNKsaBZN8MmvGw/s200/Angle+Strip.JPG" width="150" /></a></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;"> It comes in long strips so you work out how many you need from the size you have chosen for the base. You then cut the L Angle to the size (width) of the shelf. The distance apart depends on the height of the materials you want to store. For example the height of a Humbrol or Revell tin will only just reach the top of the 30mm strip. Even allowing for space to get a tin out, you could get a lot of strips on your board for that. If you have made a large board for them, you can always add more strip shelves at a later date. Glue each strip to the board with a the same glue. As mine was a large piece of board I allowed two strips for the attachment of the wall mounting screws. Two on each side. Drill the holes to take the screws and then attach the strips to the board. Then drill again (when the glue dries) in the holes, all the way trough the backing Board. You can then mount them to the wall. I put a metal washer at the back to stop the pressure damaging the plastic when the screws are sent home. It goes without saying that you need a sprite level to attach both the L angle and the thing to the wall. A small one comes in handy for fixing L angles. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">To stop tins falling out, I used another L angle strip this time only 10mm wide. If you want more protection you can use wider ones. Simple cut the strip to size of the angle shelf. Then before you glue to the under side of the shelf, measure your widest bottle or tin. I found that the Revell Aqua Color boxes to be quite wide, so I put two of them on each shelf and then glued the strip on. For speed I used Super Glue. But you could clamp it on, till the glue dries. You probably still need to clamp them with the Super Glue method. The edge strip doesn't need to be tight against the other. In fact it can't be if you use the Revell Aqua ones, as they won't fit the shelf! Other than that that's the job done. So here's what it all looks like:</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUttvFmRiUh-2Y6_HLKvR8WnsDWjByTgd8kddrpxmMDCj8fSPzJYqklHTqGZl_lqNOrbiBfvUXpNKuqfnUwqJizbSpZTBU183U7aY9UzuBO7H1sNbg4orsheAVHm-3FsMp93nABwNKOSE8/s1600/Wall+mounted+paint+shelf.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUttvFmRiUh-2Y6_HLKvR8WnsDWjByTgd8kddrpxmMDCj8fSPzJYqklHTqGZl_lqNOrbiBfvUXpNKuqfnUwqJizbSpZTBU183U7aY9UzuBO7H1sNbg4orsheAVHm-3FsMp93nABwNKOSE8/s640/Wall+mounted+paint+shelf.JPG" width="480" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;"> </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">You can see a spare angle for extra shelves on the left of the picture I also put a piece of 10mm angle on the top shelf to form a lip for storing other items on top of the unit.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">This close up shows the mounting screw for attachment to the wall. You can see it on the second shelf up on the first photo too. The white cap is one that you can get that fit into the screw heads. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi26ZnMf8AnNrsKtD42lB-iHTEIedcOD2LAAQTisAnGjvHssMQyw2mXm2mdQlZ1XXB21A-F2VdpST0wQNo5ADw-beSOXearXqUXuHyVO7atJNjfs-0r3gdaWri5O-DdOZCJbJei4AwBoOik/s1600/Shelf+for+Humbrol+tins.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi26ZnMf8AnNrsKtD42lB-iHTEIedcOD2LAAQTisAnGjvHssMQyw2mXm2mdQlZ1XXB21A-F2VdpST0wQNo5ADw-beSOXearXqUXuHyVO7atJNjfs-0r3gdaWri5O-DdOZCJbJei4AwBoOik/s400/Shelf+for+Humbrol+tins.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #38761d;">This image shows how different sized bottles can be stored on the same shelf.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrzgBSQGt_R4_mF3gkJbFyRf9UC-02XD9dcso6W8ShIzeeW3zzHeoA0VAqYiL-nxpuh-dHMO3PWcGzNUemHVPKWMngGMc_celArh77MqwqJVtHvs2pX15BmBfHjppvKgTYFbkvbxs1oOiv/s1600/Shelf+show+various+sizes.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrzgBSQGt_R4_mF3gkJbFyRf9UC-02XD9dcso6W8ShIzeeW3zzHeoA0VAqYiL-nxpuh-dHMO3PWcGzNUemHVPKWMngGMc_celArh77MqwqJVtHvs2pX15BmBfHjppvKgTYFbkvbxs1oOiv/s400/Shelf+show+various+sizes.JPG" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Next photo shows the 10mm edge strip that helps prevent the tins falling out. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_XMrHXXPBetlefXCMYbvAnKp2QcUgmU5A82kBahbA62Jgl8bxAgQcPMVR5WZbQMvGsmXz4CEMJwHl_QqFlKF0Nq1UGFNdyn-noy10CFs4c1EL75JQ369m2rwuzrKIL8yEktHFtKf5e_Xz/s1600/Shelf+showing+falling+out+lip.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_XMrHXXPBetlefXCMYbvAnKp2QcUgmU5A82kBahbA62Jgl8bxAgQcPMVR5WZbQMvGsmXz4CEMJwHl_QqFlKF0Nq1UGFNdyn-noy10CFs4c1EL75JQ369m2rwuzrKIL8yEktHFtKf5e_Xz/s400/Shelf+showing+falling+out+lip.JPG" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Lastly this image shows how narrow the shelf is compared to a commercial made paint stand. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTLZDUCVA83MeSBiZrGUYF59SYs25M5-rsfyQY5lMuvkfobMyYfISZ4r70-Keycp1nNhbNZvTdRsqH2dPgCGNbT1oNyHTwdGaqOji8C3Ni7PKRP-OxNCI6PCPkuaVabkrde1I1_Vsuxmre/s1600/Side+view+showing+other+paint+store.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTLZDUCVA83MeSBiZrGUYF59SYs25M5-rsfyQY5lMuvkfobMyYfISZ4r70-Keycp1nNhbNZvTdRsqH2dPgCGNbT1oNyHTwdGaqOji8C3Ni7PKRP-OxNCI6PCPkuaVabkrde1I1_Vsuxmre/s400/Side+view+showing+other+paint+store.JPG" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">To prove how much space can be saved, the shelf unit is back of the door, which tends to be a bit of a dead zone for putting things. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnSeEt1OAOy2W7LiFVyX0yxaq1I05CS4UeFwP_9hxFAJIY_8-g3ncPkWMgJhQOO1Qr8eRuSKURChYznb9LzGSMAQW0-28BhcuaJZS2jFUC-xUXresfnefWxjj492bUEK3ZgkVOmGB_ap_k/s1600/Paint+shelf+showing+close+to+door.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnSeEt1OAOy2W7LiFVyX0yxaq1I05CS4UeFwP_9hxFAJIY_8-g3ncPkWMgJhQOO1Qr8eRuSKURChYznb9LzGSMAQW0-28BhcuaJZS2jFUC-xUXresfnefWxjj492bUEK3ZgkVOmGB_ap_k/s400/Paint+shelf+showing+close+to+door.JPG" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">There was one item that couldn't be stored on the shelves. Acrylic Paint Pens. Th solution to this was Remote Control Holders. I found these commercially made from clear plastic. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIaRmeF9pidexU-gJSYXAlu48Ml-RH0-lKbHzzkJIxx86CmtiPX_9QvxfrY1ggm9LpvYzYzDVj8TrUQilFKUZEVSoKhTCem3G8Xaf1W2eQIwVBd06CuBh2Mt4ZtGn-z-cCUmJj1I88_iKl/s1600/Remote+stand+for+paint+pens.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIaRmeF9pidexU-gJSYXAlu48Ml-RH0-lKbHzzkJIxx86CmtiPX_9QvxfrY1ggm9LpvYzYzDVj8TrUQilFKUZEVSoKhTCem3G8Xaf1W2eQIwVBd06CuBh2Mt4ZtGn-z-cCUmJj1I88_iKl/s400/Remote+stand+for+paint+pens.JPG" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">And if you are always losing pens they can be used to store them too! </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk9kviQIFY6WQAxDFhhQcF4MCPZeLmS3f_VbDcKmt9b3e68nMYvzypQHqq_Pi05SaRpS3QWU3G6kPh6_4G-DGL_F4OJHr3A3lv1liXIa058KWf0_fy5uhDvJFz7J5IOiFv5IFG1FABvR-x/s1600/Remote+Stand+for+pens.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk9kviQIFY6WQAxDFhhQcF4MCPZeLmS3f_VbDcKmt9b3e68nMYvzypQHqq_Pi05SaRpS3QWU3G6kPh6_4G-DGL_F4OJHr3A3lv1liXIa058KWf0_fy5uhDvJFz7J5IOiFv5IFG1FABvR-x/s400/Remote+Stand+for+pens.JPG" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-48142290432740397052019-01-20T16:46:00.003-08:002019-01-20T16:46:54.464-08:00<h3>
<span style="color: red;">Why Margot Robbie could have stayed as she is now to play the Queen Elizabeth, with just a few years added on!</span></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLyvNdchpLaf4KvUJasaxNvWdCuAczRrKroO2kh1VBoIZIiq5pZJ0rib4sKUwbosfsCjpqKeZjRljv6maVWAm40vLdFXxrjj6nJN2QXGtrUwMFh_JgVb3xFscRQdyXhr3GSUIoT4cZpsFo/s1600/actress-margot-robbie.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1134" data-original-width="1600" height="453" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLyvNdchpLaf4KvUJasaxNvWdCuAczRrKroO2kh1VBoIZIiq5pZJ0rib4sKUwbosfsCjpqKeZjRljv6maVWAm40vLdFXxrjj6nJN2QXGtrUwMFh_JgVb3xFscRQdyXhr3GSUIoT4cZpsFo/s640/actress-margot-robbie.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Margot is now aged 28, but at 54 (her age at Mary's death in 1587) Queen Elizabeth could compete with a girl of 18 for youth and beauty. But how is she made up like in the new movie about Mary Queen of Scots? Like this:</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwV8QjQ4eI79Bol7L39gCEhcDvnNqS1X4lD7e32rRxeGYqcV1ycof2gjBYZCcgilWV6HMnE2-00uRJv7oa1W_YiLZwWTzlDyUoQwepgYdo617VMNPvWwtY8jevWrZpj9-ZhEKEC-4Qay3W/s1600/maxresdefault.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwV8QjQ4eI79Bol7L39gCEhcDvnNqS1X4lD7e32rRxeGYqcV1ycof2gjBYZCcgilWV6HMnE2-00uRJv7oa1W_YiLZwWTzlDyUoQwepgYdo617VMNPvWwtY8jevWrZpj9-ZhEKEC-4Qay3W/s640/maxresdefault.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Meanwhile Robert Dudley has gone the opposite way to Elizabeth changing from a white man to a black man!</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">The truth of the matter is that everyone in Elizabethan England saw the Queen looking like that of the modern actress Margot Robbie. While the real Queen Elizabeth saw herself as that which Margot portrays. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">So now you are thinking women can't longer in the 50's. But these headlines from Woman Magazine show that's not true.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"> <strong><span style="color: black;">Leeds mum Pamela is actually 52, but has often b<span style="color: #38761d;"><strong><span style="color: black;">een mistaken for her 21 year old sons girlfriend… rather awkwardly for him!</span></strong> </span></span></strong></span><br />
<strong><span style="color: #38761d;"></span></strong><br />
<strong>Christie Brinkley (56) has always been a mega babe, with glossy blonde locks, a
three-time Sports Illustrated cover-worthy body, and a dazzling megawatt
smile.</strong><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzsHiuB4s651qem_xQA5CurEKqghB32ZVgHZSMo_CdtTml-uDYDTfoIO0T134pR4XR3FfTiyPM-9WaJjrqkoYie0sUrfhrqoSEJruwMmwbByeC5a_xWCBzGE8ca3uI3xoohBPcTlkn56mo/s1600/Christie+Brinkley+56.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="700" data-original-width="512" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzsHiuB4s651qem_xQA5CurEKqghB32ZVgHZSMo_CdtTml-uDYDTfoIO0T134pR4XR3FfTiyPM-9WaJjrqkoYie0sUrfhrqoSEJruwMmwbByeC5a_xWCBzGE8ca3uI3xoohBPcTlkn56mo/s400/Christie+Brinkley+56.jpg" width="292" /></a></div>
<br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong>The original 80s supermodel, Cindy Crawford was the ultimate poster girl for
natural beauty with her super shiny locks, naturally white teeth and
glowing skin. 20 years later, she ‘s barely aged a day!</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Then of course even the reincarnation of Queen Elizabeth is still young looking at 52. </span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTqIJDyFQ1dpTI958ET2CBZ8dHw-AqH09SLNzqKT6c03iL6MrLd9br0PSeSspqBzTF9A_8jkE19dSgNedLOUJlnjC79Dvw9sf_sOdTbko3PbIFDjPqX-P9BNQr4t8xl7yZzI-IgX1-z-dR/s1600/Pamela+Anderson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="761" data-original-width="1315" height="369" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTqIJDyFQ1dpTI958ET2CBZ8dHw-AqH09SLNzqKT6c03iL6MrLd9br0PSeSspqBzTF9A_8jkE19dSgNedLOUJlnjC79Dvw9sf_sOdTbko3PbIFDjPqX-P9BNQr4t8xl7yZzI-IgX1-z-dR/s640/Pamela+Anderson.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<strong></strong><br />
<strong></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-80606706858719459022016-08-17T05:15:00.002-07:002016-08-17T05:15:54.660-07:00The mystery of the hypen on Shakespeare's name solved<span style="color: #38761d;">There are several printed plays and of course the Sonnets, that on the title page use the name of Shakespeare but where the word of his name is split by a hyphen. Like this: Shake-speare. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Anti-Stratfordians have argued this was used to indicate that William Shakespeare did not write these pieces and that another writer did them using the name of Shakespeare as a cover. Each of the groups then proposes a candidate, or more then one, that did write the piece. However they never credit William Shakespeare of Stratford with the writing of them, even if he was working with someone else on them. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">However I think we can now pin the origin of the use of the hyphen on Shakespeare's name to one man. That of Ben Jonson. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIM0qTjZ8imWYNC92IzbKNHfCWKIUpxbIWWjl80LVk_2BDUP9p9md7YhdK2BtIoGsOFfcdqRoEXo8HVimK-AE_0A-XtjOLkjq1o8W0ezOtutbVaPJ7jPKmKnetQ6RjwbPO1Lk3Ou0yFPEW/s1600/Ben+Jonson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIM0qTjZ8imWYNC92IzbKNHfCWKIUpxbIWWjl80LVk_2BDUP9p9md7YhdK2BtIoGsOFfcdqRoEXo8HVimK-AE_0A-XtjOLkjq1o8W0ezOtutbVaPJ7jPKmKnetQ6RjwbPO1Lk3Ou0yFPEW/s320/Ben+Jonson.jpg" width="226" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span style="color: #38761d;">We can do this because he had his own works printed before Shakespeare died. On January 20 1616, Ben had his book entered in the Stationers Register. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">It gives us massive clues about William, because Ben says when the plays were first performed and gives a list of the actors. But the actors names are not in the same order for each play.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">For example <em><span style="color: #38761d;">Every Man In his Humor</span></em> dated to 1598, Shakespeare is top of the list. Yet on another play he is fifth place. This to me implies that Shakespeare was the top actor or the main star of the piece and not on the other play. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Some of course don't carry Shakespeare's name at all. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">But one play in question where he is not top billing called <em>Sejanus His Fall</em>, on the cast list splits Shakespeare's name with a hyphen. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/sites/default/files/styles/max_width/public/document-images/STC%2014751_113188.jpg?itok=tScgWA9W" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/sites/default/files/styles/max_width/public/document-images/STC%2014751_113188.jpg?itok=tScgWA9W" height="320" width="235" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">However it is also known that Ben admits that he did not write this piece alone. As this taken from Wikipedia shows:</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">"Jonson's epistle "To the Readers" in the 1605 quarto states that an
unnamed author had "good share" in the version of the play which was
performed on the public stage:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Lastly I would inform you that this book, in all numbers, is not the
same with that which was acted on the public stage, wherein a second pen
had good share; in place of which, I have rather chosen to put weaker
(and no doubt less pleasing) of mine own, than to defraud so happy a
genius of his right by my loathed usurpation".</blockquote>
The fact that Jonson doesn't want to name the person leaves him with a problem. To find a way to name the person without doing so publicly. Since he does not use the hyphen on the previous play, it's clear to me that Jonson used it here on Sejanus to indicate that William Shakespeare was the joint writer with him. <br />
The fact that Jonson used this publicly gives us a massive clue to the fact that it was his way of acknowledging a joint work by Shakespeare. Even if he was not the other writer. For as we have seen the Sonnets also carry this "Shake-speare". And we know Ben wasn't the joint writer on those. The above information gives me a massive clue that Jonson was the person that had the Sonnets published and the hyphen was his way of showing that Queen Elizabeth was the other writer of them. Though even though she was dead when they were published in 1609, he dare not use her name on them. <br />
As for any other plays that use a hyphen on Shakespeare's name, it is very clear to me that Ben Jonson had these published, or was somehow connected with them. And that he knew they were joint works with William Shakespeare. Of course the problem is we do not know who the other writers were on these works. But they probably could be worked out.<br />
We do not to look far as to why Ben Jonson wanted to publish these things by Shakespeare. As he tells us he worshiped the man. He wasn't going to let William Shakespeare's modesty, or principles stop the world from knowing about William Shakespeare. And I think thanks largely to him we do know about Shakespeare. But having said that he was also responsible for a great deal of the confusion about Shakespeare. However most of that was caused by William Shakespeare trying to hide from the world and protect himself and other people. <br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-54251793398405725352016-04-04T13:47:00.000-07:002016-04-04T13:49:47.178-07:00Shakespeare's Skull or Anne Hathaway's found?<h2 abp="288">
<span abp="289" style="color: red;">Who's Skull is Missing?</span></h2>
<div abp="850" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div abp="290">
<span abp="291" style="color: #38761d;">If you watched the recent documentary on Channel Four entitled<em abp="292"> Shakespeare's Tomb</em>, broadcast on the 26 March 2016. You will know that Kevin Colls of Staffordshire University and geophysicist Erica Utsi recently were granted permission from the Church of Holy Trinity in Stratford-upon-Avon, to do a radar survey of all the graves of the Shakespeare family buried in the Chancel of the Church. They were not allowed to dig the ground, but the radar survey (shown below) did show some interesting things.</span></div>
<div abp="525" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="526" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj69GS8mpMZ-QhNpAsIxnSRMhyRBBnUA1G8k0nFKu6th2E4gUVTqIAen-kiR6eVTP-gIQeAhUy75l9CmDiw13J6rKtRSW8h5uzw96SdLWp2dt2by5FN447MCLwOaeb0kAJZAlo6OzgWv66J/s1600/Search+for+Shakespeare+grave.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="527" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj69GS8mpMZ-QhNpAsIxnSRMhyRBBnUA1G8k0nFKu6th2E4gUVTqIAen-kiR6eVTP-gIQeAhUy75l9CmDiw13J6rKtRSW8h5uzw96SdLWp2dt2by5FN447MCLwOaeb0kAJZAlo6OzgWv66J/s1600/Search+for+Shakespeare+grave.jpg" /></a></div>
<div abp="293">
<span abp="294" style="color: #38761d;"></span> </div>
<div abp="297">
<span abp="298" style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span abp="298" style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span abp="298" style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<br />
<span abp="298" style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span abp="298" style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span abp="298" style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span abp="298" style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span abp="298" style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span abp="298" style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span abp="298" style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span abp="298" style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span abp="298" style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span abp="298" style="color: #38761d;">Firstly we need to clear one thing up. The radar did not show the bones of the people themselves. Just the impression that a burial would make in the ground. So they couldn't see a skeleton of anybody. The first thing they proved that each of the seven people interred in the ground was that they were not in a family vault. What they found was the seven graves were of the type that would mean that they were wrapped in a cloth (called a winding sheet) and buried. No coffins, no lead box. All the graves were no more than 3 feet deep, around one metre. </span></div>
<div abp="299">
<span abp="300" style="color: #38761d;">Shakespeare's stone, marked by the use of the "cursed" inscription is actually shorter than the rest. This had lead to rumors than he was buried standing up! However the radar showed that his grave extends right up to the plinth area of the alter. And so a blank slab on the top (head) end is still covering the burial of Shakespeare. </span></div>
<div abp="301">
<span abp="302" style="color: #38761d;">Further investigation of the area around the plain slab at the head of Shakespeare's stone, revealed that a structure had been put in place to support it. Erica Utsi commented that in all here experience of doing these types of surveys she had not seen anything like it. </span></div>
<div abp="303">
<span abp="304" style="color: #38761d;">The conclusion was that it would be done to repair the slab just to stop it sinking. But why would it be sinking in the first place. And why would Shakespeare's stone need a slab at the top end? </span></div>
<div abp="305">
<span abp="306" style="color: #38761d;">Kevin Colls and Cambridge historian Dr Helen Castor think they have found the reason. It occurs in a magazine called the Argosy published in 1879 (link below to a PDF of it). </span></div>
<div abp="307">
<span abp="308" style="color: magenta;"><a abp="1073" href="http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/04/04/argosythe28wood/" target="_blank"><span abp="1223" style="color: magenta;">Argosy 1879 - original from internet archive (39mb</span><span abp="1224" style="color: magenta;">)</span></a></span></div>
<div abp="309">
<span abp="310" style="color: #38761d;">On page 268 there is a story of how Shakespeare's skull was stolen! It relates to a story that was thought to be a work of fiction by most Shakespeare academics. </span></div>
<div abp="311">
<span abp="312" style="color: #38761d;">The story told third hand to the person writing the piece, relates to one Frank Chambers who in 1787 was assigned to work with a doctor working in Alcester (the only doctor in the area). Sometime around the 1790's Frank Chambers attend a dinner with many of the local gentry of the Stratford area. By that time the Stratford Jubliee's were on the go and one said (in connection with that event) if the face of William Shakespeare on the monument in the Church actually looked like the real William. </span></div>
<div abp="313">
<span abp="314" style="color: #38761d;">One of the guests said that you had better dig him up to find out. Then another guest said the Horace Walpole was offering 300 guineas for Shakespeare's head! </span></div>
<div abp="315">
<span abp="316" style="color: #38761d;">Now Chambers, who was a medical man, wasn't opposed to digging bodies up that were more recently buried, for medical research. He had employed some men in the past to do this. So with the prospect of a lot of money at stake he got in touch with the men. There names were Tom Dyer, Harry Cull and another man with the surname of Hawtin. They agreed to help him dig up Shakespeare. </span></div>
<div abp="317">
<span abp="318" style="color: #38761d;">Late at night with Hatwin watching outside, they eventually got into the church and went to the stone of Shakespeare. Tom Dyer was clearly a tradesman and worked in a smithy, so he could easily get the lock open of the church door. </span></div>
<div abp="319">
<span abp="320" style="color: #38761d;">They lifted the slab up and started to dig. To their surprise the first thing the came across was a more recent burial. Complete with bones, the remains of an Oak coffin, with nails and a silver plaque, with the name Ashwin. Also found were burnt glass and a ring! The image below shows the details in the Argosy of what they found... </span></div>
<div abp="1225" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="1226" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTigCWt-O9CrDsedOGAsQhyphenhyphentAcI53PO6T3vxcvZ2asjtq1YeLPcICfPTwid5oCV_4JoXigYyBDB7opxTSmI5t2w-BK-7LeJUPm3X1eqf8OGdVBfbmD-WGOBjA26g2Ea6H8tqevq_EbYt-N/s1600/argosythe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="1227" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTigCWt-O9CrDsedOGAsQhyphenhyphentAcI53PO6T3vxcvZ2asjtq1YeLPcICfPTwid5oCV_4JoXigYyBDB7opxTSmI5t2w-BK-7LeJUPm3X1eqf8OGdVBfbmD-WGOBjA26g2Ea6H8tqevq_EbYt-N/s1600/argosythe.jpg" /></a></div>
<div abp="319">
</div>
<div abp="321">
<span abp="322" style="color: #38761d;">I should point out this bit of the story was NOT referred to in the Channel Four documentary, though in one bit you can see the piece of the Argosy where it's shown.</span></div>
<div abp="323">
<span abp="324" style="color: #38761d;">They then continued to dig down till it looked like the had found the grave soil. At which point Frank Chambers told them to work with just hands. </span></div>
<div abp="325">
<span abp="326" style="color: #38761d;">The story then takes an unexpected twist for they state that the burial was 3 feet down!</span></div>
<div abp="327">
<span abp="328" style="color: #38761d;">Precisely the same depth as the radar survey showed!!</span></div>
<div abp="329">
<span abp="330" style="color: #38761d;">Colls and Castor clearly worked out that the tale would therefore appear to be true! Otherwise how would they know it was 3 feet down? Before the radar survey everyone also assumed they would be in a vault. But the Argosy makes no mention of that. Or at least in a coffin, but as the next part of the story relates that wasn't true either.</span></div>
<div abp="331">
<span abp="332" style="color: #38761d;">Tom Dyer eventually finds the skull and removes it. He hands it over to Chambers and he looks at comparing it with the image of Shakespeare nearby. He concludes that it is smaller than the bust.</span></div>
<div abp="333">
<span abp="334" style="color: #38761d;">The rest of the grave was filled in and the stone carefully placed back in place. </span></div>
<div abp="335">
</div>
<div abp="336">
<span abp="337" style="color: #38761d;">Frank Chambers then tries to sell the skull, but his attempts turn out to be fruitless. It seems some of the people just wanted to see it, not purchase it. Chambers heard that the vicar of Hatton, Samuel Parr was a big Shakespeare collector and he approached him, saying he had something of great importance. So Samuel met him and tried to tell him about the skull, but Samuel kept butting in with statements, as he asked his questions. Parr was not to pleased with some of the historians, that were looking for stuff on Shakespeare. He then told Chambers that if any man violated the "sanctity of that grave" he would have that man whipt! So Chambers changed the subject. </span></div>
<div abp="338">
<span abp="339" style="color: #38761d;">It was clear that Chambers wasn't going to be able to sell the skull without revealing it had been pinched from the grave!! So he had a word with Tom Dyer and another man to put the skull back. </span></div>
<div abp="340">
<span abp="341" style="color: #38761d;">I think he convinced them if the skull was found and linked to them they would be publicly whipped as the vicar of Hatton suggested. </span></div>
<div abp="342">
<span abp="343" style="color: #38761d;">But as the story reveals Tom was left to do it on his own. He claimed it was put back. But somebody went back to the Church to check on if the stone had been put back right, on the pretence of just going to the normal service. But what he saw was a large crack at the top end of the Shakespeare stone. </span></div>
<div abp="344">
<span abp="345" style="color: #38761d;">When Dyer was pressed he said that while he was lifting the stone he cracked it. But he said he had put the skull back. I don't think they believed him.</span></div>
<div abp="346">
<span abp="347" style="color: #38761d;">But did he put the skull back and if he didn't what did he do with it? </span></div>
<div abp="348">
<span abp="349" style="color: #38761d;"></span> </div>
<div abp="350">
<span abp="351" style="color: #38761d;">Colls and Castor answered that question too. It seems shortly after that publication a second book came out called <em abp="352">Shakespeare's Skull Found</em>. PDF below.</span></div>
<div abp="353">
<a abp="948" href="http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/04/04/howshakespearess00warw/" target="_blank"><span abp="1006" style="color: magenta;">Shakespeare's Skull Found - original from internet archive</span></a></div>
<div abp="354">
<span abp="355" style="color: #38761d;">At </span><span abp="356" style="color: #38761d;">St Leonard’s, Beoley, in Worcestershire a strange skull was found in a family vault of the Sheldon family. All of the family skulls were accounted for. This skull was the odd one out! </span></div>
<div abp="570" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="571" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSh_6qtiXoNYL2OOrP-8uQPnFi2BEBP4I8lRb5Dg0PkmWgTeCB8dO9D0pCCcljsvtz9gBfF6UTY_isU7XBDDfblpULRUNsNpvQgerN0XlWLTxkflsP2lMvvuAvby88FLcn96OLzD2PUxLz/s1600/Beoley-Skull.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="572" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSh_6qtiXoNYL2OOrP-8uQPnFi2BEBP4I8lRb5Dg0PkmWgTeCB8dO9D0pCCcljsvtz9gBfF6UTY_isU7XBDDfblpULRUNsNpvQgerN0XlWLTxkflsP2lMvvuAvby88FLcn96OLzD2PUxLz/s1600/Beoley-Skull.jpg" /></a></div>
<div abp="357">
<span abp="358" style="color: #38761d;"></span> </div>
<div abp="359">
<span abp="360" style="color: #38761d;">It seems Tom Dyer was working at that church carrying out repairs. According to the above book Tom couldn't lift the stone of Shakespeare on his own and so put the skull into the Sheldon vault at Beoley. Hoping no-one would notice. I can testify to the weight of any gravestone, they are extremely heavy. I tried to lift one myself, investigating a grave yard in a run down cemetery. I couldn't shift it an inch or fore that matter at all! </span></div>
<div abp="361">
<span abp="362" style="color: #38761d;">The author of the book above known only as <span abp="363" style="color: #38761d;"> “A Warwickshire Man” was thought to have been the Revd C. J. Langston, Vicar of Beoley from 1881 to 1889.</span> He had had found in the possessions of Frank Chambers a piece of bone wrapped up very carefully. Finding a connection to the Shakespeare's skull story he took the bone and went into the Sheldon vault and found the mystery skull. He was able to put the piece of bone back into the skull precisely. </span></div>
<div abp="364">
<span abp="365" style="color: #38761d;">He thus found Shakespeare's skull.</span></div>
<div abp="366">
<span abp="367" style="color: #38761d;"></span> </div>
<div abp="366">
<span abp="367" style="color: #38761d;">Only he hadn't...</span></div>
<div abp="368">
<span abp="369" style="color: #38761d;"></span> </div>
<div abp="368">
<span abp="369" style="color: #38761d;">In 2016 the present vicar of Beoley arranged with Kevin Colls to have the skull scanned and photographed, as long as they didn't touch the bones or skull in the vault. So they did scan it. </span></div>
<div abp="370">
<span abp="371" style="color: #38761d;">Caroline Wilkinson, very famous for her re-creation of faces on many archaeology TV shows as well as working with the police on unidentified skulls. Was brought in to recreate the face of the person from the evidence of the scans and the images. She could however tell straight away that it was a woman, plus an old one at that, round about 70 years old. The reconstructed face is shown below.</span></div>
<div abp="633" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="634" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPr1JM5Tob0rLTEA061EMM6wXGF2OrlSBVSycJi7uneQN0SALnLRiaOvSuHo9pl1vqpopqwrIxjJagGLOEHi9s7w3vQVzQ2Z-e87XQHDJo6zmEYY3jWTAZzZvDEgGucZnqqXqRAuBP6T2S/s1600/pg-22-shakespeare-grave-2-arrow-ch4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="635" border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPr1JM5Tob0rLTEA061EMM6wXGF2OrlSBVSycJi7uneQN0SALnLRiaOvSuHo9pl1vqpopqwrIxjJagGLOEHi9s7w3vQVzQ2Z-e87XQHDJo6zmEYY3jWTAZzZvDEgGucZnqqXqRAuBP6T2S/s320/pg-22-shakespeare-grave-2-arrow-ch4.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
<div abp="372">
</div>
<div abp="373">
<span abp="374" style="color: #38761d;">So it wasn't William Shakespeare. But even so the head end of Shakespeare's grave had been disturbed and the stone was sinking because of it, needing repair. For if you take soil out, of any hole you dig, even if you manage to get it all back, it will sink later on, needing either more earth adding to fill the hole, or if a slab is on it, to be raised up again. I'm certain that you will have come across the faulty paving slabs in the street, up and down, so you trip over them. So Shakespeare's stone would need to be repaired. </span></div>
<div abp="375">
<span abp="376" style="color: #38761d;">However the Vicar of Stratford wasn't convinced that the grave had been broken into, especially as the skull turned out to be a woman. So wouldn't let Colls and his team investigate the head end further. So if Chambers and Tom Dyer had broken into the tomb and taken his skull, the question remains did he put it back, or is William Shakespeare skull out there in the world still.</span></div>
<h3 abp="377">
<span abp="378" style="color: red;">The Tale of the missing head....</span></h3>
<div abp="379">
<span abp="380" style="color: #38761d;">The story however does not stop with the TV show. For when the image of the woman face appeared on the screen, I got hairs standing up right down the back of my head as well as a few expletives! For the sake of protecting someone, I can't say why that happened, but all will become clear. </span></div>
<div abp="381">
<span abp="382" style="color: #38761d;">Supposing Chambers did indeed break into the tomb of William Shakespeare and Tom Dyer didn't put the skull back, but into the Sheldon Vault as the book's suggest. But it wasn't Shakespeare's skull they had taken, but somebody else! Who could that skull be at Beoley? A woman around 70 is all we know. But there was a woman around 70 in that set of graves. Anne Shakespeare (Hathaway) his wife was 67 years old when she died. So that could fit our mystery woman's skull age. But it is clear they dug up Shakespeare's grave, not Anne's which is next to the wall. But when Chambers looked at skull he said it was small. Was that because it was a woman's skull he was looking at? But Chambers was a medical man, surely he could spot the difference between a man and woman's skull. Well yes he could, but he wasn't thinking that under the tomb of William Shakespeare was buried a woman aged around 67. So he just assumed it was William's Skull!</span></div>
<div abp="383">
<span abp="384" style="color: #38761d;">Now before some of you go rushing off thinking that Anne Shakespeare wrote the Works of Shakespeare, hence why she is under the tomb of her husband, think back to the bit that wasn't mentioned on the TV show, that Frank Chambers dug to find a modern grave by the name of Ashwin first. Clearly somebody had lifted the stones up prior to Chambers. There are indeed Ashwin members being married at the Stratford church as these printed registers show. </span></div>
<div abp="657" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="658" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6YzN4UJhSrk1zSyUGtiXV26qOWAGjIdfto6PU7IbmZy5pdeFslbvo_SyFIcAHQoS3arpDzHPQE4a-2QmfpBd0cxna9Zep0EwfyMLXjBH8NiIZFEmnWsS1hfGLxunCIcHfgcOpSdHcAsnX/s1600/Ashwin+marriage+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="659" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6YzN4UJhSrk1zSyUGtiXV26qOWAGjIdfto6PU7IbmZy5pdeFslbvo_SyFIcAHQoS3arpDzHPQE4a-2QmfpBd0cxna9Zep0EwfyMLXjBH8NiIZFEmnWsS1hfGLxunCIcHfgcOpSdHcAsnX/s1600/Ashwin+marriage+1.jpg" /></a></div>
<div abp="660">
</div>
<div abp="661" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="662" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibR9r_76RZ-fPRxSaRqaq4Sbe1-QYSKrMSEpX6EbW3HmBY7azJ9ksWunI-C_rbZeahGzEVOEeVlEftqBB4IcHdO5Cd90K9cC7EIqkayFX3aLkaOqTI8kuXxlKeTXAD7iSzUN012-foR96o/s1600/Ashwin+marriage+2+-+1746.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="663" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibR9r_76RZ-fPRxSaRqaq4Sbe1-QYSKrMSEpX6EbW3HmBY7azJ9ksWunI-C_rbZeahGzEVOEeVlEftqBB4IcHdO5Cd90K9cC7EIqkayFX3aLkaOqTI8kuXxlKeTXAD7iSzUN012-foR96o/s1600/Ashwin+marriage+2+-+1746.jpg" /></a></div>
<div abp="664">
</div>
<div abp="665" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="666" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibFPjdok-TUp8lXy57ekU7dC4of-5IPE5jTOEEDAy5qNXrlSW0w2iyUtXpSAakioBREpzi1e7g1Z-QMC22HfTe7urY5x84flt7ZjWjAyALZ0LgGFLl6EwxsfGYcRZ0nvtkz0KGBNEuvs19/s1600/Ashwin+marriage+3+-+1746.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="667" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibFPjdok-TUp8lXy57ekU7dC4of-5IPE5jTOEEDAy5qNXrlSW0w2iyUtXpSAakioBREpzi1e7g1Z-QMC22HfTe7urY5x84flt7ZjWjAyALZ0LgGFLl6EwxsfGYcRZ0nvtkz0KGBNEuvs19/s1600/Ashwin+marriage+3+-+1746.jpg" /></a></div>
<div abp="385">
<span abp="386" style="color: #38761d;"></span> </div>
<div abp="387">
<span abp="388" style="color: #38761d;">I couldn't find the burials of the same people, due to the fact they haven't been published. The IGI records are also generally lacking burial records, so they don't crop up in that. But I am certain that these Ashwin's were buried in Stratford. It's likely that sometime prior to 1790 the Ashwin family gave the vicar of Stratford a great deal of money to be buried under the Shakespeare tombs. Completely on the side. With no record being kept. Chambers was unaware of this when he then dug up the tomb of what he thought was Shakespeare and was in fact the burial spot of Anne Shakespeare. </span></div>
<div abp="389">
<span abp="390" style="color: #38761d;">So why is Anne under Shakespeare stone?</span></div>
<div abp="683">
</div>
<div abp="684" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="685" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBoC1HrtZ4UdJyuNLuP8yDVTvXbgbKX9DAFbRsZmNvo3J25Uw1nPPM0QboVusL1uGk7Ek18Wf4JO4pKPyEz1_ic-CRhaew1dvE32mtPiZRjqgT3C0eXzFSzrfqnV8kPAHSMRcz0GPIB0w0/s1600/Stratford-upon-Avon_-_Church_of_the_Holy_Trinity_-_Shakespeare%2527s_funerary_monument.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="686" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBoC1HrtZ4UdJyuNLuP8yDVTvXbgbKX9DAFbRsZmNvo3J25Uw1nPPM0QboVusL1uGk7Ek18Wf4JO4pKPyEz1_ic-CRhaew1dvE32mtPiZRjqgT3C0eXzFSzrfqnV8kPAHSMRcz0GPIB0w0/s1600/Stratford-upon-Avon_-_Church_of_the_Holy_Trinity_-_Shakespeare%2527s_funerary_monument.jpg" /></a></div>
<div abp="389">
</div>
<div abp="391">
<span abp="392" style="color: #38761d;">Well if you look at this plan of the graves you can see that the first four burials on the right are not in the order of the dates of their deaths. </span></div>
<div abp="750" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="751" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQpcy1Q5-DSyVKWVH7uHFlyDHlTyVuXax4MAHTFeariracEWIKR6pSfZ1FixurMQnWfUAg43XKUogyo0eHN436C0SidqZoPr-ppUaVZYWMaooLq-nSG-eoXjqpNEAvwpbwK9iBQiz0gqyw/s1600/Plan+of+the+Graves+in+Straford+Church.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="752" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQpcy1Q5-DSyVKWVH7uHFlyDHlTyVuXax4MAHTFeariracEWIKR6pSfZ1FixurMQnWfUAg43XKUogyo0eHN436C0SidqZoPr-ppUaVZYWMaooLq-nSG-eoXjqpNEAvwpbwK9iBQiz0gqyw/s1600/Plan+of+the+Graves+in+Straford+Church.jpg" /></a></div>
<div abp="393">
<span abp="394" style="color: #38761d;"></span> </div>
<div abp="395">
<span abp="396" style="color: #38761d;">In order for them to do that the grave diggers would have to leave a space between the wall of the church and then dig Shakespeare's grave! And the same for the rest of the other two. But I can't see them doing that. I think that William, who died first, would have been put against the wall, then Anne next to him, Susanna Hall next to Anne and then John Hall and the rest as they are...</span></div>
<div abp="397">
<span abp="398" style="color: #38761d;">This plan shows the full church layout. </span></div>
<div abp="761" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="762" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaFjUOsZMFOl16kaq8IT37KslAaB6S29UnmaMX9r_dTRQBOZ3wLUOoMqxsUE6f5uM_ElIsfiARoZ9fk04mc1rK5dNWLSJhDV4uLsvMwVOQpNqPg41fqbvCNNqRUskZ3Ai7x_g3v_cCyEbY/s1600/Plan+of+Stratford+church.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="763" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaFjUOsZMFOl16kaq8IT37KslAaB6S29UnmaMX9r_dTRQBOZ3wLUOoMqxsUE6f5uM_ElIsfiARoZ9fk04mc1rK5dNWLSJhDV4uLsvMwVOQpNqPg41fqbvCNNqRUskZ3Ai7x_g3v_cCyEbY/s1600/Plan+of+Stratford+church.jpg" /></a></div>
<div abp="399">
<span abp="400" style="color: #38761d;"></span> </div>
<div abp="401">
<span abp="402" style="color: #38761d;">You can see that the Charnel House (demolished) is next to the Shakespeare tombs. But it wasn't demolished when Chambers dug the tomb, so there was no need to move the stones for that. </span></div>
<div abp="403">
<span abp="404" style="color: #38761d;">Shakespeare paid £440 pounds in 1605 for a share in the tax privileges, this gave him the right to be buried in the Chancel, since it was including in the rights of the tax. A considerable amount of money back then. </span></div>
<div abp="405">
<span abp="406" style="color: #38761d;">So it seems that the first four stones of the Shakespeare's were all lifted up prior to 1790 and my betting is when they put them back down they didn't put them back in the same place. As I said tomb stones that size are really heavy brutes. And If the people that lifted them were like some of the workman that I have known in the past, they didn't give a monkeys what order they were in, even if they could read the inscriptions. Which at that date seems quite possible that they couldn't read. In fact some of the men Chambers employed couldn't read. He had to stop them digging up an outside grave because of it!</span></div>
<div abp="407">
<span abp="408" style="color: #38761d;">The vicar might have noticed it, but he would have got the reply from the men, "you put them back right then!"</span></div>
<div abp="409">
<span abp="410" style="color: #38761d;">So William Shakespeare skull is safely buried with him under Anne's tomb and the Shakespeare "cursed" stone currently has a headless skeleton of Anne Shakespeare. And the Beoley Skull is the wife of William Shakespeare - or Anne Hathaway.</span></div>
<div abp="409">
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span> </div>
<div abp="411">
<span abp="412" style="color: #38761d;">If you compare the facial reconstruction with the miniature of her I can see a facial resemblance, bearing in mind she was a lot younger. But for a 67 year old woman, Anne does indeed look a lot younger than her age. Which is what I said about her, long before the story of Anne's skull</span><br />
<div abp="851" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span abp="412" style="color: #38761d;"><a abp="852" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqBvzd5QJweuDmTMuM6_TwOObO41hdGUghNjsAQXk3Zs3rvub4ffHswthuhyqOxPfs0EcFMKt2k7-Zyid4SNAguWkbRJmtD51PowTHU9o5m9qMmy1QKlxL5suVHWssf66ZY7U13zyIy7hr/s1600/Hathaway0001.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img abp="853" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqBvzd5QJweuDmTMuM6_TwOObO41hdGUghNjsAQXk3Zs3rvub4ffHswthuhyqOxPfs0EcFMKt2k7-Zyid4SNAguWkbRJmtD51PowTHU9o5m9qMmy1QKlxL5suVHWssf66ZY7U13zyIy7hr/s1600/Hathaway0001.JPG" /></a><a abp="789" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS-sBSIg-p5kN8PO_xyP8VcSUrm_dnMNASmo52f2PdCkX-pVL1uMhJIBPFPYkNmiEP-HY2C40I6n94vPtSpueII3HemWW-jKR10tLR7hFA_85LM343Nc7paqiIaKCAI4wTh-MDvSEYmJUl/s1600/pg-22-shakespeare-grave-2-arrow-ch4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="790" border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS-sBSIg-p5kN8PO_xyP8VcSUrm_dnMNASmo52f2PdCkX-pVL1uMhJIBPFPYkNmiEP-HY2C40I6n94vPtSpueII3HemWW-jKR10tLR7hFA_85LM343Nc7paqiIaKCAI4wTh-MDvSEYmJUl/s200/pg-22-shakespeare-grave-2-arrow-ch4.jpg" width="150" /></a></span></div>
<span abp="412" style="color: #38761d;"> </span><br />
<div abp="413">
</div>
<div abp="414">
<span abp="415" style="color: #38761d;"> </span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-25445094340116422682015-10-13T09:31:00.000-07:002018-06-28T11:37:24.913-07:00Shakespeare Scribbles Away in A Room Myth - addition to chapter four<div abp="289">
</div>
<h2 abp="290" align="CENTER" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span abp="291" style="color: red;">Shakespeare Scribbles Away in A Room Myth</span></h2>
<div abp="292">
<div abp="645">
<div abp="926">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div abp="646">
<div abp="928">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div abp="647">
<div abp="930">
<span abp="295" style="color: #6aa84f;">In the Shakespeare Guide to Italy, I came upon the details of the character of Shylock the Jew. Richard Paul Roe makes it clear that whoever wrote this play in which Shylock appears, knew a great deal of information about Jewish customs, far more I believe than could be got by experience of travelling to Italy. But I know of no candidate as the author of the Shakespeare's plays that would fit them having a Jewish background, including Shakespeare himself. Moreover the details relating to Shylock seem to be very specific about his Jewishness. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="296">
<div abp="650">
<div abp="934">
<span abp="297" style="color: #6aa84f;"> This leaves us with a problem. For while one could accept that Edward De Vere did travel in Italy, picking up enough knowledge to write the plays, he would have great difficult in being accurate about what it would be like to be Jewish person and a specific person of that race precisely. Like any none Jewish person he would slip up in his writing. Though it might be possible these days for a writer to hang around a Jewish person and get the details correct about them, it would seem unlikely for an Elizabethan Earl to do that! </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="298">
<div abp="653">
<div abp="938">
<span abp="299" style="color: #6aa84f;"> My personal theory is that the person who played Shylock was a Jewish man from Italy. This would not surprise me, since I have said that Shakespeare wrote the plays around the people he had to work with. As I have covered earlier in this chapter, I know for certain he used two actress'. One was older than the other. I even know their names! One of them was even 14 in the Play Romeo and Juliet, as Juliet was 14 at the time. And yes she was of Italian descent. Then there is the black actor used in various plays. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="300">
<div abp="656">
<div abp="942">
<span abp="301" style="color: #6aa84f;"> Shakespeare doesn't cast the actors. There is no auditions like in Shakespeare in Love. He writes the parts with the starting point of a black actor in mind, for example. </span></div>
</div>
<table abp="479" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody abp="480">
<tr abp="481"><td abp="482" style="text-align: center;"><div abp="662">
<div abp="949">
<a abp="483" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijtlwzIH8Z7Y-fu6PLZwkx3va9f7Lt8lHSMGW3JsYinCLfnHuZgQToIKIQhR80THb3fE-tN_1YTtOF_tHdiNpvSfw9J-D21QME-lMcaUJuHFhHo1hLz4jx_JFBmP5fskIRGMV6scOuJrcg/s1600/Thearte+audition.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img abp="484" border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijtlwzIH8Z7Y-fu6PLZwkx3va9f7Lt8lHSMGW3JsYinCLfnHuZgQToIKIQhR80THb3fE-tN_1YTtOF_tHdiNpvSfw9J-D21QME-lMcaUJuHFhHo1hLz4jx_JFBmP5fskIRGMV6scOuJrcg/s320/Thearte+audition.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
</div>
</td></tr>
<tr abp="485"><td abp="486" class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div abp="667">
<div abp="955">
<span abp="668" style="color: red;">Actors audition for parts in modern times</span></div>
</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div abp="431" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="670">
<div abp="959">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div abp="304">
<div abp="672">
<div abp="962">
<span abp="305" style="color: #6aa84f;"> I don't think Shakespeare was sat in some back room scribbling texts, quill pen in hand writing on bits of parchment. I think that idea is a myth. Instead it was more interactive than that. Shakespeare </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<table abp="674" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody abp="675">
<tr abp="676"><td abp="677" style="text-align: center;"><div abp="678">
<div abp="969">
<a abp="527" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA3oZW2P1ZBbgshLVbICqJ-72Orbx1s8ytnN_bgnL5lkdpW3duWUlY7exVyfYbJFeoZ6k4p4WzQHq2MagaJIOzrbrtif-_e1Ag8oGBfGxeJM6SwA6_yx5zGrHnnT7MgVRHS4hbZJZbCqPP/s1600/De+Vere+writing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img abp="528" border="0" height="157" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA3oZW2P1ZBbgshLVbICqJ-72Orbx1s8ytnN_bgnL5lkdpW3duWUlY7exVyfYbJFeoZ6k4p4WzQHq2MagaJIOzrbrtif-_e1Ag8oGBfGxeJM6SwA6_yx5zGrHnnT7MgVRHS4hbZJZbCqPP/s320/De+Vere+writing.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
</div>
</td></tr>
<tr abp="681"><td abp="682" class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div abp="683">
<div abp="975">
<span abp="684" style="color: red;">De Vere in the Film Anonymous even perpetuates the myth</span> </div>
</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div abp="529">
<div abp="686">
<div abp="979">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<table abp="687" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody abp="688">
<tr abp="689"><td abp="690" style="text-align: center;"><div abp="691">
<div abp="985">
<a abp="531" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizUyRGZ8aTsLubzzBpD2PaFvoLejruFZ-cL6rZ8NL1QFHJpj8LRAel2IT3Swz0Fxd0wHDhfS5Wu1-RwvEVKFQ0fQJrFlU6sCVc8ttGJV6f1BbPaQd53qkRgg6yg2MkRHLK7z6ch96ZYHr7/s1600/Shakespeare-_2991459b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img abp="532" border="0" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizUyRGZ8aTsLubzzBpD2PaFvoLejruFZ-cL6rZ8NL1QFHJpj8LRAel2IT3Swz0Fxd0wHDhfS5Wu1-RwvEVKFQ0fQJrFlU6sCVc8ttGJV6f1BbPaQd53qkRgg6yg2MkRHLK7z6ch96ZYHr7/s320/Shakespeare-_2991459b.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
</div>
</td></tr>
<tr abp="694"><td abp="695" class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div abp="696">
<div abp="991">
<span abp="697" style="color: red;">Shakespeare in a fancy study the Victorian view of the myth</span></div>
</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div abp="304">
<div abp="699">
<div abp="995">
<span abp="305" style="color: #6aa84f;"></span> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="304">
<div abp="702">
<div abp="999">
<span abp="305" style="color: #6aa84f;">had the ideas and then the actors said lines they way they did, making suggestions too. Shakespeare then copied it all down. They bounced ideas around each other too! If you think about it that would make more sense to have loads of different views and experience. So if one of the actors had studied law, his experience would come into it. And so on with all the professions in the Shakespearean plays which William couldn't have been involved with or have much knowledge of. I think it was highly likely the whole company were involved with the writing process. They might have even sat around a table or in a circle discussing they idea that William had come up with for the play, with each member saying something with a free hand to speak. Some of them might have contributed more than others, due to their cleverness or egos! But it was probably more of a co-operative effort than anything else. If you think about it this actually helps the company to be more successful, since the entire enterprise requires plays to come out on a regular basis. This way the members ensure that they are not reliant on one man to write a play. However we know that they do give somebody the credit for the plays. But this to me points to the person who had the original idea for the play being given the credit, it was as simple as that. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="705">
<div abp="1003">
<span abp="307" style="color: #6aa84f;"> It seems to me also that most of the other writers who followed Shakespeare's way of writing used the same technique. Which is why people think they can see other hands in the works. But if Shakespeare was simply writing down the words as spoken by one of his fellows, then even though it was somebody else doing it, it was still written by Shakespeare. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="308">
<div abp="708">
<div abp="1007">
<span abp="309" style="color: #6aa84f;"> I did come upon the background to the play Othello, or if you like the original idea for it. It was the result of the line in one of the Sonnets were Elizabeth talks about angels and the black one killing the good one. This is Elizabeth showing the two sides of herself. In the Sonnets she says "the worser spirit" and Shakespeare uses this as the lead character in Othello, which he makes black - another reference back to the Sonnets. Desdemona is of course the good spirit. And by getting Othello to kill her, it thus fulfills the prophecy of Sonnet 144, that the bad angel would fire the good one out. In order to make this happen Shakespeare employs a Devil's advocate in the form of Iago. Which I think was played by Shakespeare himself! For who better to play it. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="310">
<div abp="711">
<div abp="1011">
<span abp="311" style="color: #6aa84f;">I think that over the years and how the theatre world has developed, that we have become entangled with how things are done and how things were done. So now we see it as somebody going into a room and writes down the words for the actors to speak and emerges later with a fully worked up play. Then the actors are cast! Though it's like that today, it doesn't mean it has always been done like that! </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="312">
<div abp="714">
<div abp="1015">
<span abp="313" style="color: #6aa84f;"> As I have shown with the above, none of the modern ways ever applied to a Shakespeare play. Shakespeare would be like a duck out of water in the modern system. I actually believe the modern way was around at the time of Shakespeare, but it was considered boring, being about tales of how London Bridge was made etc. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="314">
<div abp="1018">
<span abp="315" style="color: #6aa84f;"> With the Civil War and the closing of the theatres the Shakespeare technique was eventually lost, only the modern form of a single person writing the parts on their own has survived. Leaving us confused of how William Shakespeare fitted that role! Which of course he didn't. </span></div>
</div>
<h3 abp="314">
<span abp="905" style="color: red;"><span abp="906" style="font-size: small;">Copy of how it was performed</span> </span></h3>
<div abp="314">
<div abp="1024">
<span abp="315" style="color: #6aa84f;">I have recently found a bit more to back up the fact a single person didn't write the plays, but they were done in a the way I describe above. Thanks to Ben Crystal. He is an actor and he discovered that the disjointed rhyme in certain sections of the play is meant to be like that, simply because it is meant to convey things like arguments, between the characters, including raised voices. Plus in Hamlet one of the characters is ignoring what the others are saying and just making his point over the other actors.</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="314">
<div abp="1027">
<span abp="315" style="color: #6aa84f;">Ben found out that if the lines were presented in the normal way, that is letting each character finish speaking before the next one speaks, it doesn't mean anything. But allowing the actors to jump in before the other one has finished, the combined effort not only makes sense but rhymes too!</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="314">
<div abp="1038">
<span abp="315" style="color: #6aa84f;">Now I think that shows that the text was either copied down direct from watching the play. Or more likely the text was written as the play was being performed. Thus proving that one man did not write a Shakespeare play. It also rules out the lords and nearly all the rival candidates as they would need to be present when the play was being worked up. Highly unlikely that Oxford and the other Earls would mix with the scum of the earth actors on a play like that. </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="314">
<div abp="1041">
<span abp="315" style="color: #6aa84f;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="316">
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-83481309401686862302015-03-31T18:42:00.001-07:002021-10-17T08:16:34.955-07:00When Records Were Released In The UK<h2 abp="651">
<span abp="652" style="color: red;">Dating 45 rpm Records</span></h2>
<div abp="653">
<div abp="602">
<span abp="654" style="color: #38761d;">One of the big problems I have in sorting out the old Real Charts is knowing when a 45 record or single or EP, or for that matter a 78, was released in the UK. Often you can track them down to the month, but tracking them down to the week is another question. </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="655">
<div abp="605">
<span abp="656" style="color: #38761d;">Of course it's very easy to track down when a record made the official charts. As each chart is dated. But that doesn't mean that a record was released the week before the chart was published. In fact records might have been around for months or longer before they finally get a chart entry. So how do we find out what week a record was released? </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="657">
<div abp="608">
<span abp="658" style="color: #38761d;">Well there are two main ways. The first is the promotional record. These were sent out to Radio Stations and other places that could help sell the records when released. They were not for sale to the general public! Many of the carried a date or a sticker with the date on. CBS were very good at this. as this example shows. Note the different design to the normal single the public would buy. </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="659" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="660" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNMWUr7H9-RBLjkpjVEFNgN27GtebBnJ_lwno97aCHwS-ugIzIENxO39h7OedDwwhxcnL24qiOdtohBZp2S1bqYKXWX3m1o3f-4V0fe-104Tf1v7p7Gs2Agx3m0qwyI4nPiNDB3qhJC0lK/s1600/CBS_PROMO_WHITE.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="661" border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNMWUr7H9-RBLjkpjVEFNgN27GtebBnJ_lwno97aCHwS-ugIzIENxO39h7OedDwwhxcnL24qiOdtohBZp2S1bqYKXWX3m1o3f-4V0fe-104Tf1v7p7Gs2Agx3m0qwyI4nPiNDB3qhJC0lK/s1600/CBS_PROMO_WHITE.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div abp="662">
<div abp="614">
<span abp="663" style="color: #38761d;">The large "A" wasn't indicating the A side, but stands for "Advanced". This was common to all labels. But not all of these promo copies carried a date as this example shows:</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="664" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="665" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq4Z2kv3TKvBsr4m8ST0f0CFisM3kcEZ4tehEkoLr7KNxv5r9-MJepTbYpLa4DvYLMK08WDA-H1eIDIyMensljI0K2F2MXYkcrNGXrh0v5IXgROn6kxVOgbNmhC2lrzjhYmRjT6FdWiqSk/s1600/I'll%2BCome%2Bif%2Byou%2Bwant%2Bme.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="666" border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq4Z2kv3TKvBsr4m8ST0f0CFisM3kcEZ4tehEkoLr7KNxv5r9-MJepTbYpLa4DvYLMK08WDA-H1eIDIyMensljI0K2F2MXYkcrNGXrh0v5IXgROn6kxVOgbNmhC2lrzjhYmRjT6FdWiqSk/s1600/I'll%2BCome%2Bif%2Byou%2Bwant%2Bme.jpg" width="319" /></a></div>
<div abp="667">
<div abp="620">
<span abp="668" style="color: #38761d;">And even if it does carry a date, it doesn't mean that the record company stuck to it. The release could be delayed by many weeks. Even sometimes being cancelled completely if feedback was negative or the record wasn't being played by Radio Stations or Club DJ's. </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="669">
<div abp="623">
<span abp="670" style="color: #38761d;">The second method of dating records are new release sheets sent out to record stores. Again these are not always accurate as dates were changed again. An example from 1965 is shown below. The Trade Magazine's such as Music Week or it's former life as Record Retailer also carried new release information. But there is no On-Line source for these. And back issues are rare and expensive. You can view them, but only in the difficult to get to and "rule" restrictions of the British Library in London. I once asked them for the weekly Music Week new release pages for just 1976 and if they could be copied and sent to me. The quote back from them was several hundred pounds! </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="671" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="672" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgChuW554S2qRustAy5JsixZcvDq11EfYZ6CTQ-P85VILLOJp1-nbfPtPVx_P-B5Rm538y0lhF0q6EYlQowXjPt4Wt8U0YpwB3LiOga9MsK-oP7yVSSw70r8638XWG8ddEyMnLy_1VOU49I/s1600/72_300465.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="673" border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgChuW554S2qRustAy5JsixZcvDq11EfYZ6CTQ-P85VILLOJp1-nbfPtPVx_P-B5Rm538y0lhF0q6EYlQowXjPt4Wt8U0YpwB3LiOga9MsK-oP7yVSSw70r8638XWG8ddEyMnLy_1VOU49I/s1600/72_300465.jpg" width="500" /></a></div>
<div abp="674">
<div abp="629">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div abp="675">
<div abp="631">
<span abp="676" style="color: #38761d;">The only other method is generally restricted to Label Catalogues issued on a commercial basis. However I have not seen any that date the release to the week, only to the month. They are not to dissimilar to the Record Labels of The 70's website - the link of which can be found on this blog. That also dates them to the month. </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="677">
<div abp="634">
<span abp="678" style="color: #38761d;">One of the best on-line sites is the excellent 45 Cat. Many of their members have included the weekly dates of records, from the above methods. The one problem is that the information is not always easy to get. For you have to select the filter option, then select the date records were issued. So you need to which days records were issued on. Then select the UK from a long list of Countries. You can then press search. And it will come up with the results. Providing less than 100 records (now only 50) were released on that date, you should get the<em abp="679"> known</em> release date for the day in question. However not all records are given the weekly dates on the site. So you might have to go for just the month, leaving the day blank. This will almost certainly give you more than the 50 records allowed, as it doesn't filter out the "dated" records. There is a way around this using the site options for display, earliest and latest options, but there is a lot of fiddling about to do it. Even when you have the results the format of the display isn't good for copying the text off the website, as names are links to the artists themselves. You have to click the record itself, to get to something you can extract text from. </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="680">
<div abp="638">
<span abp="681" style="color: #38761d;">So what I did was to extract the new release information from the 45 Cat website for you, and myself, with each week listed and the month ones also. The text is in the same format of what I do the charts with, with artist names then the title in italic. Also included is level of ownership by 45 Cat members, which is a good indication of how well a record might have sold! </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="682">
<div abp="641">
<span abp="683" style="color: #38761d;">The first of the new release files is for 1970. However I should point there will be some records missing from this list. Mostly any records that only carry the year of release and no month or week. Due to the 50 limit it would be impossible to extract these. Also because a record was issued with a date of 1970 on it doesn't mean it was issued that year. Indeed many records were continuing to be released nearly halfway into the year of 1971 with that year on. And many records dated 1969 were issued in 1970 likewise. Also missing are records that were not issued or known to be withdrawn from sale early on and anything that wouldn't have made the charts anyway. Only A sides are listed with no record labels or numbers. </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="682">
<div abp="644">
<span abp="645" style="color: #38761d;">The second to be done is 1965 following on from the requests by users of 45 Cat as to which ones to do next. Featured are the Beatles singles, plus John Lennon's father!!! Plus of course John Barry's <em abp="646">Thunderbirds Theme!</em></span> </div>
<div abp="644">
<span abp="887" style="color: #38761d;">I have also completed the releases for 1966. Since I started doing this 45 Cat have introduced an extra category(s) under the search procedure. One of which is the most "owned". On the 1966 list I was able thus to this on the weekly sections (but not the monthly one) so they are listed with most owns fist. As 45 Cat also states if the record entered the "Official" Top 50, I was able to make a note of all the owns to the top 50 positions. This information doesn't actually feature in the PDF file below, but it is interesting. For example records making number 50 varied between 11 and 21 owns. However one of the records that made 49 had 45 owns on it! Further up the chart the number 10 hits had between 46 to 90 owns on them. Ownership levels over 100 don't start till number 6, where one record had 112 owns, however another 6 hit had just 36 owns on it. Number 2 hits varied from 55 to 141.</span></div>
<div abp="644">
<span abp="888" style="color: #38761d;">Number one records clocked in at 68 to 151. The highest figure for a record for 1966 owns on 45 Cat. Belonging of course to the Beatles <em abp="889">Yellow Submarine / Eleanor Rigby.</em> </span></div>
<div abp="644">
<span abp="890" style="color: #38761d;">Interestingly enough no records made the positions 35, 30 and 29 in the top 50 that year! </span></div>
<div abp="644">
<span style="color: #38761d;">There are again some real gems in the 1966 file, such as the weird group the Master Singers. Who perform odd things sung in the style of a church choir! They record the <em>Highway Code</em> first, then tried the <em>Telephone Directory</em>! But that record had to withdrawn when the Post Office objected to it for copyright reasons!! They didn't give up and sang the <em>Weather Forecast</em> instead!</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">The 1974 one also features the Hot Chocolate singer Errol Brown calling himself Errol Flynn! And the big band Mud who released <em>Tiger Feet</em>, later in the year issuing a record calling themselves "Dum"!!! The best thing about the 1974 one is that the "monthly list" is massively reduced and in some cases the month list has nearly all the records dated in some way. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">The last to be added is 1967. The year of Flower Power and when Radio One started. </span></div>
<div abp="644">
</div>
<div abp="644">
<a href="https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/05/31/1967-record-releases/" target="_blank"><span style="color: magenta;">UK 1967 Single Releases</span></a><br />
<a href="https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/10/25/1974-record-releases/" target="_blank"><span style="color: magenta;">UK 1974 Single Releases</span></a><br />
<a abp="892" href="http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/03/15/1966-record-releases/" target="_blank"><span style="color: magenta;">UK 1966 Single Releases</span></a> </div>
</div>
<div abp="684">
<div abp="648">
<a abp="685" href="http://www.pdf-archive.com/2015/04/01/uk-1970-record-releases-by-date/" target="_blank"><span abp="686" style="color: magenta;">UK 1970 Single Releases</span></a></div>
</div>
<div abp="687">
<div abp="652">
<a abp="689" href="http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/01/20/1965-record-releases/" target="_blank"><span abp="654" style="color: magenta;">UK 1965 Single Releases</span></a> </div>
</div>
<div abp="691">
<div abp="657">
<span abp="692" style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span>
<span abp="692" style="color: #38761d;">The following PDF are collections of new release sheets like the one shown above</span><br />
<span abp="692" style="color: #38761d;"><span style="background-color: white; color: magenta;"><a href="https://www.pdf-archive.com/2020/07/26/new-singles-1965compressed/" target="_blank"><span style="color: magenta;">new-singles-1965 compressed</span></a> </span></span><br />
<span abp="692" style="color: #38761d;"><span style="background-color: white;"><a href="https://www.pdf-archive.com/2020/07/26/new-singles-1966compressed/" target="_blank"><span style="color: magenta;">new-singles-1966 compressed</span></a><span style="color: red;"> </span></span></span><br />
<span abp="692" style="color: #38761d;"><span style="background-color: white;"><a href="https://www.pdf-archive.com/2020/07/26/1978newsinglescompressed/" target="_blank"><span style="color: magenta;">new singles 1978 compressed</span></a><span style="color: red;"> </span></span></span><br />
<span abp="692" style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span>
<span abp="692" style="color: #38761d;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="693">
<div abp="660">
<span abp="694" style="color: #38761d;">If you know of any additions or correct dates for the above records, please comment below. </span><br />
<span abp="694" style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="695">
<div abp="663">
<span style="color: red;">Later Record Dates</span><br />
<span abp="696" style="color: #38761d;"></span><span style="color: #38761d;">It seems that the closer to the present day release information days become harder to get hold of. I have done a test of the 1981 data on 45 Cat. It's very confusing. For one thing the Friday date is joined by the new Monday release date. It seems both were operating at the same time! And the new release booklets seem less common, giving more "monthly" dates! </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="697">
<div abp="666">
<span abp="698" style="color: red;">Early Record Dates</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="699">
<div abp="669">
<span abp="700" style="color: #38761d;">During sometime in the early 1960's new singles began to be issued on a weekly basis. The day set for this was a Friday, though it was not set in stone! I haven't been able to pin an precise date for when this happened, but it seems the new release sheets started being issued weekly around 1962. </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="701">
<div abp="672">
<span abp="702" style="color: #38761d;">Prior to this it seems ALL records were issued in the first week (in some cases the second week) of each month for the entire month. </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="703">
<div abp="675">
<span abp="704" style="color: #38761d;">This will cause a problem extracting the records from the 45 Cat website, with the 100 results limit.</span></div>
<div abp="675">
<span abp="704" style="color: #38761d;">I have asked by the way for the 100 limit to be increased. It was introduced to prevent website issues. But though it might have been fine when the site was small, but it has grown that much that it is a serious limit on the accessibility of the site now. I would say for certain that more than 100 records were released each month by 1959 if not earlier. So there would be little chance of getting an accurate list of any records from about 1955 to 1962 due to the 100 limit. </span><br />
<span abp="704" style="color: #38761d;">In 2020 however the site made things worse. They reduced the limit from 100 to 50. They also never informed anyone they were doing that. The reason also is not clear either. I suspect it is connected with the fact they wanted to add record valuations to the site, and something else had to suffer. I did argue with them till I was blue in the face about how they could get funds from charities or the National Lottery, providing they made it clear they were not a "commercial enterprise" and were clear on who owns the sites. This would mean they could have expanded operations! However I was told by a moderator that the site was "fun" and if I didn't like it to go elsewhere. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">The new limit means that I couldn't get anywhere enough records to complete any more new release sheets. So the operation has ended. </span></div><div abp="675"><span style="color: red;">Important Update October 2021</span><span style="color: #38761d;"> </span></div><div abp="675"><span style="color: #38761d;">Since writing this the 45 Cat site have found a way to increase the search results limit to 250 results. However you have to subscribe to the site. It's under £30 for a year and I do recommend it, I myself have done so "Appletree1" is my user name. And you get all three sites under the headings by subscribing included in the extra features category. Nevertheless as it's time consuming to do the new release files, so I will not be doing any more. </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="705">
<div abp="678">
<span abp="706" style="color: red;">Newer way to find dates of issue</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="707">
<div abp="681">
<span style="color: #38761d;">For those still wanting to find out when records came out, the American site, which has PDF's of the UK Music Papers is a good source. Though all issues are not yet uploaded, some years are already complete. Many companies would put adverts for new records. And Labels like London in the 60's put a regular advert in the papers. Papers such as Disc also on the reviews of singles, put when it was to be issued. The link for the papers is on the side panel. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span>
<span abp="708" style="color: #38761d;"></span><span style="color: #38761d;">Nevertheless these concerns aside I'm certain readers will be fascinated to see what could have made the charts and did or didn't! </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="711">
<div abp="687">
<span abp="712" style="color: #38761d;"></span><br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-12169303442407450752014-11-28T18:08:00.000-08:002016-05-10T05:04:34.346-07:00The First Ten Sonnets translated into modern English<div abp="624">
<span abp="625" style="color: #38761d;">I thought you might like to see how the obscure language of Shakespearian times has hidden the true meaning of the Sonnets. But you must prepare yourself for a shock! For once translated into something you can understand the language become somewhat colourful and even rude in the extreme at times. </span></div>
<div abp="626">
<span abp="627" style="color: #38761d;">Contrary to what many believe these sonnets were not all written by William Shakespeare himself. However this isn't some story to take away the man's talent and credited it to some Nobleman or other writer. Just a conversation between him and his muse. Which in this case is Queen Elizabeth the First. Nevertheless when the muse answers the writer, it's not done in William's words, but her own words. </span></div>
<div abp="628">
<span abp="629" style="color: #38761d;">What these few Sonnets show here is William's desire that the Queen should marry and have children. It shows the age gap between him and her and how the Queen constantly puts herself down, even her own sexuality. </span></div>
<div abp="630">
<span abp="631" style="color: #38761d;">I have only shown the first ten Sonnets, to distinguish between Shakespeare and Elizabeth's written parts I have coloured Shakespeare's words <span abp="632" style="color: red;">RED</span> and Elizabeth's <span abp="633" style="color: blue;">BLUE</span>. Additional words need for context or that are not translated (but needed) are shown as green. </span></div>
<div abp="634">
<br /></div>
<div abp="635">
<span abp="636" style="color: #38761d;">The texts of these Sonnets will be in the early stages of his work starting around 1580. Some of the other Sonnet's (not featured in the ten here) will date after that date to around about 1592. </span></div>
<div abp="635">
<span abp="1062" style="color: #38761d;">The un-translated version, but showing who wrote what, is in this PDF file: <a abp="1064" href="http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/05/10/sonnets154/" target="_blank"><span style="color: magenta;">Sonnets all 154 </span></a> </span></div>
<div abp="637">
<br /></div>
<div abp="638">
</div>
<h2 abp="639" align="CENTER" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-right: 5.27cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span abp="640" style="color: red; font-size: x-large;">THE SONNETS</span></h2>
<div abp="641">
<br /></div>
<h2 abp="642" align="CENTER" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-right: 6.02cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
by</h2>
<div abp="643">
<br /></div>
<h2 abp="644" align="CENTER" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-right: 6.02cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span abp="645" style="color: red;">William Shakespeare</span> and
<span abp="646" style="color: blue;">Elizabeth Tudor (Queen Elizabeth I)</span></h2>
<div abp="647">
<br /></div>
<div abp="648" align="CENTER" class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-right: 6.02cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<div abp="649">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div abp="650">
<br /></div>
<h3 abp="651" align="CENTER" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-right: 8cm; orphans: 0; page-break-after: avoid; widows: 0;">
No 1</h3>
<div abp="652">
<br /></div>
<div abp="653" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div abp="654">
<span abp="655" style="color: red;">From
beautified whores men desire sex,</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="656">
<span abp="657" style="color: red;">That
thereby beauty's <i abp="658">Rose</i> might never die,</span></div>
<div abp="659">
<span abp="660" style="color: red;">But
as the grim reaper should by time end,</span></div>
<div abp="661">
<span abp="662" style="color: red;">His
tender heir might carry his memory:</span></div>
<div abp="663">
<span abp="664" style="color: red;">But
you concerned by your own clear womb,</span></div>
<div abp="665">
<span abp="666" style="color: red;">Feed’s
your eternal flame with self-substantial fuel,</span></div>
<div abp="667">
<span abp="668" style="color: red;">Making
a famine where abundance lies,</span></div>
<div abp="669">
<span abp="670" style="color: red;">You
are your own enemy, to your lushes self too cruel:</span></div>
<div abp="671">
<span abp="672" style="color: red;">You
are now the world's newest ornament,</span></div>
<div abp="673">
<span abp="674" style="color: red;">And
only announcements to the tasteless spring,</span></div>
<div abp="675">
<span abp="676" style="color: red;">Within
your own bud<span abp="677" style="color: #38761d;"> (inner-self)</span> you hide your
feelings,</span></div>
<div abp="678">
<span abp="679" style="color: red;">And
an affectionate ill-bred person wastes time in being mean:</span></div>
<div abp="680">
<span abp="681" style="color: red;"></span><br /></div>
<div abp="682">
<span abp="683" style="color: red;">Have
Pity on this world, or else this useless person stay,</span></div>
<div abp="684">
<span abp="685" style="color: red;">Have
sex with the world now, or end in up dead.</span></div>
<div abp="686">
<br /></div>
<div abp="687" align="CENTER" class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-right: 3.74cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<div abp="688">
</div>
</div>
<h3 abp="689" align="CENTER" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-right: 8cm; orphans: 0; page-break-after: avoid; widows: 0;">
No 2</h3>
<div abp="690">
<br /></div>
<div abp="691" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div abp="692">
<span abp="693" style="color: blue;">When
your forty, worn in face,</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="694">
<span abp="695" style="color: blue;">
And
time digs deep trenches in your beautiful complexion,</span></div>
<div abp="696">
<span abp="697" style="color: blue;">
Your youth's good looks so gazed on now,</span></div>
<div abp="698">
<span abp="699" style="color: blue;">
Your sex drive will be a tattered weed absolutely worthless :</span></div>
<div abp="700">
<span abp="701" style="color: blue;">
Then when someone asks, where is your beauty,</span></div>
<div abp="702">
<span abp="703" style="color: blue;">
Where has all the fertile juice of your sexy days gone;</span></div>
<div abp="704">
<span abp="705" style="color: blue;">
Then you say within my own deep sunken arsehole,</span></div>
<div abp="706">
<span abp="707" style="color: blue;">
Together with all my masturbation guilt, and my flattery,</span></div>
<div abp="708">
<span abp="709" style="color: blue;">
How
much more flattery can you take and be beautiful,</span></div>
<div abp="710">
<span abp="711" style="color: blue;">
You
could always say 'This beautiful child of mine</span></div>
<div abp="712">
<span abp="713" style="color: blue;">
Shall sum me up, and even make up excuses for me'</span></div>
<div abp="714">
<span abp="715" style="color: blue;">
Showing of his beauty by succession like mine.</span></div>
<div abp="716">
<span abp="717" style="color: blue;">
</span></div>
<div abp="718">
<span abp="719" style="color: blue;">The
result is to be new made when you feel old,</span></div>
<div abp="720">
<span abp="721" style="color: blue;">And
see your fertile juices warm when your ice-cold.</span></div>
<div abp="722">
<br /></div>
<div abp="723">
<br /></div>
<h3 abp="724" align="CENTER" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-right: 8cm; orphans: 0; page-break-after: avoid; widows: 0;">
No 3</h3>
<div abp="725">
<br /></div>
<div abp="726" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div abp="727">
<span abp="728" style="color: red;">Look
in your mirror and tell the face you see,</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="729">
<span abp="730" style="color: red;">Now
is the time that face should form another,</span></div>
<div abp="731">
<span abp="732" style="color: red;">Whose
fresh repair is the best to do soon before you can’t,</span></div>
<div abp="733">
<span abp="734" style="color: blue;">You
annoy the world, un-consecrate some virgin.</span></div>
<div abp="735">
<span abp="736" style="color: blue;">
For
where is she so beautiful whose intact womb</span></div>
<div abp="737">
<span abp="738" style="color: blue;">
Scorns
the stick-ing</span><span abp="739" style="color: blue;"> (<span abp="740" style="color: #38761d;">ploughing</span>) </span><span abp="741" style="color: blue;">of you sexual
activity?</span></div>
<div abp="742">
<span abp="743" style="color: red;">Or
who is he, so fond will be the tomb,</span></div>
<div abp="744">
<span abp="745" style="color: red;">Or
his masturbation to stop changes?</span></div>
<div abp="746">
<span abp="747" style="color: red;"><span abp="748" style="color: blue;">You
are your mother's</span><span abp="749" style="color: #38761d;"> Mary</span> <span abp="750" style="color: blue;">image
and she sees in you</span></span></div>
<div abp="751">
<span abp="752" style="color: blue;">Recalling
the lovely April day of her prime,</span></div>
<div abp="753">
<span abp="754" style="color: blue;">So
you through windows of this age shall view,</span></div>
<div abp="755">
<span abp="756" style="color: blue;">Despite
the wrinkles this is your golden time.</span></div>
<div abp="757">
<span abp="758" style="color: red;"></span><br /></div>
<div abp="759">
<span abp="760" style="color: red;">But
if you carry on living like this,</span></div>
<div abp="761">
<span abp="762" style="color: red;">Die
(come) single and your imitation dies with you.</span></div>
<div abp="763">
<br /></div>
<h3 abp="764" align="CENTER" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-right: 8cm; orphans: 0; page-break-after: avoid; widows: 0;">
No 4</h3>
<div abp="765">
<br /></div>
<div abp="766" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div abp="767">
<span abp="768" style="color: red;">Poor
loveliness why don’t you spend,</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="769">
<span abp="770" style="color: red;">On
yourself your beauty's legacy?</span></div>
<div abp="771">
<span abp="772" style="color: red;">Nature's
legacy gives nothing but doth lend,</span></div>
<div abp="773">
<span abp="774" style="color: red;">And
being honest she bends to those who are free:</span></div>
<div abp="775">
<span abp="776" style="color: blue;">Then
beauteous mean why do you abuse,</span></div>
<div abp="777">
<span abp="778" style="color: blue;">That
massive dick given you and fuck instead?</span></div>
<div abp="779">
<span abp="780" style="color: red;">Profitless
lender why don’t you use</span></div>
<div abp="781">
<span abp="782" style="color: red;">So
great a cunt of all cunts and still can not come?</span></div>
<div abp="783">
<span abp="784" style="color: red;">For
having a wank with yourself alone,</span></div>
<div abp="785">
<span abp="786" style="color: red;">You
doing it yourself you taste nothing,</span></div>
<div abp="787">
<span abp="788" style="color: red;">Then
how when nature ends your life,</span></div>
<div abp="789">
<span abp="790" style="color: red;">What
acceptable <i abp="791">audit</i> will you leave?</span></div>
<div abp="792">
<span abp="793" style="color: red;"></span><br /></div>
<div abp="794">
<span abp="795" style="color: red;">Your
unused beauty must be in-tombed with you,</span></div>
<div abp="796">
<span abp="797" style="color: red;">Which
if used makes a profit to be. </span></div>
<div abp="798">
<br /></div>
<div abp="799">
<br /></div>
<h3 abp="800" align="CENTER" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-right: 8cm; orphans: 0; page-break-after: avoid; widows: 0;">
No 5
</h3>
<div abp="801">
<br /></div>
<div abp="802" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div abp="803">
<span abp="804" style="color: blue;">Those
hours that with no sexy work did frame</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="805">
<span abp="806" style="color: blue;">The
lovely gaze where every eye doth dwell</span></div>
<div abp="807">
<span abp="808" style="color: blue;">Sexy
people play the tyrants to the very same,</span></div>
<div abp="809">
<span abp="810" style="color: blue;">And
the unbeautiful which is beautifully good at: </span></div>
<div abp="811">
<span abp="812" style="color: blue;">For
never-resting time leads summer on </span><span abp="813" style="color: #38761d;">(youth)</span></div>
<div abp="814">
<span abp="815" style="color: blue;">To
hideous winter and confounds him there,</span><span abp="816" style="color: #38761d;"> (old
age)</span></div>
<div abp="817">
<span abp="818" style="color: blue;">Sap
checked with frost and sexy leaves quite gone,</span><span abp="819" style="color: #38761d;"> (ugly)</span></div>
<div abp="820">
<span abp="821" style="color: blue;">Beauty
covered in snowed and bareness everywhere:</span></div>
<div abp="822">
<span abp="823" style="color: blue;">Then
were is summer's distillation left! </span><span abp="824" style="color: #38761d;"> As</span></div>
<div abp="825">
<span abp="826" style="color: blue;">A
liquid prisoner pent in walls of glass, </span></div>
<div abp="827">
<span abp="828" style="color: blue;">Beauty's
effect without beauties benefits ,</span></div>
<div abp="829">
<span abp="830" style="color: blue;">And
no longer with any idea of what it was.</span></div>
<div abp="831">
<span abp="832" style="color: red;"></span><br /></div>
<div abp="833">
<span abp="834" style="color: red;">But
flowers distilled though they with winter meet,</span></div>
<div abp="835">
<span abp="836" style="color: red;">Loose
but their show, their perfume always lives sweet-tasting.</span></div>
<div abp="837">
<br /></div>
<div abp="838">
<br /></div>
<h3 abp="839" align="CENTER" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-right: 8cm; orphans: 0; page-break-after: avoid; widows: 0;">
No 6</h3>
<div abp="840">
<br /></div>
<div abp="841" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div abp="842">
<span abp="843" style="color: red;">Then
let not old age ragged dick deface,</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="844">
<span abp="845" style="color: red;">In
you your youth even though it has been:</span></div>
<div abp="846">
<span abp="847" style="color: red;">Make
sweet-tasting some vial; treasure you some place,</span></div>
<div abp="848">
<span abp="849" style="color: red;">With
beauty's fertile juice, even if it be self-destroyed:</span></div>
<div abp="850">
<span abp="851" style="color: red;">That
use is not forbidden lending,</span></div>
<div abp="852">
<span abp="853" style="color: red;">Which
pleases those that pay the willing loan;</span></div>
<div abp="854">
<span abp="855" style="color: red;">That's
the stuff for yourself to breed another you,</span></div>
<div abp="856">
<span abp="857" style="color: red;">Or
ten children, happier be it ten for one,</span></div>
<div abp="858">
<span abp="859" style="color: red;">Ten
times yourself were happier than you are,</span></div>
<div abp="860">
<span abp="861" style="color: red;">If
ten of you ten times remodelled yourself:</span></div>
<div abp="862">
<span abp="863" style="color: red;">Then
what could death do if you should depart,</span></div>
<div abp="864">
<span abp="865" style="color: red;">Leaving
you living in forever?</span></div>
<div abp="866">
<span abp="867" style="color: blue;"></span><br /></div>
<div abp="868">
<span abp="869" style="color: blue;">Be
not self-willed for you are much too beautiful, </span></div>
<div abp="870">
<span abp="871" style="color: blue;">To
be death's conquest and make worms your heir.</span></div>
<div abp="872">
<br /></div>
<div abp="873">
<br /></div>
<h3 abp="874" align="CENTER" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-right: 8cm; orphans: 0; page-break-after: avoid; widows: 0;">
No 7</h3>
<div abp="875">
<br /></div>
<div abp="876" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div abp="877">
<span abp="878" style="color: blue;">Look
in the east when the gracious light</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="879">
<span abp="880" style="color: blue;">Lifts
up his burning foreskin, each under eye</span></div>
<div abp="881">
<span abp="882" style="color: blue;">Do
homage to his new-appearing sight,</span></div>
<div abp="883">
<span abp="884" style="color: blue;">Serving
with looks his sacred majesty,</span></div>
<div abp="885">
<span abp="886" style="color: blue;">And
having climbed the steep-up heavenly hill,</span></div>
<div abp="887">
<span abp="888" style="color: blue;">Resembling
strong youth in his middle age,</span></div>
<div abp="889">
<span abp="890" style="color: blue;">Yet
mortal looks adore his beauty always,</span></div>
<div abp="891">
<span abp="892" style="color: blue;">Attending
on his golden pilgrimage:</span></div>
<div abp="893">
<span abp="894" style="color: blue;">But
when from high most pitch with weary bog,</span></div>
<div abp="895">
<span abp="896" style="color: blue;">Like
feeble age he droops from the day,</span></div>
<div abp="897">
<span abp="898" style="color: blue;">Those
arseholes (‘fore duteous) now converted are</span></div>
<div abp="899">
<span abp="900" style="color: blue;">From
his low tract and look another way:</span></div>
<div abp="901">
<span abp="902" style="color: red;"></span><br /></div>
<div abp="903">
<span abp="904" style="color: red;">So
you, yourself out-going in thy noon:</span></div>
<div abp="905">
<span abp="906" style="color: red;">Unlooked
on will shrivel unless you get a son.</span></div>
<div abp="907">
<br /></div>
<h3 abp="908" align="CENTER" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-right: 8cm; orphans: 0; page-break-after: avoid; widows: 0;">
No 8</h3>
<div abp="909">
<br /></div>
<div abp="910" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div abp="911">
<span abp="912" style="color: red;">Music
to hear, why does music make you cry?</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="913">
<span abp="914" style="color: red;">Sweet
things with sweet things war not, joy delights in joy:</span></div>
<div abp="915">
<span abp="916" style="color: red;">Why
love loves you that which you receive and received not gladly,</span></div>
<div abp="917">
<span abp="918" style="color: red;">Or
else received it with pleasure that annoys you?</span></div>
<div abp="919">
<span abp="920" style="color: red;">If
the true agreement of well-tuned sounds,</span></div>
<div abp="921">
<span abp="922" style="color: red;">Or
unions married do offend your ear,</span></div>
<div abp="923">
<span abp="924" style="color: red;">They
do but sweetly argue with you, who confounds</span></div>
<div abp="925">
<span abp="926" style="color: red;">In
singleness the parts that you should really carry:</span></div>
<div abp="927">
<span abp="928" style="color: red;">See
how one string is sweet husband to another,</span></div>
<div abp="929">
<span abp="930" style="color: red;">Striking
each in each by mutual ordering;</span></div>
<div abp="931">
<span abp="932" style="color: red;">Resembling
father and child and happy mother,</span></div>
<div abp="933">
<span abp="934" style="color: red;">Who
all in one, one pleasing note do sing:</span></div>
<div abp="935">
<span abp="936" style="color: blue;"></span><br /></div>
<div abp="937">
<span abp="938" style="color: blue;">These
speechless song being many, seeming the same,</span></div>
<div abp="939">
<span abp="940" style="color: blue;">Sings
this to you, 'You single will amount to nothing'.</span></div>
<div abp="941">
<br /></div>
<h3 abp="942" align="CENTER" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-right: 8cm; orphans: 0; page-break-after: avoid; widows: 0;">
No 9</h3>
<div abp="943">
<br /></div>
<div abp="944" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div abp="945">
<span abp="946" style="color: red;">Is
it for fear to wet a widow's cock,</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="947">
<span abp="948" style="color: red;">That
you indulge in the single life?</span></div>
<div abp="949">
<span abp="950" style="color: red;">Alas,
if you issueless should happen to die,</span></div>
<div abp="951">
<span abp="952" style="color: red;">The
world will cry for you like a it was your wife,</span></div>
<div abp="953">
<span abp="954" style="color: red;">The
world will be thy widow and always weep,</span></div>
<div abp="955">
<span abp="956" style="color: red;">That
there is no form of you left behind,</span></div>
<div abp="957">
<span abp="958" style="color: red;">When
every private widow womb may keep,</span></div>
<div abp="959">
<span abp="960" style="color: red;">By
children's eyes, her husband's genitals in mind:</span></div>
<div abp="961">
<span abp="962" style="color: red;">See
what a generous world this is and how it spends</span></div>
<div abp="963">
<span abp="964" style="color: red;">Shifts
but his place, for always the world enjoys it;</span></div>
<div abp="965">
<span abp="966" style="color: red;">But
beauty in the world has an end,</span></div>
<div abp="967">
<span abp="968" style="color: red;">And
kept unused the user so destroys it:</span></div>
<div abp="969">
<span abp="970" style="color: blue;"></span><br /></div>
<div abp="971">
<span abp="972" style="color: blue;">No
love toward others in this bosom is</span></div>
<div abp="973">
<span abp="974" style="color: blue;">So
that you waste time so killing guilty perpetrators.</span></div>
<div abp="975">
<br /></div>
<h3 abp="976" align="CENTER" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-right: 8cm; orphans: 0; page-break-after: avoid; widows: 0;">
No 10</h3>
<div abp="977" align="CENTER" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-right: 8cm; orphans: 0; page-break-after: avoid; widows: 0;">
<div abp="978">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="979">
<span abp="980" style="color: red;">Great
guilty and a contradiction that you have no love for any</span></div>
<div abp="981">
<span abp="982" style="color: red;">Who
are you to say, you who are so irresponsible.</span></div>
<div abp="983">
<span abp="984" style="color: red;">Except
if you can, you are worshipped by many,</span></div>
<div abp="985">
<span abp="986" style="color: red;">Of
course it is clear to everybody that you do not love any:</span></div>
<div abp="987">
<span abp="988" style="color: red;">For
you are so obsessed with a killing hatered,</span></div>
<div abp="989">
<span abp="990" style="color: red;">That
against yourself you fight till fight fights itself,</span></div>
<div abp="991">
<span abp="992" style="color: red;">Trying
to win beauty and ruin it. </span></div>
<div abp="993">
<span abp="994" style="color: red;">Although
rebuilding it should be your foremost goal:</span></div>
<div abp="995">
<span abp="996" style="color: red;">
Woman change your thoughts, that I may change my mind,</span></div>
<div abp="997">
<span abp="998" style="color: red;">Should
hate be more beautifully lodged than sexiness?</span></div>
<div abp="999">
<span abp="1000" style="color: red;">Be
as you appear, that is gracious and kind,</span></div>
<div abp="1001">
<span abp="1002" style="color: red;">Or
at least to yourself kind-hearted prove,</span></div>
<div abp="1003">
<span abp="1004" style="color: blue;"></span><br /></div>
<div abp="1005">
<span abp="1006" style="color: blue;">Make
you another one of you, for love of me</span></div>
<div abp="1007">
<span abp="1008" style="color: blue;">That
beauty always may live in your child or you. </span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-89235702320673167572014-11-13T17:06:00.000-08:002014-11-13T17:09:50.717-08:00Mary Queen of Scots and the Death of Lord Darnley<h2>
<span style="color: red;">THE KING THAT KILLED HIMSELF</span></h2>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="color: #38761d;">Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley’s, pushy mother, wanted Henry to marry Mary Stuart. It made his claim to the English throne stronger for he was also descended from Margaret Tudor, only from her second husband. Queen Elizabeth was not in favour, perhaps for the above reason, yet more likely to be that Henry was not popular in Scotland, as he along with many others had also rights to the Scottish throne. She discovered this unpopularity by pointing out Darnley to William Maitland, Mary Stuart's representative at court. Maitland disgust was apparent and he also spoke it. She did however agree to let Henry go to Scotland, after Robert Dudley intervened on his behalf.<sup><span style="font-size: small;">89</span></sup></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg0GqJqV6bwBUmyjND-OzcI-IrSHpxdsfqD4SxSMiK1vvVqS3AexIiYCEp61z2Z4ZKE7f-unGGyqSXIJSHFCoUp2DozXyA9woalzHFlpMzzle1OH0KQ_1522WYS0DU2-uIqCtkg3tH6UkO/s1600/Darnley2.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg0GqJqV6bwBUmyjND-OzcI-IrSHpxdsfqD4SxSMiK1vvVqS3AexIiYCEp61z2Z4ZKE7f-unGGyqSXIJSHFCoUp2DozXyA9woalzHFlpMzzle1OH0KQ_1522WYS0DU2-uIqCtkg3tH6UkO/s1600/Darnley2.bmp" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: red;">Henry Stuart Lord Darnley</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The upshot of all this was that he married Mary in 1565. It looks as if they had a lot in common and may well have fallen in love. Mary’s heart and head were this time in total agreement. Her head thought ‘heir to the throne of England’. This didn’t matter to Elizabeth; indeed the English Queen may have been told this would happen by her astrologer!</span><sup>90 </sup>Still she just couldn’t let Henry make the biggest mistake of his life.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">
William Throckmorton, who had returned from France in 1563, once again was needed in the role of ambassador to see if he could reason with them, to call the wedding off. So he left in April 1565 for Scotland. He almost certainly bragged that he could convince Mary not to do it. Though the Queen and Council were </span><span style="color: #38761d;">more likely convinced he couldn’t. He was quite correct, if any could, for he had a friendly attitude to Stuart, probably due to when she tried to help him once, while in France, over some trouble that resulted in him being detained by the authorities. The Queen/Council was more right and Mary was pushing for the marriage before he could get there. In the end he was locked out of Stirling Castle. When he did see the Scottish Queen it was too late. He wasn’t sure why she had done it and admitted it to Elizabeth. This didn’t stop Henry’s mother (the Countess of Lennox) being placed in the Tower of London, for arranging the marriage. The Scots were far from pleased. The English ambassador, in his report to Queen Elizabeth, said, “Darnley would have no long life amongst these people.” <sup>91</sup></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">
Darnley didn’t, three years later he was dead. The question asked then and by historians since is “who killed him?”</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">
There appear to be two schools of thought for the murderers, the Scots Queen with her associates and the Scotch Nobles. There are strong cases for both parties, in Mary’s situation, she had fully discovered what sex was, with Henry, which might in his case, have been rough, however there’s a slight problem, the way Henry died. It looks suspiciously like someone had arranged for the house at Kirk O’ Field to be blown up when this man was dead already. He was found, laid out (neatly), under a tree, in a garden some distance from the remains of the house. Dressed only in a nightshirt and his body was said to be unmarked, which might mean he had been poisoned?<sup>92 </sup>Also found was the unmarked body of his valet, some clothes, a chair and a dagger. Cecil was sent a drawing of the scene as evidence of the murder, which has survived.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHOTpGFq6ZHaWriux_n7zLytFKUnMpF3yDayCwII7glnD6o6TkbsMVBVk_X2bf7JwUQ4NJTeSdNpPVdLiMytv5T0b5qm4r8FrXe0HTb7w8l4c4cKk01ToP0-pUP2xFRVCw76VMpa31MpkC/s1600/Darnleydeath1.BMP" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="441" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHOTpGFq6ZHaWriux_n7zLytFKUnMpF3yDayCwII7glnD6o6TkbsMVBVk_X2bf7JwUQ4NJTeSdNpPVdLiMytv5T0b5qm4r8FrXe0HTb7w8l4c4cKk01ToP0-pUP2xFRVCw76VMpa31MpkC/s640/Darnleydeath1.BMP" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">
Why would anyone go to all this trouble of laying him out, ceremonially like, and then blow up the house? If they were going to blow up Darnley, whilst he was inside and woke him </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">up, why did they not wake others? There was only one survivor, from the blast, who was injured, several others were killed outright and why did they not just stab or shoot him and the valet?</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">
So what did happen?</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">
We can only speculate. I believe he wasn’t murdered at all. Mary however makes herself look suspicious by her previous behaviour. For example when telling Henry of James’ birth, she places great emphasis on that it WAS his child.<sup>93 </sup></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Maybe she was as surprised that it was indeed Henry’s child. If this is the case, obviously she was having sex with at least one other man. The speech does imply there were lots of rumours going around that James’ father wasn’t Darnley. From what I can gather this seems not to have been the case, later this is very true, not at or around conception time. Randolph, an English diplomat, did hear gossip that Mary was having an affair as early as 1565. Who? All he knew was it had been a ‘courtier’. Her speech also shows a great dislike for Henry, though it sounds a bit confused to me “his father has broken to me”.94 Maybe her English wasn’t good? If she was plotting his death, she saw her own as well, as again emphasis is placed on James ONLY uniting England & Scotland. Sir William Stanley asking why not, where then she gives the reply quoted previously, pulled this up. I thus think she was having sex with at least one man (if not more) and had stopped with her husband. Just to clear up one thing, James is Henry Stuart’s child, simply on the grounds that a portrait of Henry (aged 17) does match those (looks wise) of James as a child. Further to support that, James had no control of how the paintings were done at this age.</span><span style="color: #38761d;">
On the run up to Henry’s death, we do know he was expecting Mary to come the very night he died, for she had been nursing him during an illness. This was so severe it kept him bed </span><span style="color: #38761d;">ridden for ages. She in spite of this was with the Earl of Bothwell, who she was in love with, for she married him after the death of her husband. Let us suppose that Henry was still in love with Mary and felt betrayed by her affair, which we can assume he knew about. He may have told her she would face the consequences if she did not come that night. Mary might have ignored his threats or passed them off as idle words from a jealous husband. Darnley’s threats were not against Mary, whom he loved, but against himself.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">
Suicide - poisoning himself - was not the thing a king should do. That valet may have thought that, when he found him dead in bed. He may have arranged an operation to cover the suicide up; with perhaps the sole survivors help, clearing his master’s name. These servants all slept around the room Darnley was in, some near the door. The loyal valet taking his own life too, unable to go on without his master.<sup>9</sup><sup>5 </sup>The view of suicide (for whatever reason) was not expressed at the time, because his</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">death was perfect for the overthrowing of Mary, by her own people, and that’s what they did.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">
The so-called murdered man may have been contemplating his own death (maybe his wife’s as well) for sometime, as the gunpowder had been stored at the house on his command. There is even stronger evidence, that means he could no-way have escaped from the house, even if a party of assassins had woke him. That drawing, which Cecil was sent, proves that Darnley was incapable of walking! The body did have something on it, yet wasn’t caused by a physical assault. Most pictures of this drawing make some marks on his legs appear like a stain, or a blot, perhaps even a censoring of the private parts, <sup>96 </sup>at least that what I first thought. However on closer inspection, I recently discovered that on his upper right leg, on the inner side was a large ulcerated sore, about 30cm long and 15cm wide. There was evidence of strips of skin still present, though it first appeared to me as though tissue had been lost, as though an animal had bitten it, this not being the case. On the left leg are two smaller ulcers, one above the knee about 8cm long, 6cm wide, the other below the joint about 6cm long.<span style="font-size: xx-small;">97</span> We know he was suffering from syphilis and this disease does produce these sorts of ulcers. Still with these at this size and in those places, he must have been completely bed ridden still and in total agony if his calf muscles moved.<span style="font-size: xx-small;">98</span> The medicines must have been all about his room to treat it and most would be toxic! We also know what they treated him with. In one of the letters Mary wrote to Bothwell she says Darnley’s breath was that bad she couldn’t go near him. And it was that way because the Mercury treatment he was having made his teeth rotten. It would have been on his mind to take his life for ages, with these kinds of sores and the immense pain, nether mind what he felt about Mary. Mercury would have done the trick.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Everyone at that time jumped to the same conclusion of murder, for different reasons. There was no medical examination, though forensic medicine didn’t exist, that would have told them the truth. Elizabeth warned her cousin to find the murderers, for Mary’s enemies would accuse the Scots Queen.<sup>99 </sup>The English Queen also warned the Scottish Lords, ‘not to deprive their Sovereign Lady of her regal estate.<sup>’</sup><sup>100</sup></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">
William Cecil, putting his legal knowledge to work, also wrote that Mary did not have to by law answer her subjects, although she did deny having Darnley killed, which was true, if my theory is right. Mary probably made up a story that she had spoken to a French man as she left Darnley that night. So even she thought he had been murdered. The Scottish Lords did deprive Stuart, forcing her to abdicate. Nicholas Throckmorton (English ambassador) returning to Scotland again Said, “<i>The Scottish Lords intention is to establish a regency and keep Mary a prisoner”.</i><sup>101</sup></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">
Nicholas made it clear as well, that the Scotch Queen was quite reckless, doing nothing about those accused. The angry crowds of women alone got him worried. “I find she is in very great danger”?</span><br />
<sup><span style="color: #38761d;">102 </span></sup><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">The English were outraged, a former English lord killed, the Scots Queen imprisoned. Many believed the Scots Nobles had killed her husband, though some may have believed it was she. Sir William Cecil on the other hand had to be persuaded by the Queen. She was partially in agreement with the Spanish ambassador, who thought it was preposterous to treat a Queen this way, demanding that she did something to save the life of her cousin. Despite this the English did not give Mary much support for she also asked for French support as well as English.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">The England of Elizabeth I, were not on friendly terms with France. Several of the arguments went back to Henry the fifth, also they were not opposed to persecuting (and later massacring) Protestants and Mary Stuart, now an ex Queen of Scotland, did not mind who helped her. It clearly broke the Treaty of Edinburgh agreement as well. She doesn’t seem to have understood her own position, and why help was kept at a low level from all sides. Elizabeth, who probably helped the most, did not want war with Scotland and wouldn’t break any fragile treaties with anyone. The Pope in Rome (Pius V) was concerned about Mary’s marriage to the Earl of Bothwell.<sup>103</sup> He was actually protestant and <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.elizabethfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Bothwell.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.elizabethfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Bothwell.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: red;">Earl of Bothwell</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Mary agreed to that religion’s style of ceremony. No wonder it upset the Pope! The story that she was forcefully taken by him and married off is totally ridiculous. Nicholas Throckmorton had spoken with her and said she was prepared to give up the crown and live as a “damsel”<sup> 104 </sup>with Bothwell. Mary invented the rape story so as not cast suspicion on her involvement with the so-called murder of her husband. Now widely seen as being Bothwell’s doing. Thus ipso-facto Mary’s doing as well. Besides that, he was also still married to several other women! In addition she was in love with him and became pregnant, which she admitted to Throckmorton, refusing a divorce on the grounds she was seven weeks gone!<sup>105</sup> Mary explained the rape story personally, in a letter to the English Queen. Elizabeth was still disgusted by it! Throckmorton also told the new regime that they (the English) did not accept the abdication or the regency. The French, also treading carefully policy wise, did the same as the English, in other words, as little as possible. They had little time for the new regime in Scotland and even their ambassador was attacked, loosing his goods. In spite of this, they were not altogether convinced that Mary had been a good monarch, quite possibly gave some thought to her being a real problem, for them. For she was sent to make sure Scotland remained a loyal ally to France.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">
Mary escaped from her Scottish prison, much to the new Regent’s surprise<sup>106 </sup>(her half-brother James Stuart, the Earl of Moray).<sup>107 </sup>This she did by proposing marriage again! Her ‘loyal’ people (the Seton & Hamilton’s) joined up with her; she once again talked of marrying. This time a Hamilton! She quickly decided not to discus the issue in the Scottish Parliament, through legal and lawful means and they decided to do battle with Moray’s forces at Langside in Glasgow. At the battle, loyalty was not obvious. Mary’s general was Moray’s brother in law. The ramshackle army deserted or argued and despite having greater numbers and Mary riding down to urge them forward - they fled.<br />Mary, still not giving up, never excepting defeat, needed an army, so she escaped to England, setting off from what would become known as Port Mary, on a perilous journey across the Solway Firth which took 14 hours. She landed at Workington on the 16<sup>th </sup>of May 1568. She actually (formally by letter) requested to go to England, when safe in Scotland, seeking the protection of Elizabeth, which to all intent and purpose would make her appear as confined as the Scottish people had kept her. Her people tried to talk her into going to France instead. But Mary had other ideas.</span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">References</span></h3>
<span style="color: #38761d; font-size: x-small;">89. This got Robert out of the marriage plan too.<br />90. Astrologers then had no opposition to them predicting things, even if they got things wrong. Simon Forman even made predictions about death and the age it would happen.<br />91. Marshall PP 90-91.<br />92. Some Historians suggest he was strangled, but the drawing Cecil is sent shows no sign of this, plus witness statements although not very clear, rule it out.<br />93. James was born 19th June 1566.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d; font-size: x-small;">94. Steel P60.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d; font-size: x-small;">95. This kind of loyalty still exists today in some royal servants.<br />96. These are indeed not present.<br />97. These measurements are based on guesswork, assuming Darnley was 6 feet tall.<br />98. We can dismiss the statement that he recovered enough to walk around.<br />99. Ridley P148.<br />100. Read P383 July 27th.<br />101. Read P383 Possibly Read’s own opinion on the papers. Cal S.P. Scottish 1563-69.<br />102. Rowse P48.<br />103. Ridley P148.<br />104. Throckmorton’s word not mine. Rowse P48.<br />105. Mackay P221. She lost the baby a few weeks later.<br />106. Her son was crowned King, at Stirling during this time.<br />107. He seems to have preferred the spelling of ‘Stewart’</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: orange;">This piece is taken from my book The Shy Queen. The PDF of it can be found elsewhere on this blog. </span><br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-88017828428915331382014-04-06T17:08:00.000-07:002014-08-01T09:34:31.285-07:00The Beatles did stop The Rolling Stones hitting the top!<span style="color: #38761d;">As part of the process of checking who has had the biggest climb to the top I came on something very odd concerning the established fact that the Beatles and Rolling Stones never put out at the same time singles that would compete with one another.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">While I was looking at the charts for 1963, I came across the charts for the run up to Christmas. It clear shows a Rolling Stones record being held off the top by none other than the Beatles!</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Of course at the time nobody would have been aware of this fact, simply because there was no official chart of the day. Instead several charts would show different records top. The most popular charts of the period were the New Musical Express top 30 and the Melody Maker which by 63 was a top 50. It also used the most record shops to complete it's survey, however this was only a fraction of the stores in the UK. Some of the major stores didn't supply sales data to any of the charts! The chart later adopted as "official" by the first chart books made by Guinness, was made by a record trade magazine called Record Retailer. It is still considered by most chart fans to be very unrepresentative of the time. For one thing it excluded Extended Players from the top 50, as it had it's own EP chart. Both the Melody Maker and New Musical Express allowed them into it's listings. However the NME chart did allow albums into it's listing, plus listed AA records as two separate chart entries, which both The Maker and Retailer didn't. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">The unfairness of these charts and the lack of coverage of the shops means that the 60's charts are very unrepresentative of what actually was selling in the country as a whole. Which means that The Real Chart can show for the first time how a record by the Rolling Stones was threating the Mersey group from the start. Whilst in the Record Retailer the Stones stopped short of the top ten at number 12. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Of course we can't actually say what record buyers were buying in the missing major stores, because the chart isn't broken down that way. But it doesn't need a genius to work out that Harry Secombe's<em> If I Ruled The World</em>, was selling better there than in other record shops! It's much higher position, clearly better than in the other charts, points to this. Also amongst the teenage pop tunes it stands out like a sore thumb, the kind of record that Dad was buying rather than his kids! In the other countdowns it's best position was with the Retailer chart, but it wasn't top ten! It's worst was the NME chart were it was late entering the 30 and was lower down in it. You can quite imagine that NME editorial board wasn't too keen on having an interview with Harry spread in it's paper! Harry's not really 'new music' is he? Of course with the record in the other charts, NME had to let it enter their chart. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">In the chart for the 15 of December we see Marvin Gaye heading up the chart to number 17. This record is one that would not appear in the countdowns of the other charts. Further down (not shown) is a record from Rolf Harris, all about a kid screaming his head off having lost his mum! Up from 42 to 34. Again it failed to make the charts.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Back to the Beatles and Stones battle. They had two different fan bases at that time. The Beatles appealed to the rockers somewhat, but the largest percentage of their fans were teenage girls. The Stones however, had the Mod movement backing them. It was clear with all the hype that the Beatles had the upper hand. It seems odd that Stones would record a Lennon & McCartney track given the rivalry between the two bands, where it not for the fact that the Band's manager had been working for Brian Epstein as a publicist promoting the Beatles! That said, even in the years to come in the story of the Rolling Stones you can't imagine them covering a Beatles track again!! </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXg8v0vTYd_kjT06o3gjgLpDAQkdrCsulVsG62xPBEqvDOU9UYvAddEPTlCeto5RnjhsnvkIjOail3MN8tljh-AKXVhyphenhyphenMImt64QS4LqEQj0mKywbhCIIZSPMKtBt53REn2Ege0QwL5AtFa/s1600/Real+Chart+15+12+1963001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXg8v0vTYd_kjT06o3gjgLpDAQkdrCsulVsG62xPBEqvDOU9UYvAddEPTlCeto5RnjhsnvkIjOail3MN8tljh-AKXVhyphenhyphenMImt64QS4LqEQj0mKywbhCIIZSPMKtBt53REn2Ege0QwL5AtFa/s1600/Real+Chart+15+12+1963001.jpg" height="286" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;"> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq6187ZyEpM6Y-gFY8g6_m3E18sGTnTJDz3zZBSP8BeQ7wnp_lg4qyvWZFXY0QjsUHHLKJPn5RKCdbZV1dVOBEZsni1Z3S2GABbnJg8Uz_NmyJBdbgwXJMenJWKaffAswxi6Xjdfw4JXWx/s1600/Real+Chart+22+12+1963001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq6187ZyEpM6Y-gFY8g6_m3E18sGTnTJDz3zZBSP8BeQ7wnp_lg4qyvWZFXY0QjsUHHLKJPn5RKCdbZV1dVOBEZsni1Z3S2GABbnJg8Uz_NmyJBdbgwXJMenJWKaffAswxi6Xjdfw4JXWx/s1600/Real+Chart+22+12+1963001.jpg" height="340" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="color: #274e13;">Footnote: these charts are unsorted so they are missing data from them, hence the lack of weeks and sales symbols. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-89154658291944227642014-01-05T18:01:00.002-08:002021-08-31T08:47:53.238-07:00Reflected People 1973 to 1975<br />
<h1 class="western" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: red;">1973 to 1975</span></h1>
<br />
<h1 class="western" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: red;">SCHOOL’S IN FOREVER</span></h1>
<br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Growing
unemployment led to the increase in the age that young people left
education establishments between 1972 and 1973. The official figure
broke the million barrier. It would fuel arguments from trade unions
that were getting complaints from their members, over youngsters
taking jobs from older people; due to them being paid less, and being
more controllable, from the education system, by employers. They had
pressed the Labour Party to stop kids entering the labour market,
before 1966. The employers also did the same for different reasons,
to the Conservative Party, who had taken power in 1970. Employers,
under the guise of the Confederation of British Industry (C.B.I.),
wanted to put an end to the young people coming to them for jobs.
Well not all youths, only the ones who had not learned much at
school. Those that left at 15 probably had not taken CSE or GCSE
exams. These were now going for jobs that in years gone by they were
not expected to take or even get! Once again this was caused by
unemployment. Another couple of factors put pressure on to raise the
school leaving age. The first has to be local councils, which are
budget minded and like all capitalist, want growing amounts of money
to use. Even the ones that claim not to be capitalist use the same
system, as more than half of any council’s expenditure is connected
to education, than keeping kids at school will help their budget.
It’s also good news for teachers and their unions, with more jobs
for them, when jobs elsewhere were getting harder to find. Though not
all teachers wanted this, as it created more work for them and
teacher training was perhaps slow to catch up with this created
demand. Newly qualified young women teachers also tendered to leave
after they got married. Teachers were thus in short supply. This
would result in more work and for the same pay, for those already
teaching. They too had to put up with the kids that had to stay on
for the extra year. Dr Rhodes Boyson, very much on the right of the
Conservative Party and an educationalist, thought that schools would
become unmanageable. Not all children simply accepted the extra year;
one boy even took his own life, by hanging himself in 1974. Parents
had to support their kids longer. Poor and uneducated parents often
let their child leave, regardless of the law. It’s likely that this
was put down to truancy, as Boyson believed. The Inner London
Education Authority found in their surveys that 15 being worst for
truancy. Many got some sort of job, which was cash in hand. This
meant that employers got away with not paying National Insurance and
any tax and the rest. Newspaper headlines screamed ONE MILLION
TRUANTS, but some benefited - both kids and adults.</span><br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
Official statistics showed that only 60% left school at age 15. But
this was due to the grammar schools, who kept kids till 16 anyway.
After the age of leaving discrepancy was corrected some 70% of pupils
gave up education, so even some Grammar school pupils were flooding
on to the jobs market at 16. The increased numbers of children
leaving made the further education figures look good, with 10% more
by 1979. However in real terms this was probably a reduction or no
change at all, due to the “baby boom” generation. Nevertheless
most children accepted the extra year and those parents with children
who had left school, were not keen on their other children joining
the dole queue. More youths on the dole was making a mockery of the
need system of poverty relief that post war government had
introduced. Easter and summer leavers flooded the Employment Exchange
every time. Most got jobs quite quickly. However the opposition
parties used these new high figures to attack any Government and any
policies they had. Even if these policies had nothing to do with
unemployment. The problem for any government was that these figures
and the inflation rate figure were regular read out in the House of
Commons. If they fell they were all right, yet if the baseline trend
showed increase they were still blamed. News reports of jobless
youths committing suicide and the distressed parents put further
pressure on MP’s. The truth is that both of these figures were
unconnected with most government plans or actions to keep them low.
This is because that like medical drugs they work in some cases,
don’t in others and have side effects, which are mostly none
beneficial to the country as a whole.</span></div>
<br />
<h2 class="western">
<span style="color: red;">The Milky bar Grocer’s daughter</span></h2>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">One
of these ‘side effects’ was brought about because of the above
and the others already spoken of, plus the disrespect of older people
to those younger. Most adults those well over 21, during the
seventies, think that young people became more disrespectful to the
older generation. This was true because of the schooling and yet it
was the other way round as well. Many adults became quite resentful
of young people, because the young people seemed to have more money.
This spending was of course seen in the buying of popular music.
Adults paying large bills: from the rent/mortgage to food and
heating/light, left them with little surplus cash. This ‘surplus
cash’ was then spent on luxury items. Few bothered to save then. It
was universally considered that buying music was a luxury item;
indeed you could say that most of what young people spent their money
on was considered by adults to be a waste of time. In essence the
young person, once any board was paid, was free to spend on what they
liked. With adults this hardly applied, thus young people had gained
a little extra money and being criticised for it. These moans reached
government ears and with the other moans eh; should that be concerns,
they passed acts needed to keep children at schools for a longer
period. The 1972 Local Government Act, though this did not come
completely into effect until April 1974, was one such act.
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Most
of these older people believed that the community sprit was at its
height during the war. Mrs Thatcher and others certainly did and she
plays a role in what happened. Ironically the seeds of their
discontent of the young had also been sown during the war. It was
the 1944 Education Act that took the school leaving age to 15,
although it wasn‘t raised till 1947. It also had the provision to
increase the same to 16, once the Ministry of Education was satisfied
it could be practical. And there didn’t need to be another act or
parliamentary debate on the subject. There hadn’t been much of one
on the 1944 act itself! It went through Parliament ‘smooth but
slow’ <sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span></sup></a></sup>
The Ministry thus thought it was practical in 1972. The minister in
charge was Margaret Thatcher. She who stopped free school milk, but
what she didn’t know, at the time, she was building up the problems
she was deal with as Prime Minister, they were trivial compared with
the cost of free milk!
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">There
was no evaluation done, by the scientific communities, on the likely
affects that keeping children on at school would have. No economist
did any calculations of the withdrawal of large numbers of people
from the work place, simply because many of them thought that it
would increase productivity to have better educated young people
leaving school. To fit in with this, new aspirations about increasing
A-Level and O-Level qualifications were being brought in, however the
entire Government and all the parties, simply ignored youths/children
contribution to the economy. There was opposition to Mrs Thatcher’s
plan, but it wasn’t to do with the creation of problems that
Britain was to become involved with. <i>The Daily Telegraph </i>called
it “little short of Lunatic”.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote2sym" name="sdfootnote2anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">2</span></sup></a></sup>
Thatcher was seen as being a socialist in this context, simply
because she was for-filling Labour’s broken pledge of 1966. The
other side effects of rising rates in local authorities and reduced
spending by adults having to support their children for longer than
before and more tax. They also ignored the effect inflation was based
on too much money circulating in the economy. The Church had strongly
argued for young people to be in education from the industrial
revolution, believing that the young were being corrupted morally by
having no or little education. They would probably wouldn’t have
accepted (and still won’t) that; teaching reading, maths and so on
to teenagers causes and caused a fundamental breakdown in moral
standards and social behaviour.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">All
of these factors came into play again as the results of the jump in
the school leaving age had a downside to the financial side of
Britain. The first side effect of the extra year was blamed (at the
time and still is for many) on the oil price and shortage of 1973;
The Yom Kippur War of October 73 quadrupled the crude oil price.
Trade unions also took the can for it as well. The Miners led by Joe
Gormley and Rail Unions battled with Edward Heath’s Conservative
Government about how much people should get paid. Heath had given tax
cuts out in his budgets and with cheap credit was causing growth in
the economy at 7.4%. Workers thus needed high wages to pay debt.
Massive wage rises were seen by the Labour Governments between 1974 &
1979, as responsible for the colossal rise of inflation to its
highest figure (since the war) of 24.9%. This was achieved in 1975.
Only since this figure, like the record charts positions, were not
based on up-to-date figures, don’t refer to that year, but are
referring to 1974 and even 1973. Under Dennis Healy time as
chancellor, policies were brought in to control wage rises. Pay was
therefore only to rise inline with inflation and preferably under it.
These ‘contracts’ did not take into account that a firm might be
making a profit or the increasing costs of children since they were
in school now longer. Unrest among working people grew. While at the
same point, bosses increased their salaries even when the companies
were not making profits. Trade unions members on TV news tried to
defend their union’s actions. They pointed out that inflation had
eaten into the workers wagers and that land prices or oil, which had
nothing to do with their members, caused inflation. The TV News also
would come under attack by the Glasgow University Media Group as
promoting a middle ground style of news coverage, in a sequence of
books, with names such as: <i>Really Bad News.</i> They showed that
TV news backs various opinions and delivered a centre political view
of the world. By the end of 2000 it was a centre-right view as the
old regimes tried to control the poor morals of the people. With the
power cuts of 1972, because Arthur Scargill and others got Flying
Pickets to stop coal reaching the power stations, militant unions
became the topic of a pop song. The Strawbs hit the top of the chart
with <i>Part of the Union.</i> </span><span style="color: red;">video below </span><span style="color: #38761d;">But was it sung in praise or against
the unions, you could ask yourselves? Not that most </span></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/KdOCWUgwiWs?rel=0" width="420"></iframe>
<span style="color: #38761d;">teenagers were
interested in the news or the decline around them. Teenage girls were
interested only in seeing the latest pictures of pop stars in <i>Jackie</i>
Magazine, which came out Saturdays, Boys were into football and
league tables were often pasted onto their bedroom walls. Snooker
also had parents rushing off for small tables. Thanks to colour TV
and the BBC 2 programme <i>Pot Black, </i>made only because of
colour. It doesn’t make sense in black and white! That’s assuming
they had a colour set, and the power was on!
</span><br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">If
the unions were simply being blamed and had not caused the rise to
24.9%, then was the oil rise doing the damage? I doubt it, because it
doesn’t fit with the theory that too much cash is to blame. If any
product rises in cost too much, in the market system, the rise can be
got round by not buying as much of it. Indeed the Government had a
“Save it” campaign on following the crises. Although oil may have
contributed to a small rise of less than 10% due to the need still to
buy it, something that the Government does every year was the cause
of it. The budget! This for 1973 was very different to all the
previous years. In that year the budget was set like all the others
on the spending and income for the previous year’s total. Yet in
1972 the 15-year-olds that should have left were still there, the
following year. The 1973 budget should have taken an amount of the
overall budget for that year to account for all these kids not
getting paid by employers. However since that figure wasn’t
available, due to the kids getting different levels of wages or none
at all, the chancellor could not do this. The reason for this being
that if the Government didn’t stick to the figures (of previous
years) when setting the budget, then Britain could go bust, because
employers wouldn’t have the cash to pay people. In 1971 there were
about 8 million aged between 16 and 24. Yet that’s not really
practical for our purposes. Let’s do some calculations. Since I was
at school when they raised it, I can tell you that each class of my
school had 30 to 40 pupils in it. I understand that this was about
typical around the rest of the country. So my school had 9 classes
per year of kids, before the rise, thus it had 3 sets of 9 classes.
After 1972 it had 4 sets of 9. Assuming 30 kids per class, then 270
pupils should have left each year. If they all got a job that paid
say £16 a week, then the Treasury had to make sure that £4,320 was
circulating in the economy for each school. This adds up for 30
schools to £129,600, about the number for Sheffield and so on. Even
if the Schools took on extra staff and resources, it still would
hardly affect the overall figure that was circulating. A huge amount
of money was thus issued in the budget of 1973 that was not needed;
however it would remain hidden, as costs had risen, due to oil, a
three day working week and all the other faults that hit Britain in
1973 and74. With the crisis that hit Britain a small amount of money
left floating went unnoticed. The ship of state had hit the iceberg
and no one knew!</span>
</div>
<br />
<h2 class="western">
<span style="color: red;">Inflated leavers</span></h2>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Therefore
inflation hit that high in 1975 due to the budgets of 1973 & 74
not cutting back the cash needed to pay school leavers, who hadn’t
left! This left the money floating around, it also explains why
inflation has since never gone that high. Ironic that the woman who
brought inflation under control, was responsible for the trigger of
it going so high in the first place! “Nah!” would have said
Alfred Sherman and Alan Walters two bright academics, who wouldn’t
shake the hand of Keith Joseph in 1974. “It’s all this
subsidising and money supply ripping that Heath’s doing! Let the
entrepreneurs have a free run that will solve the problem,” it
didn’t and they did.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The
next side effect was to make Richard Branson a rich man. Branson was
really good at cheating; he was even doing it at school. It turns out
most millionaires are, according to those that study them. Branson
himself had been tax fiddling the Government by selling records by
mail order that were meant for export, thus avoiding purchase tax.
Richard himself was helping the down trodden youth also, but made
money at the same time. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUWdAoo8XH9-1L_YxslBMTsg4mMd4pfEtCfJDNfatNMVBJ9RGGPrnXhHrfO8GsgWgyp0p0QNyLEcRuKXePDYDK-NtrgVe94lqAwOtyyHGna0fbZ3voBHYl_a83SpF4XGjR7J3ryisu8qhQ/s1600/Young+Richard+Branson.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUWdAoo8XH9-1L_YxslBMTsg4mMd4pfEtCfJDNfatNMVBJ9RGGPrnXhHrfO8GsgWgyp0p0QNyLEcRuKXePDYDK-NtrgVe94lqAwOtyyHGna0fbZ3voBHYl_a83SpF4XGjR7J3ryisu8qhQ/s1600/Young+Richard+Branson.jpeg" /></a></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">Getting wind of the postal strikes forced him
to set up record shops as well. With 240,000 postal workers led by
Tom Jackson on all out strike. Branson had a huge problem thanks to
Mr Taxman, who caught up and wanted £38,000 over 3 years! Credit
made it easy for Richard, as he didn’t have to pay for the records
he got from suppliers for 60 days. Cash or cheque customers paid
quick and Virgin staff had gone to America and seen the Tower Records
chain selling music from the shelf. Each new store, helped by credit
delay, opened to pay off the taxman. Contacts with musicians brought
Tom Newman asking for a recording studio and the rest was added to
give Virgin its own label in 1971. By 1973 Virgin had signed up Mike
Oldfield, who produced experimentally a whole album, with no gaps or
voice, called <i>Tubular Bells.</i> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEmJchAUvNhRg1ORfkp_BeN6TVM82IkpugEdU3RRN8xEH-sdW_ZS7PAin54qdBgBDjZZngBUMxynnkk67alUY-T7ftRz0fb6hfnZpv2c-kjeHzcnL2_KqqVXAg_3e6EFDBNEm4EytCEGbl/s1600/richard-branson-and-mike-oldfield-12507.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEmJchAUvNhRg1ORfkp_BeN6TVM82IkpugEdU3RRN8xEH-sdW_ZS7PAin54qdBgBDjZZngBUMxynnkk67alUY-T7ftRz0fb6hfnZpv2c-kjeHzcnL2_KqqVXAg_3e6EFDBNEm4EytCEGbl/s1600/richard-branson-and-mike-oldfield-12507.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
John Peel played it in full on
Radio One and it went to number one on the album chart a single was
also lifted from the album. The rights were also given to a filmmaker
and used on <i>The Exorcist</i>. Within a short time he was a
millionaire. The next Branson type who benefited was Pete Waterman.
Whereas Richard knew nothing of popular music, Pete knew everything
and told Magnet Record company boss Michael Levy that his companies
records where “crap”.
</span></div>
<br />
<h2 class="western">
<span style="color: red;">No sex please! We’re at school</span></h2>
<span style="color: #38761d;">The
other side effects of increased education would be seen in the next
decade, but it started to get more problematic in the seventies. This
was down to sex. Basic sex education had become a joke! Apart from
those in the adult world who disagreed with it entirely, it was being
taught before most children were even interested in it. However it
concentrated on the “birds and the bees” and the stuff one can
see, as Eminem would put it years later “on the Discovery Channel”.
As most young people would have left school from senior school around
the age of 15, it continued to be taught at before that age. Another
reason for it to be taught was the onset of puberty. Teacher thus
could answer these questions, which children had about changes to
their bodies, to the whole class. Actually as humans are a sexual
race, a lot of sexual development takes places a lot earlier than 12.
Be that as it may more emphasis takes place after 12. Human
reproduction teaching consisted of technical drawings of the
male/female body, a film of the birth of a child, the mention of
sperm and eggs being released, but no clear description of how the
sperm got from male to female. Generally it was referred to as the
“fertilisation process”! This was the effect of the permissive
sixties, believe it or not! But even Richard Branson had discovered
the problems with getting help for teenagers with sexual transmitted
diseases as early as 1968, when he placed an advert in his student
(anyone over 16 in education) magazine. Breaking the law by putting
in the advert, which was for a sexually education centre, the word
“venereal” resulting in a seven pound fine.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote3sym" name="sdfootnote3anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">3</span></sup></a></sup>
</span><br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">This
simple form of sex education was (by the Government and Church) of
course seen as sufficient for children leaving school at 15 then.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote4sym" name="sdfootnote4anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">4</span></sup></a></sup>
Equally it was not really; they would have to get details from other
people.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote5sym" name="sdfootnote5anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">5</span></sup></a></sup>
And that’s the crux of the matter. Youngsters after they enter
puberty need instructions from a wide variety of ages. Instead they
started after the Second World War to get it from other teenagers.
Most would agree this was and is a bad way of learning about sex,
hence the sex education that is outlined above. Yet as this was a
best poor, it was back to teenagers again for the ‘good stuff’,
hence the popularity of Sweet’s record <i>“Little Willy” </i>in
June of 1972, something to laugh about around the bike-shed. </span><span style="color: red;">Video Below</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/hmbEuRzlhIs?rel=0" width="420"></iframe>
<br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Another
factor then entered, by the early seventies, was comprehensive
education. This saw most boys and girls merged into the same school.
They also did more merging at the back of the bike-shed, which
started to make some of the girls faint in class or in the assembly.
Apart from strong catholic schools, keeping the girls apart from the
boys wasn’t seen as a problem. Some however did notice that girls
didn’t get a good education, because of the distractions. Not all
of the girls got pregnant, but some did form permanent (as they
thought) relationships and got married after leaving school. However
this does all come about from being at school and what they learned
there makes them into the parents they would become after the age of
16. A decent education makes a good parent argue politicians. However
I would argue that it doesn’t even make a good politician. Most
biologists tell us we are merely animals, though members of
parliament don’t like that and have become superior to that kind of
talk. Only they ignore advice like this, with a perilous consequence.
They did with the school leaving age! But then again nobody knew much
about that sort of thing in 1944. Mr Butler (whose act it was) went
wrong in that he assumed that education of the mind is all young
people needed. This might have been true before the school leaving
age went past the age of 12. With puberty in full effect, which is by
no means a development of our sexual needs and drives, as already
mentioned these have been changing since we were born. It’s much
greater than that, puberty changes who we are. Our personality
develops, how we relate to others, of both sexes, changes. Later also
how we will raise children becomes an issue. Everyone in Britain, who
left education, before 1947, wouldn’t understand what doing this to
the children would mean. Nowadays we do though comprehend this, yet
it still is being ignored. Once again if education controls who we
are and what is studied; then any kind of talk which makes education
itself to blame for Britain's social and moral problems will not be
tolerated. All that happens are debates about how under funded
education as lead to social problems, by the left-wingers and how
private schools make better children, by right-wingers. They all
still agree that a decent education makes good parents and blame the
parents of children who have ‘bad’ kids and this attitude was
common in the seventies.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Youths
however were downgraded by adults. The best example of this can be
seen in the BBC’s TV series <i>Dad’s Army.</i> Private Pike is a
stereotyped young person of the 1940’s. Yet, because he mixes with
the other people of the platoon, forms no peer group with other young
people so should have been more adult than youths of the decade it
was filmed in. However he hasn’t grown up. What his captain calls
him rang true with many adults watching in the seventies. Showing
there’s also a lot of the attitudes and beliefs of older people in
the seventies, in the character. Pike watches too many films, picking
up stupid ideas from them. And is idle or incompetent in any task he
does. Strike TV for films and you could have anyone who has left
school at 15/16. Also it’s Pike that has to do all the dirty jobs,
like any apprentice/Youth scheme lad!
</span></div>
<br />
<h2 class="western">
<span style="color: red;">Souled Out & Super Bad at Art</span></h2>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The
first dramatic effect of the education system that really annoyed
most people was graffiti. Although the illegal use of writing or
scribbling on things can be found at most times in history, the
painting on walls reached epidemic levels by the mid seventies. The
spray can of paint was blamed for the increase. There was a simpler
reason. Most education in schools concentrated on what had been
taught from the early days of teaching. Art was taught at first to
inspire young people with culture. Perhaps with a view to make them
think how wonderful Art Galleries were and so on. Art Colleges had
been set up and with their influence, convinced many teachers to take
Art into the classroom. It’s amazing how many people think they
can’t draw even today. This is based on the prints of paintings and
the originals in the art galleries around the world, which people
have on their walls. Few can draw like Constable;<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote6sym" name="sdfootnote6anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">6</span></sup></a></sup>
most can draw like Lowery critics said of him “Matchstick Men and
Cats & Dogs”. Yet even his work is hard to produce. Art School
graduates often went on to teaching. When you look at some modern
art, you soon get the impression that anyone could do it. Some of it
doesn’t (to an untrained eye) look like any skill was involved at
all. For instance Cy Twombly “untitled” piece from 1959 looks
like a very young child had just been allowed to scribble all over
the six-foot canvas! Yet nobody would pay over a million pounds for
one that been done like that! With this kind of modern art being
taught at Art College, then teachers would be able to see any kids
with this kind of potential early on and then develop it. To what
extent schools were proud of these budding artists can easily be seen
it the art classroom and the corridors of the schools. The famous
still life image by Andy Warhol of Coca Cola bottles or cans, was picked up
by art teaches and haunts schools to </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfHhoK_CNReRkIX8BkT5QF7-tnGlSmbYq1vgrVRzsKX0t28tAf7IsVHagxy6JQm2nUnCVnIdmTWBQN1cW_jVHJsAjAsrCh6ibkR8YxXKR8WlniJ4Cb16eiaE1piwC9dt-h-YCxEHtpVgGp/s1600/Coke+Warhol.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfHhoK_CNReRkIX8BkT5QF7-tnGlSmbYq1vgrVRzsKX0t28tAf7IsVHagxy6JQm2nUnCVnIdmTWBQN1cW_jVHJsAjAsrCh6ibkR8YxXKR8WlniJ4Cb16eiaE1piwC9dt-h-YCxEHtpVgGp/s1600/Coke+Warhol.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">this day most likely. <sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote7sym" name="sdfootnote7anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">7</span></sup></a></sup>
Still it is seen by those thinking education has only positive
results, as a thing to encourage young people to escape from the
boredom of their lives.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Over
in America, around the New York Slums, where Black people were
housed, James Brown’s soul music had really taken hold. Groups and
solo acts such as: The Isley Brothers, Harold Melvin and the
Bluenotes, the Ojays and Barry White, easily crossed the pond with
smooth well produced numbers like <i>If You Don’t Know Me By Now,
Back Stabbers </i>and <i>That Lady.</i> In Britain music making was
seen as art itself. But Pete Waterman found out, when he went to the
place it was made, looking for the magic ingredient that made US soul
better than English music, it was a factory! Writers and producers
Kenny Gamble, Leon Huff and Tom Bell just turned out songs to earn a
living.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote8sym" name="sdfootnote8anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">8</span></sup></a></sup>
The Labour Party could have nationalised them, if they had been in
England. The high American crime rates blamed on black people, where
influencing the street language. Yet as can be seen the songs were
about love, even so the acts were seen as BAD. This soon caught on,
the original meaning getting lost in marketing by record companies.
These had caught on to impact that television advertising had on
selling records. With the stream of acts that were flowing into and
off the top 50 at much faster rates than in any of the previous
decades, more and more acts were having only a few hits. This was
especially true with soul music. A lot of soul groups/acts who made
albums couldn’t get them to sell. Once an act became big, it was
easy to sell albums, but acts such as Ultra Funk featuring Mr.
Superbad, Creative Source, Timmy Thomas and Robert Knight, had little
chance of having a big selling album. Because the format of the 12’’
LP limited its playing time per-side to 30 minutes, getting long soul
music on them restricted the total numbers of tracks on the album.
Average playing times of singles were on the increase throughout the
seventies anyway. The 2.30 minutes single was up to nearly 4 minutes
by the end of the decade. But soul music was aimed at dancers in
clubs and the like. Pete Waterman became an expert picker of hits
from his work as a DJ in these clubs. So the 1972 Isley Brothers’
<i>That Lady </i>at slightly over 6 minutes wasn’t untypical for
soul music, being long. However if you put a lot of long tracks on
one album, you reduce the track numbers down considerable.
Unfortunately an album with only 4 or 5 tracks per side was often
seen by the record buying public in England as being not good value
for money. Enter K-Tel International, with its cheap TV and Radio
advertised 20 plus track album. They quickly established their
product range of ‘Limited Edition’<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote9sym" name="sdfootnote9anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">9</span></sup></a></sup>
LPs in the market place. Technically they were compressed small
grooves, which gave them increased track numbers, but very low sound
levels. This meant you had to turn up the volume control to get them
to same level as other albums and singles. Music Centres also became
popular at this time and if you pushed the radio button after just
listening to one of these albums at only a low level, were still
blasted out by the radio station, all though they always advertised
them as “Original Hits” and “Original Stars”. This being done
to prevent confusion with the <i>Top of the Pops </i>LPs (the ones
with the pin up girl on the cover) produced by Pickwick
International, with session musicians covering the hit songs. These
were being sold alongside them in Woolworth’s shops. Together with
their rival Arcade, K-Tel had 30% of album sales.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote10sym" name="sdfootnote10anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">10</span></sup></a></sup>
The need to get 20 tracks <sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote11sym" name="sdfootnote11anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">11</span></sup></a></sup>
on each album meant a further reduction in the running time was
needed. Rather than fade them all out early, verses, most likely the
second, on pop songs were edited out. However editing was extreme at
times with a 3-minute track reduced to 1.45! The artwork on some of
these albums is sometimes very good. This brings us back to graffiti!
At least 3 K-Tel LPs used the wall with spray can painted names of
the acts rather than the usual photos of them. Either this was to do
with saving money, on photo fees, or more likely not wanting to put
black people on the album, which was believed to reduce sales, or
they just wanted the first album that way <i>Super Bad</i> (released
in 1972). Then found it successful in terms of sales, which it was,
thus releasing <i>Souled Out </i>(1974)<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote12sym" name="sdfootnote12anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">12</span></sup></a></sup>
and <i>Soul Motion</i> in 1976. During these dates however the spray
can culture exploded. If you look at British films made before 1976,
which feature English streets, subways and bridges, such as Cliff
Richard’s 1974 film <i>Take Me High</i> you’ll see little
evidence of any paint spraying or vandalism at all!
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdFdcPwv9zMC1PY1UxMI0WXeblV0udXT-XvRBsuQWxa_3eRsKrlqt5pHJUQ7yaW11oiM6wmHrOrMKx6UGarNGGUeRT2pRsre-D-T9fQgs9vm7zEzx9qPUIWYPVESw5OZk3OZENxLI-14G3/s1600/Various---Soul-Jazz--Fun-Souled-Out-293908.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdFdcPwv9zMC1PY1UxMI0WXeblV0udXT-XvRBsuQWxa_3eRsKrlqt5pHJUQ7yaW11oiM6wmHrOrMKx6UGarNGGUeRT2pRsre-D-T9fQgs9vm7zEzx9qPUIWYPVESw5OZk3OZENxLI-14G3/s1600/Various---Soul-Jazz--Fun-Souled-Out-293908.jpg" width="306" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Put
all this together and you can see that teaching kids Art at school
was going to lead to them, when they got bored, using these skills to
express it. Then after 16 they learned about politics and how free
speech can be denied, which was taught them too in university, they
then expressed these views on the world they lived in! The Irish
Republican Army made very good use of their artists to decorate the
streets. All the extreme ends of the political movements used the
spray can to inform, while you could say the rich political movements
paid vast amounts of money for their artists and put it in
fashionable places.
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Teaching
kids art of course doesn’t mean that every child will go out and
spray a wall somewhere. Indeed a second ingredient needs adding, yet
in schools this was there already, so the final piece is hormones,
past age 12 there’s too many of them. The mixture was perfect,
artistic expression, peer groups, hormones. Next development was the
spray can to be found in the garage of the growing car owners –
called dad!
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Teenagers,
as we have seen already, pick up most of their behaviour patterns
from other young people. One woman through research confirmed that
children past the age of 12 were picking up more things from peer
groups then were learnt from parents. Peer groups are very unlikely
to form were there are a good cross-section of ages, although cliques
can form.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote13sym" name="sdfootnote13anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">13</span></sup></a></sup>
But mum and dad are handy to supply the stuff to fuel bad activities,
that’s if you have got both of them!</span></div>
<br />
<h2 class="western">
<span style="color: red;">We want mum and dad together!</span></h2>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The
liberated sixties had caused in religious and political eyes a
breakdown of the family unit. Has they wanted to return to these
ideals the growing number of family musical acts might have given
them encouragement, but they were not the only ones who needed a
family unit. The family bands would get lots of letters from kids
whose parents were divorced or breaking up (around 80,000 in the UK
at this time). Groups like the Jacksons, Partridge Family and of
course the Osmonds all became popular as divorce rates soared.
Michael Jackson overtly concern with children might well have sprung
from this period, but it was the Osmonds who hit hardest in Britain
and I don’t mean in popularity.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
Their first real hit in the States, didn’t make the top 50 here.
<i>One Bad Apple </i>was a direct rip off of the Jacksons’ <i>ABC.
</i>Yet a few years later their Rock ‘N’ Roll number <i>Crazy
Horses </i>gave them a top five hit. Instead of having the mellow
image they had in the States, they were considered to be like Slade
(musical) over here. It didn’t last long! The brothers soon became
Teen Idols and Donny began releasing singles aimed at teenage girls,
along with posing for photographs for girls’ magazines. The Media
were interested from the start when thousands of girls were shouting
“we want the Osmonds” at Heathrow in November 1972. However they
and Donny were not the only guys breaking girls’ hearts. Splitting
from his own fictional family (Partridge), David Cassidy was the
other pin-up on girls’ bedroom walls. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJrmabsO_dnzny3-mloX-eYtRg3Qxcc0bTwJvNnFBbO-Zg82Qlc1o86BcP2Ax_X1Eowo31DZj0uhXXhkD3ckHz7Bg9HQjEdZtRd8xX7tNB1qqPZ752G8ASGEBMdOcwzqHEhrg9x49f3DiX/s1600/David-Cassidy.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJrmabsO_dnzny3-mloX-eYtRg3Qxcc0bTwJvNnFBbO-Zg82Qlc1o86BcP2Ax_X1Eowo31DZj0uhXXhkD3ckHz7Bg9HQjEdZtRd8xX7tNB1qqPZ752G8ASGEBMdOcwzqHEhrg9x49f3DiX/s1600/David-Cassidy.jpg" width="240" /></a></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">The fans (mostly girls) would
go to no ends to see their idols. As Top of the Pops audience numbers
had grown so huge, TV centre bosses banned Cassidy from coming there
on crowd safety issues. However the real reason that the bosses were
fed up of not getting their cars in through the gates. Besides this
was trash telly and News and currant affairs were the BBC brand image
at that time. News people couldn’t get in too! They got their own
back on the fans, the BBC reported on the Six O’ Clock News about
Osmond fanatics going wild. Watching were the writers of Sweet’s
hits and <i>Teenage Rampage </i>was born.<i> </i>
</span></div>
<br />
<h2 class="western">
<span style="color: red;">Shout! Let it all out</span></h2>
<div class="western">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The
rivalry between Donny and Cassidy fans was nothing compared with
their combined hate of Bay City Rollers fans. Roller fans went one
better they had their own fashion. The Rollers had started in 1967 as
the Saxons, a school-based band from Edinburgh. Line up changes and a
hard struggle had produced a hit in 1971 thanks to Jonathan King, yet
nothing after it, till 1974. This hard time was probably caused by
Manager Tam Paton. He was obsessed with image and even tried satin
and frilly shirts on them. This didn’t do them a lot of good in the
hard Scottish world of entertainment.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote14sym" name="sdfootnote14anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">14</span></sup></a></sup>
His control was strict. No smoking, no drink and no girlfriend. The
members were allowed all of them in truth and did, just not in the
public eye. In the end the band and their manager had to target the
market they wanted to break into by buying teenage magazines with
Osmond/Cassidy fans address in and send them promotional pictures.
The results showed up in the four top ten hits of 74. The tartan
trousers and scarfs of the band were rushed into production. Girl
followers were thus easily spotted. The only really distinctive
features of an Osmond/Cassidy fan were a picture badge of the star,
possibly a T-Shirt or bag. Some schools were having debates about
school uniform wearing. Some allowed normal clothes to be worn.
Tartan however was considered unacceptable! Scarf wearing girls were
told by teaches that those are for outside not inside the classroom.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The
Rollers fans won the battle in the end, when Cassidy pulled out from
touring after the death of a teenage girl in a crowd control accident
in 1974. He wasn’t happy with his idol image anyway. Tam Paton was
very happy with the idol image and with the antics of teenage girls
made sure that ‘Rollermania’ was seen on the headlines. The
popular press found out that stories of the band increased sales and
all were happy. All accept the band. The Rollers were not what they
seemed to be, as Midge Ure found out with his band called Silk. Like
many proper bands, Silk were so good at playing music they could be
mistaken for a record playing. They were, by none other than Bill
Martin!</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">If
you look at the songwriters credit on many seventies singles,
particularly the Bell/Arista label, you will probably find the names
Martin/Coulter. These blokes (the other Phil Coulter) where like
Waterman and his gang, or Simon Cowell and Louis Walsh. They were
still unknown then and their predecessors were Nicky Chinn and Mike
Chapman. They were next door to Bell Records at RAK Records and were
rivals. Martin/Coulter wanted to be like them having lots of hits.
They developed a role. Martin came up with ideas and Coulter wrote
the tune. However they liked to run the show and market the product,
which they aimed at 14-year-old girls. As packaged as Cornflakes or
holidays. They even tried the same format with another band called
Kenny.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote15sym" name="sdfootnote15anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">15</span></sup></a></sup>
Their hits included <i>The Bump </i>and <i>Julie Anne.</i> Real bands
were a bloody problem to them. So when Midge came to the studio
expecting to play instruments on the record, he got a shock! He got a
bigger shock when they found out all they needed them for was to sing
a chant. Silk walked into the recording of what sounded like a Bay
City Rollers track, hardly surprising as the Bay City Rollers didn’t
record their own music. Instead the same session musicians were now
playing the backing of Silk’s new single. When the group objected
Bill Martin raved at Midge (only 22 at the time) “You sing that
bloody song if you want a hit”.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Fortunately
the band did sing it and made it big time, after a slot at prime time
BBC on a new section on TOTP. Four bands without hits played to 15
million people! Well you only need a million to buy a single! They
did and <i>Forever and Forever </i>went huge. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">They were not however
dressed like the other bands. Silk had baseball shirts and James Dean
haircuts. However this was another Martin/Coulter trick, they had
tried the shirts (only) on the Rollers.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote16sym" name="sdfootnote16anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">16</span></sup></a></sup>
Nor did they explain to the young Midge that they used the session
musicians to ensure that tracks were recorded quickly, thus saving
costs on studio time. At least that’s what Les McKeown (lead singer
with the Rollers) was told.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote17sym" name="sdfootnote17anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">17</span></sup></a></sup>
However even the Rollers were caught out by the Newspapers and their
record company told the band to play the music, which they did from
<i>Bye Bye Baby </i>onwards. Oddly it made the band happy for a
while. Not drinking milk! No the still did that. You could say they
put up with this rubbish, because of their background. For Les was
bullied at his secondary school where there were plenty of beatings,
if you didn’t go with the flow. He thus adopted an act of not
showing any weakness, he says, all his life.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote18sym" name="sdfootnote18anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">18</span></sup></a></sup>
Even though you can tell from his Roller experience, he was weak. Tam
Paton had them too, it would appear. For the ‘Roller’ merchandise
was credited as being “official” “approved by the band” and
also made millions. Despite Woolworths having stocked it and C&A’s
million square yards of tartan, neither the band nor Tam saw the
money.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote19sym" name="sdfootnote19anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">19</span></sup></a></sup>
Still fashion and music were linked together forever as well. The
effects of these fashion urges would have lasting effects and the
young girls probably never grew out of wanting to be fashionable, if
they got the bug. Males were a bit slower at catching up. But then
again even the tartan and beautifully crafted new music like <i>You
made me believe in magic </i>couldn’t save the Rollers (or Silk)
from the Punk Revolution and it was their last hit in 1977.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Apart
from bands that did perform themselves and those that just sang on
records, another way to have hits was just let the session musicians
do the whole thing. At Polydor records Wayne Bickerton and Tony
Waddington (another Martin/Coulter) did just that! Both the Rubettes
and later Racey, were not real groups at all. This didn’t stop
<i>Sugar Baby Love </i>spending three weeks at the top in 1974. Not
that Wayne & Tony who also wrote the song had a choice; no other
act would sing this ‘rubbish’. But few real bands could survive
without making hit singles. Most tried to release singles and use
them to promote the album. Generally it was because the singles
failed to make the Top 50, artists became ‘album bands’ such as
Genesis. When they did hit the singles chart in 1977 with <i>Follow
You Follow Me,</i> concert fans started shouting “sell out” when
it was played.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote20sym" name="sdfootnote20anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">20</span></sup></a></sup></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">For
a solo singer not having hits was near to death in the music
industry. So we come to other person who stimulated the manic girl
fans as the other acts in this chapter, Mr Cook. More bullies at his
Secondary school, but he whacked one and the boy’s father as well,
so he became one of the gang.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote21sym" name="sdfootnote21anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">21</span></sup></a></sup>
Time was spent playing drums that got him into a band and a showbiz
style agent. The band eventually fell apart and his agent (who
couldn’t get him into the actors union with the name Cook) asked
the lad called David, where he lived? “Essex” was the reply. Now
you all know his name, but this happened in the sixties and David
wasn’t well known then. After trying to get singles made into hits,
David Essex settled into acting. The American rock music of the
fifties effect on British teenagers inspired the film <i>That’ll Be
The Day </i>and David got a part, but he never gave up on getting
into the singles chart.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote22sym" name="sdfootnote22anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">22</span></sup></a></sup>
The film and David’s single called <i>Rock On,</i> catapulted him
into the charts. A TOTP producer forced David into wearing a white
suit, this became his trade mark.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote23sym" name="sdfootnote23anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">23</span></sup></a></sup>
He was a big star by the time if his number one of 74, which was
called <i>Gonna Make You A Star.</i>
</span></div>
<br />
<h2 class="western">
<span style="color: red;">Sex and Testosterone</span>
</h2>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Funnily
enough that is what the rivals to Martin/Coulter tended to do their
acts. Nicky Chinn and Mike Chapman first met up at a London club in
1970. They conned their way into a meeting with Mickie Most, boss of
RAK. He had already brought Suzi Quatro over from the States to
Britain. Meanwhile over there, bands had been experimenting with make
up effects and brightly coloured clothes. By 1973 this had been named
‘Glam Rock’. Naturally the instigators of this style, bands like
New York Dolls, were critical of those that followed in their
footsteps. Chinn & Chapman embraced this form, TOTP loved it too
and it perfectly fitted with the advent of colour television
broadcasting in the UK. Although colour sets were expensive and not
all that common. I remember a cousin of mine, whose wedding was
spoilt because the Hotel had a colour TV showing <i>Great Zoos of the
World </i>even though the picture, was all green! Guests still
gathered round it like it was the most exciting thing in the world!
However I would dispute that Glam Rock was created by TV or TOTP,
just because of colour sets, although many costumes of Glam stars
were designed with TOTP in mind.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote24sym" name="sdfootnote24anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">24</span></sup></a></sup>
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><span><span style="color: #38761d;">To
make the biggest impact on TOTP they had Suzi dressed in black
biker’s leather. It worked his first went to number one. They also
penned her, the weird </span><span style="color: #38761d; font-style: italic;">48 Crash. </span><span style="color: red;">Video Below<i> </i></span><span style="color: #38761d;">It didn’t make the top,
presumably teenagers couldn’t relate to the song’s subject
matter. Being that it was about the male </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/xYoogY-UGio" width="420"></iframe>
<span style="color: #38761d;">menopause, which is supposed
to happen at 48 years of age.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote25sym" name="sdfootnote25anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">25</span></sup></a></sup>
Her trade mark was a bass guitar. She had little choice but to
become a sex symbol, for most number one acts were male during these
years. Apart from Stephanie De Sykes, Quatro was the sexiest woman on
the charts, having number ones.</span><br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">For
Chinn & Chapman the bread and butter acts were Sweet and Mud.
Hits like <i>Blockbuster </i>and <i>Tiger Feet </i>are the soundtrack
of the Seventies, for many people still. They reflect the high level
of testosterones swarming around teenage males.</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">1</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
Evans P102.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote2">
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote2anc" name="sdfootnote2sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">2</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
Campbell P230. DT 23/4/71.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote3">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote3anc" name="sdfootnote3sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">3</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
Jackson P21/22.</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<div id="sdfootnote4">
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote4anc" name="sdfootnote4sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">4</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
In order to compensate for the problems that education had on young
people, sex education needed constent upgrading every few years.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote5">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote5anc" name="sdfootnote5sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">5</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
Stupid ideas also circulated, such as girls shouldn’t wash the
hair during a period. Pressley P21.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote6">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote6anc" name="sdfootnote6sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">6</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
John Constable actually was self-taught; his late paintings also
went on to inspire the impressionists.
</span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote7">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote7anc" name="sdfootnote7sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">7</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
I remember seeing this image in my school (Hurlfield) and many years
later (near the entrance) inside Walthoef School.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote8">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote8anc" name="sdfootnote8sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">8</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
Waterman PP43-46</span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote9">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote9anc" name="sdfootnote9sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">9</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
Some of the albums went on to become best sellers and can still be
found very cheaply at car boot sales in large numbers.
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span> </div>
<div id="sdfootnote10">
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote10anc" name="sdfootnote10sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">10</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
Napier-Bell P155.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote11">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote11anc" name="sdfootnote11sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">11</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
Most likely a link with the top 20 chart.</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span> </div>
<div id="sdfootnote12">
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote12anc" name="sdfootnote12sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">12</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
Artwork by Phil Richards.</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<div id="sdfootnote13">
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote13anc" name="sdfootnote13sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">13</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
Often these form to stop others gaining power/information, such as
the old boy network or glass ceiling; still they have been formed
from education establishments in the first place.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote14">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote14anc" name="sdfootnote14sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">14</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
McKeown P52.</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<div id="sdfootnote15">
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote15anc" name="sdfootnote15sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">15</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
<span lang="en-US">Kenny got into trouble with the BBC; they
believed the ‘K’ on their shirts was the same as Kellogs! </span>
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<div id="sdfootnote16">
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote16anc" name="sdfootnote16sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">16</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
In reality they were probably looking for another BCR as they lost
control when Arista told the band to sing and play.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote17">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote17anc" name="sdfootnote17sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">17</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
McKeown P105.</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<div id="sdfootnote18">
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote18anc" name="sdfootnote18sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">18</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
McKeown P29.</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<div id="sdfootnote19">
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote19anc" name="sdfootnote19sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">19</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
McKeown P91.</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<div id="sdfootnote20">
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote20anc" name="sdfootnote20sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">20</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
Bowler & Day P150.</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<div id="sdfootnote21">
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote21anc" name="sdfootnote21sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">21</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
Essex P20.</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<div id="sdfootnote22">
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote22anc" name="sdfootnote22sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">22</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
Essex P103.</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<div id="sdfootnote23">
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote23anc" name="sdfootnote23sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">23</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
Essex P110.</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<div id="sdfootnote24">
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote24anc" name="sdfootnote24sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">24</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
Simpson P40.</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<div id="sdfootnote25">
<div class="sdfootnote-western">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote25anc" name="sdfootnote25sym"><span style="color: #38761d;">25</span></a><span style="color: #38761d;">
Read P191.</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-64998386492116636412013-08-16T08:55:00.002-07:002021-08-31T08:54:50.103-07:00Reflected People 1971 to 1972<br />
<h2 class="western" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: red; font-size: x-large;">THE END FOR LONG HAIR?</span></h2>
<br />
<div align="CENTER" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">With
the Beatles gone the hippy movement had a serious problem. The
Beatles could chuck money at making albums, because they were rich.
Most bands were not. The revolution for album sales thus needed rich
bands. Trouble also brewed as most music artist want to be a star or
very famous. Albums however then didn’t tend to make you famous. So
as the costs of making albums increased these were passed on to the
buyers. Older young people like the university hippies, bought them,
however in Britain the numbers going to higher education was in
decline, though only if you compare it with the number of youngsters.
Those aged 13 to 16 were on the increase, they bought the cheaper
singles. Marc Bolan of the group T. Rex worked this out. His group
had benefited from the hippy types and from the fact he played the
College Campus circuit. The original name for the band </span><i style="color: #6aa84f;">Tyrannosaurus
Rex </i><span style="color: #6aa84f;">fitted the college image as many fans were probably studying
palaeontology. And dinosaurs were popular, because of films like </span><i style="color: #6aa84f;">One
Million Years BC.</i><span style="color: #6aa84f;"> Even kids were nuts about them (including
myself). However Bolan’s band had trouble having any kind of big
hit. One reason was that DJ’s didn’t like saying the band’s
name. They couldn’t say it! Fortunately for Marc his marriage to
June Childe gave him some stability to his teenage lifestyle. Also
Tony Visconti (his manager) got fed up of writing the full name of
the band and shortened it. They also reduced the price of admission
to gigs and kept it at a level that the teenager could afford. The
effect was dramatic. Young girls got in and started to scream at
Marc. These three things put the golden touch to Bolan’s next
single and </span><i style="color: #6aa84f;">Ride A White Swan </i><span style="color: #6aa84f;">went to number one January 17
1971. It wasn’t anything to do with the violins, I can tell you!
Another clever move was to appear on TOTP singing </span><span style="color: #6aa84f; font-style: italic;">Hot Love </span><span style="color: red;">Video below<i> </i></span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">covered
in glitter and make up. Boots the chemist had a field day Friday and
Saturday from young teenage girls wanting make up products.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/dSpmEOSrTvU?rel=0" width="480"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">If
anyone mentioned Elton John in 1970 it was likely to be the company
account at Dick James Music moaning about the £70,000 being spent to
develop him as an artist.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span></sup></a></sup>
He had been of that name since 1968 and despite doing T.O.T.P. and
making an album and been given good publicity by <i>New Musical
Express </i>the public in his home country ignored him. Dick James
was of course the man that Brian Epstein was sent to see about
setting up the Beatles music-publishing firm. Therefore Mr James had
made lots of friends and contacts in the US. One of these agreed to
promote Elton providing that he did concerts there. Elton’s concert
style was established when he tried to imitate Jerry Lee Lewis at
Pinner County School, his grammar school when he was a teenager.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote2sym" name="sdfootnote2anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">2</span></sup></a></sup>
The audience loved it. As he is slightly autistic it went into his
mind, along with a passion for collecting. Touring America he put
into practice the Lewis style of piano playing (kicking away the
stool, legs in awkward positions) and of course the Yanks loved it.
He rapidly became a big star there. With lots of money he could buy
things from Hollywood junk shops that he had seen from TV and old
films. Returning to England and playing the Albert Hall, he came on
dressed in one of his purchases. A gold tailcoat and outfit from a
Busby Berkeley musical film, the same type seen in thirties films
with men singing “<i>I’m putting on my top hat, brushing up my
tails...</i>.” This was still very popular entertainment in Britain
and even Morecambe and Wise used the routine. Elton was not even top
of the bill, yet stole the show.
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">By
the end of 1970 he had come up with a smooth ballad that he didn’t
need to play Lewis style. John Lennon loved it that much; he started
sitting in front of a piano to perform and wrote his own unique song
<i>Imagine</i>.<i> </i> The reason that <i>Your Song</i> would become
a big hit and give Elton his first official UK hit was a lot to do
with the BBC. During 1970 a lot of rock bands had become very big.
Bands like Deep Purple and T Rex were however not very radio
friendly. At least for the BBC and since the BBC had a virtual
monopoly on radio stations, with only radio Luxemburg and the few
illegal pirate stations to compete with, they held sway. Progressive
Music as it was being called was shunted away to John Peel at Radio
1. The peak time for radio was breakfast. Since television wasn’t
starting to even transmit, before children were in school. Holding
the flagship post at Radio 1 was Tony Blackburn and in January of 71
he made <i>Your Song</i> his single of the week. Within weeks it
climbed to number two<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote3sym" name="sdfootnote3anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">3</span></sup></a></sup>
and no further. Another Beatle however was keeping Elton going
higher. Elton’s song also inspired another songwriter/musician to
sit down in front of a piano and sing the same way.</span><br />
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">The
biggest problem for anyone who entertained people in Britain during
the seventies, at least till Thatcher took over, was the tax. You
just saw it as throwing money down the drain. One way round the
problem was to invest it in new talent; at least that’s what Tom
Jones’ manager found out. Gordon Mills created the label MAM
(Management Agency and Music) purely for tax reasons. It generated
even more cash as even its first release Dave Edmunds <i>I Hear You
Knocking </i>went to number one. A cloth cap songwriter was also to
be found on the label. He had tried most of the late sixties to get a
hit on his own, but despite writing hit songs for others had no
success till he contacted Mills. The change in music style by the end
of 1970 fitted this new artist completely. Ok let’s name him, which
is what Mills did, Gilbert, after the composer, as his real name was
O’Sullivan! His skill with words even brought tears to people eyes,
with the song about the death of his parents <i>Alone Again
(Naturally). </i></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuZTNDqFh3CdMDlaL9sORT499QofPWORpfDrR37-ZQRDqlj3rOzheAxD05SiVajuJVh64kG_DYhsGotySqo7bvCWtOlUZwIkK9b2wnd1gY5LjfU00fHiu4I0602UGbL284nTyC2Y4xw-jE/s1600/Gilbert.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="262" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuZTNDqFh3CdMDlaL9sORT499QofPWORpfDrR37-ZQRDqlj3rOzheAxD05SiVajuJVh64kG_DYhsGotySqo7bvCWtOlUZwIkK9b2wnd1gY5LjfU00fHiu4I0602UGbL284nTyC2Y4xw-jE/s400/Gilbert.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">The endearing image most people have of him is the
man playing the (school/pub) piano, probably in an Irish bar. Mills
just so happened to have a young daughter and Gilbert would come to
work on his arrangements at the Mils’ home. This resulted in the
smash hit <i>Clair</i> for the girl’s name was just that. They even
tickled her and put the sound on the end of the single. The upshot
was that a lot of baby girls were suddenly called Clair!</span><br />
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Sugary
records were dominating Radio 1, that much that even insiders like
John Peel commentated on the fact that nothing that related to real
music culture made it through to the airwaves. However Peel made
records into chart hits by supporting acts that the rest of Radio 1
didn’t approve of yet! Bands like Status Quo; whose 1972 hit <i>Paper
Plane </i>was slated by the industry. That single became a critical
record in the development of Heavy Metal and was inspired by Roxy
Music’ <i>Virginia Plane.</i><sup><i><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote4sym" name="sdfootnote4anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">4</span></sup></a></i></sup>
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjr0OOz8LZA83bbfUpTnlpZ2Sq1u3N4UyFsperYJT9rvP6UPpcYvNx-97GCMSQZL_gXpQH9vAVeY8njlB4CmwzatlWrS57-h5Y51eh692nVpjG4umCadwEht7DTPgnXcCLTXi4hdc8rfFWU/s1600/Roxy+Music.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="295" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjr0OOz8LZA83bbfUpTnlpZ2Sq1u3N4UyFsperYJT9rvP6UPpcYvNx-97GCMSQZL_gXpQH9vAVeY8njlB4CmwzatlWrS57-h5Y51eh692nVpjG4umCadwEht7DTPgnXcCLTXi4hdc8rfFWU/s320/Roxy+Music.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Bryan
Ferry was the product of being a paper lad (crucially delivering
Melody Maker) and Newcastle Art University. How much, would tell
years later in a single called <i>This is Tomorrow, </i>the title of
an exhibition there in 1956. Roxy (named after the cinema) was formed
when Ferry met a chap with a £350 synthesiser, who knew another
chap… How they got a record deal ended up in <i>Virginia Plane,
</i>together with things associated with the American dream and the
title from the cigarette brand.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote5sym" name="sdfootnote5anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">5</span></sup></a></sup>
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Other
Rock bands were still being inspired by the Beatles. Jeff Lynne’s
Electric Light Orchestra, signed to Harvest Records, had their first
hit in 1972. They combined the exocentric musical style of records
like <i>I Am Walrus</i> with heavy drum and guitar work. However
their musical style changes to a more commercial smooth sound, by the
end of the decade. Others like Deep Purple and Black Sabbeth keep
their heavy sound, till the present day. For most of these bands it
was the life on the road (to the gigs) drinking and drugs and sex
with girl groupies. Ah...The carefree life of sex, drugs and rock &
roll, then or was it carefree...
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span><br />
<h3 class="western">
<span style="color: red;">Freedom Come Freedom Stays</span></h3>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Not
everyone wanted sex with girl groupies for a start. Elton’s gay
lifestyle would have come as a great shock to many people in the
early seventies. The reason it’s not shocking anybody now is also
the by product of the learning atmosphere. But then so is the culture
of homosexuality. Although being “gay” is a perfectly natural
condition for some humans; how they interact with others is not.
Education thus becomes the catalyst to make the gay voice heard. At
first glance the school culture would appear to very homophobic, with
many gay children being beaten up for the first time there. This does
not however prevent a culture forming from being at such places,
obvious examples being single sex schools, with gay children forming
their own cliques. The same sex school is more homophobic on the
other hand, than a mixed one. Teachers would be one the look out more
for homosexual behaviour in single sex than the other. Unless they
were gay themselves, some teachers were powered by God to eliminate
such forms of sexual activity. This empowerment by God came from the
fact many schools were set up by religious orders, as Tom Robinson
found out when he went to a Quaker boarding school. The school’s
homophobic attitude, that was so powerful that he tried suicide, sent
him off to join the Gay Liberation Front.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote6sym" name="sdfootnote6anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">6</span></sup></a></sup>
Another part of the foundation of Gay Culture has a lot to do with
higher or further education. The universities have always had a
‘male’ gay element in them, largely because in England women were
excluded from attendance there. With the debating societies these
places have, it opened up the possibilities that homosexual people
had rights too. Although human rights have always been an issue since
ancient times; the situation as regards of black people had grown
more and more during the sixties. Along with women’s liberation,
yet itself another product of education, the liberation of
homosexuals would set out to do the same thing. The only thing to do
was to take to the streets. Much of this had already occurred in
America in </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmXMpFiW08-ScidVFfosboL_vl02z4qa1PQhVStH7rP6qQzqaIyGLswYCUeCWkQwR-lyCacuUxxkQgnu5P5rt-Xr3pSFReHHAVsnVWw9XVIhX_XflNwx7v2zQBCbhPGwiGWfeAtGEEmkut/s1600/pride1970.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmXMpFiW08-ScidVFfosboL_vl02z4qa1PQhVStH7rP6qQzqaIyGLswYCUeCWkQwR-lyCacuUxxkQgnu5P5rt-Xr3pSFReHHAVsnVWw9XVIhX_XflNwx7v2zQBCbhPGwiGWfeAtGEEmkut/s320/pride1970.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">1970 when an alliance of activists had shouted “Gay
Power” at the Mayor of New York. In Britain, the groups ‘starting
slogan’ was met with humour, largely due to a language difference
between the UK and the US. The UK population conjured up an idea of
gay men having sex in small cupboards (rooms for brooms in the US)
due to that slogan – “Out of the closet into the street”. In
the end, it was more or less to do with New York, in particular,
which didn’t allow men to kiss one another in the street, so they
had to kiss in the male toilets (closets in the US). The British
especially and around the world, took to ‘in the closet’ it would
become a catchphrase for anybody who had not revealed their sexuality
to friends, family and the public and that they were passing
themselves as straight. It became a symbolised locked door to a room
for an exclusive club. The door was only opened when the person felt
they could cope with any abuse. Or when they had no choice and later
when they were dying from what everyone thought was a gay plague. For
when it was opened they felt liberated or </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIC4koTUTH_Us2gH5i5npZB4zDQ-3POG7BZyhCnwODcUIznxxTEuS0mUv9TL-Xsu8jLOP77Qc0MOVrVhn0kEvfX-kdUhdUOCFKvBmEKWtl88hDbJXbVvjY7SFjlL0tkmaj7S4wLxsN2uCt/s1600/gay-power-1.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIC4koTUTH_Us2gH5i5npZB4zDQ-3POG7BZyhCnwODcUIznxxTEuS0mUv9TL-Xsu8jLOP77Qc0MOVrVhn0kEvfX-kdUhdUOCFKvBmEKWtl88hDbJXbVvjY7SFjlL0tkmaj7S4wLxsN2uCt/s320/gay-power-1.jpg" width="210" /></a></span></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
were destroyed. ‘Power’
on the other hand, could be used by any cause and ‘people power’
grew stronger with every shout. In some cases members of this club
were genuinely confused themselves. Others probably exploited their
sexual switching for profit or maybe just to mess around with the
status quo of culture. It is reported that David Bowie a gay icon,
was switching from gay to bisexual all the time in the seventies. In
the land of clubs it was considered ‘chic’ to be either way.
Outside this area to be queer and open about, was asking for trouble
and probably a beating by either ‘bashing’ gangs or the police.</span><br />
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">One
man guaranteed to do some protesting and shouting was Lennon.
Protesting and marching songs quickly became hits as the
feel-good-factor; an aspect of marching with others comes out in the
songs. <i>Power To The People </i>is typical, but the Blue Mink’s
<i>The Banner Man</i> is more lively and not forgetting <i>Freedom
Comes Freedom Go </i>by The Fortunes. I suppose you can also include
Three Dog Night’s <i>Joy To The World </i>in this category. The
underlining principles also came out in various hits. Racial mixing
in <i>Black & White </i>by Greyhound and <i>Melting Pot </i>again
by Blue Mink, nevertheless the whole thing became a bit clichéd when
the New Seekers brought out the Coca Cola advert, who had cashed in
on the spirit of the movement. “<i>Harmonola” </i>replaced the
name in <i>I’d Like To Teach The World To Sing (in perfect
harmony), </i>which sold buckets loads of singles and Coca Cola.
</span><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga5n8muQDo67kLghgmeNiz1-9MvhKvzS7ZBfpVC3jAOEThz_01n9OaQlzStnWaFtk-8jIds9Burd_8mbN689SE2gvoj3CEkRqQ_st1u63k1Nr1qoSSyYju0wpjQy_zfUljPNkd5-s46pfy/s1600/72+miners+strike.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="137" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga5n8muQDo67kLghgmeNiz1-9MvhKvzS7ZBfpVC3jAOEThz_01n9OaQlzStnWaFtk-8jIds9Burd_8mbN689SE2gvoj3CEkRqQ_st1u63k1Nr1qoSSyYju0wpjQy_zfUljPNkd5-s46pfy/s200/72+miners+strike.jpg" width="200" /></a><span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Against
this background conflict between the Government and any movement was
going to be bitter. The most powerful of these movements was the
Trade Unions. Heavily influenced by political theory of the left,
coming out of the universities, they were certain to clash with the
right in the Conservatives also coming out of higher education. Prime
Minister Edward Heath had gone for tax cuts and together with cheap
credit made workers feel better off. Buying goods on the
‘never-never’ as it was called pushed the country’s growth rate
to 7.4%. Nevertheless it wasn’t called that for nothing. Buying
goods means they have to be paid for at some point, getting credit
means security for those offering it and that means high wages. The
problem with that is that many politicians see high wages as damaging
to the economy. To pay the debt man workers wanted higher wages, to
do that they turned to the Unions. They had one principal that they
needed to stick with- Free Collective Bargaining. So the new
Government’s Industrial Relations Act of 1971 broke this principal.
Unions had to sign up to the agreement and if they did the TUC
expelled them! It wasn’t long before wage risers were being tackled
head on by the government. By January of 72, miners had walked out
and power stations were shutting down. When Midlands’ coke depots
started supplying power stations miners from Yorkshire rushed to stop
them. Headed by Arthur Scargill these men took on the name</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOS496jkHWvjM8eUUH942HurEkMKnnHwXV4dA_C-5fzVhSrmG1KnhzpI3TcW0_1twdLEafrG474vZ4mhZR7A5q_nQbAEl4iGTRWLPAL4TizUjEXnlR4gBexq8k9PR9YHoKbeJERS9vgHBb/s1600/th-3.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOS496jkHWvjM8eUUH942HurEkMKnnHwXV4dA_C-5fzVhSrmG1KnhzpI3TcW0_1twdLEafrG474vZ4mhZR7A5q_nQbAEl4iGTRWLPAL4TizUjEXnlR4gBexq8k9PR9YHoKbeJERS9vgHBb/s1600/th-3.jpg" /></a></span></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"> Flying
Pickets.</span><br />
<h3 class="western">
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
<h3 class="western">
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
<h3 class="western">
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
<h3 class="western">
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
<h3 class="western">
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
<h3 class="western">
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
<h3 class="western">
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
<h3 class="western">
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
<h3 class="western">
<span style="color: red;">Biblical hits</span></h3>
<div class="western">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">While
rock grew harder others went softer. Judy Collins wild life had
brought her into therapy groups, meeting in churches in the US. The
trouble was that they seemed as chaotic as the drugs sessions.
Somebody suggested she sang something to change the mood and she sang
<i>Amazing Grace. </i>She went on to record the tune, complete with
gospel chorus and it went big around the world. Britain took to it
well, ironically the words were written in the 1770’s by John
Newton an English vicar. The tune was added at much later date and
based on another Scottish tune. This probably explains why the Royal
Scots Dragoon Guards went to the top with a bagpipes version of it in
1972. The church thought it would help them reconnect with young
people. It was having a tough time with the young. Happy carefree
youngest have little desire to be saved from sinful ways and probably
wanted to do some of the sins! Iconic stars like Cliff Richard were
heavily criticised over his religious leanings and struggled to
convert young fans. To get round these narrow minded views, he links
the causes of the young to fit in with Christian beliefs, for
instance he used the ‘power’ word in 1973 in the song <i>Power To
All My Friends. </i> You could argue that science, being taught in
the schools; also put </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDgTXhdN9ZHyTJNsyh_7PZbKdH70FbpWWlJnBIKT69b0QI-e69Zt-PfFk4c81aGpNoIovgn9fDCDhQ-XeH9yuauL8kVGHlKD7oQNkC2vPyNZ7Zo27RrxqqFHxwtqpHPQN10x1zn-RW-uTb/s1600/JesusMarchZ.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDgTXhdN9ZHyTJNsyh_7PZbKdH70FbpWWlJnBIKT69b0QI-e69Zt-PfFk4c81aGpNoIovgn9fDCDhQ-XeH9yuauL8kVGHlKD7oQNkC2vPyNZ7Zo27RrxqqFHxwtqpHPQN10x1zn-RW-uTb/s1600/JesusMarchZ.jpg" /></a></span></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">questions in the young minds about the Bible.
But religion was very much present in school and the local vicar came
to schools, the scientists never. If you think about it maybe
youngster were fed up with being preached to at school? The
religious theme of <i>Amazing Grace </i>was still believed to be good
news by the church and they conducted a survey of young people only
to find out they thought it was about a girl called Grace! God
meantime was making a lot of money out of the number one records,
even if the people singing his praises didn’t sometimes. Using a
choir was one way of making a pop tune a hit and the Congregation’s
<i>Softly Whispering I Love You </i>did very well and was later used
by Paul Young minus the choir. George Harrison is often seen by many
people as being innovative in the field of pop music. Nevertheless he
got into some serious trouble over <i>My Sweet Lord</i>. Basically
like what he done over the Kink’s song he copied in many ways The
Chiffons’ single <i>He’s So Fine </i>to produce his own tune.
There are several reasons why George would have sufficient knowledge
of the song in question. First the Beatles did work with Phil Spector
and did record songs by him. Secondly the song came out in 63 when
the Beatles where hitting the heights and they must have heard it,
especially as it was number one in America! Harrison was taken to
court and a musicologist, always brought in cases like that,
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitcWXyon4bcogPgBq483P3wJKyYOkeNoQ_Cwvqchaw18a8KLwCbBaNEl23DRFI2pCFJxIZJliirH9h1Je_bn5cq4VVFklkmerjZIjxH6MDmKgtjOroySVdbkZF2PNKsQG3eIBqqZj5IR5-/s1600/Harrison1972.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitcWXyon4bcogPgBq483P3wJKyYOkeNoQ_Cwvqchaw18a8KLwCbBaNEl23DRFI2pCFJxIZJliirH9h1Je_bn5cq4VVFklkmerjZIjxH6MDmKgtjOroySVdbkZF2PNKsQG3eIBqqZj5IR5-/s200/Harrison1972.jpg" width="144" /></a></span></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
confirmed that both songs were based on Saint-Saens Second Symphony.
Fortunately for Harrison & Spector the Judge did not agree! (Yes
I know <i>Maxwell’s Silver Hammer</i>)<i> </i>and said George broke
copyright ...only.... not deliberately.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote7sym" name="sdfootnote7anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">7</span></sup></a></sup>
This is largely explained by Phil Spector actually working with him
and he of course did the old tune. Phil did over 180 versions of the
slide guitar, half of which were done by Eric Clapton, to get the
tune right. The problem really is that once a record takes off (hits
number one) somebody generally says it’s a copy of someone’s
song, often the person claiming, while it is just sounding like
another song or tune. Despite its religious bent as was the
Chiffons’ single, being it was gospel based. Harrison never got the
attack that was inflicted on Cliff Richard’s single in 1999.
</span><br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">Meanwhile
a student approach to Jesus was to make him a rock star or at least a
stage rock star. Andrew Llyod Webber decided to make Jesus bigger
than the Beatles, well in </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidKSh8s4pe4Xc97U-Tc7YCmwXy2PCR5gdVQ-aw_sepCDJKmxV6UR69oOuqCyWsjaZ8PQ3yQp7ZQvzTtTAENOzg121bYH0xeL1p4Bbr7s01m3dCRj1nMuE6tkOVKiQIhc8LVTQfyC4nmAi_/s1600/220px-Jesus_Christ_Superstar_Elliman_Neeley_1973.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidKSh8s4pe4Xc97U-Tc7YCmwXy2PCR5gdVQ-aw_sepCDJKmxV6UR69oOuqCyWsjaZ8PQ3yQp7ZQvzTtTAENOzg121bYH0xeL1p4Bbr7s01m3dCRj1nMuE6tkOVKiQIhc8LVTQfyC4nmAi_/s200/220px-Jesus_Christ_Superstar_Elliman_Neeley_1973.jpg" width="151" /></a></span></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">name anyway. His stage production of <i>Jesus
Christ Superstar </i>quickly produced hits and had Mary Magdeline
singing about Jesus as if he was the ultimate celebrity. Yvonne
Elliman in the single <i>I Don’t Know How To Love Him</i>, claimed
he was just man, but you could say the musical did the image of Jesus
a lot of good, at least in some of the young.</span><br />
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span><br />
<h2 class="western">
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h2>
<h2 class="western">
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h2>
<h2 class="western">
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h2>
<h2 class="western">
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h2>
<h2 class="western">
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h2>
<h2 class="western">
<span style="color: red;">College Greens</span></h2>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Cliff also picked up on
a growing interest in environmental concerns with the song <i>Joy of
Living. </i>This issue had been raised in song back in the sixties
when Joni Mitchell hit the charts with <i>Big Yellow Taxi. </i>The
spraying of weed killers such as DDT, had been linked to deaths and
chemicals were being blamed for causing cancers. For many students,
who’s fathers were producing pollution from their factories they
owned, it was an opportunity to prove that adults were not as wise as
they make out. Needless to say Nuclear power was the ultimate thumbs
down. Protesting about these </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfdoeQBtEGiZOR1xUzhe1yDLKH1zhkmkR5bxI5U408q5txTtm54mCHAYBnRwlf8oF8Ia0Na42x1jzaOcYK_T3YCAZKBffCXWZN649U4UWMmQCD4cWRzTAsu_MxbBwa_v35Qy1uF0CNGfw1/s1600/166px-Nuclear_power_is_not_healthy_poster.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfdoeQBtEGiZOR1xUzhe1yDLKH1zhkmkR5bxI5U408q5txTtm54mCHAYBnRwlf8oF8Ia0Na42x1jzaOcYK_T3YCAZKBffCXWZN649U4UWMmQCD4cWRzTAsu_MxbBwa_v35Qy1uF0CNGfw1/s200/166px-Nuclear_power_is_not_healthy_poster.jpg" width="166" /></a></span></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">issues was one way to get the message
across, but so was singing. The massive road building programme and
the ugliness of the Motorway had its share of youth indignation.
These tracks of tarmac smashed through woods, fields and houses,
which people cared about. Cliff refers to the car as ‘<i>a multi
coloured crocodile’ </i>with further references to the exhaust
fumes, as well as people living in high-rise blocks that the poor
can’t afford. But he was not the only artist with concerns about
the planet. Motown supremo Berry Gordy was forced to give Stevie
Wonder and Marvin Gaye much greater control over the songs they sang
or recorded. As a result Wonder produced <i>Living for the City </i>and
Gaye made it clear his thoughts with <i>What’s Going On? </i></span><br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">The Media had also
picked up on these issues and TV dramas such as <i>Doomwatch </i>and
science based <i>Horizon </i>where running themes on ‘green’
topics. With the advent of BBC 2 the BBC started running ‘Trade
Test Transmissions’. </span><br />
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">These were placed on during the day on the
channel, mainly for electrical shops that sold televisions, as the
station didn’t broadcast till the evening. They showed various
promotional films, one of them was for a exhibition centre and </span><span style="color: red;">Evoloun Video below</span><br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/SWz52-expO8?rel=0" width="480"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6l70VCQRRG0pRLuKnBj5TLalwLxI2imQPLkcKacBb5bcsvhIJuUr3vAuL3fqZM3uTv5OEYn9ji1wn4UWfLppmsuBNmRi53hu8MdLZsIj7n_wTNZnC-nBGHuhSaYUQGrWxjrJ7fJOGAlq5/s1600/090421-02-earth-day-teach-in_big.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6l70VCQRRG0pRLuKnBj5TLalwLxI2imQPLkcKacBb5bcsvhIJuUr3vAuL3fqZM3uTv5OEYn9ji1wn4UWfLppmsuBNmRi53hu8MdLZsIj7n_wTNZnC-nBGHuhSaYUQGrWxjrJ7fJOGAlq5/s200/090421-02-earth-day-teach-in_big.jpg" width="144" /></a></span></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">one was about the effects of pollution. This film was also broadcast
in schools and I remember seeing it several times, during science
lessons. Hollywood also caught on to the ‘planet in peril’ over
man made actions. <i>Soylent Green </i>(MGM 1973) had the result of
pollution’s effect as wiping out the food supply and the food that
people had to eat was the title of the film. This turned out to be
made from the Human race. Yet in the film <i>Silent Running </i>(1971),
man packs the in danger of extinction forests in giant greenhouses
(in space) and then decides it doesn’t need them. An unhinged
student-type, long-haired spaceman decides he will save one and does.
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span><br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span><br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">Growing your hair long
for some was alright for some, but one young lad in a band, had
enough of eating his hair. The catalyst was Clint Eastwood in the
film <i>Dirty Harry </i>and the young man was Midge Ure, now with a
short hair cut based on Clint’s.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote8sym" name="sdfootnote8anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">8</span></sup></a></sup>
Still he was the exception to the rule.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"></span> </div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #f1c232;">This chapter is not complete and is a work in progress. </span></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span><br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
</span><br />
<div style="break-inside: avoid; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.5cm; page-break-inside: avoid; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
<span face="Geneva, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym">1</a>
Parkinson P42.</span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote2">
<div style="break-inside: avoid; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.5cm; page-break-inside: avoid; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
<span face="Geneva, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote2anc" name="sdfootnote2sym">2</a>
Parkinson P21</span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote3">
<div style="break-inside: avoid; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.5cm; page-break-inside: avoid; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
<span face="Geneva, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote3anc" name="sdfootnote3sym">3</a>
This is the actual chart position; it reached only no.7 in Music
Week’s chart. </span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote4">
<div style="break-inside: avoid; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.5cm; page-break-inside: avoid; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
<span face="Geneva, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote4anc" name="sdfootnote4sym">4</a>
Rossi & Parfitt P47.</span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote5">
<div style="break-inside: avoid; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.5cm; page-break-inside: avoid; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
<span face="Geneva, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote5anc" name="sdfootnote5sym">5</a>
Buckley PP19,23,34,42,79.</span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote6">
<div style="break-inside: avoid; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.5cm; page-break-inside: avoid; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><span face="Geneva, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote6anc" name="sdfootnote6sym">6</a>
Napier-Bell P168.</span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote7">
<div style="break-inside: avoid; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.5cm; page-break-inside: avoid; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
<span face="Geneva, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote7anc" name="sdfootnote7sym">7</a>
Napier-Bell PP276-7</span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote8">
<div style="break-inside: avoid; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.5cm; page-break-inside: avoid; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;">
<span face="Geneva, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote8anc" name="sdfootnote8sym">8</a>
Ure P26.</span></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-10461770243032433002013-08-10T05:05:00.001-07:002013-08-10T05:05:43.597-07:00Real William Shakespeare Chapter 7
<br />
<h1 class="heading1-western" lang="en-GB" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: red;">SHAKESPEARE'S CHILDREN</span></b></h1>
<br />
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">ELIZABETH
FEARED having children because of the threat that someone either
would try to put that child on the throne, whilst she was still
alive, or the child itself would attempt it later on. In either case
this would have meant the Queen's death. A prospect, as one can
imagine, she did not relish. The numerous efforts of Mary Stuart
supporters to slay her didn’t continue with her son’s people.
This was nothing to do with the consequences of Mary's execution. Her
people from Scotland and the rest from England were Catholics and
were prepared to put anyone on the throne that was of their faith.
They did not bother with James as he was brought up a Protestant.
Although this was not good news for the Catholics, it meant that
James could curry favour with Elizabeth this he did. She was not
unsympathetic to him and wrote often, establishing a friendly
relationship, if not showing affection towards him. She was more like
his own mother than what Mary was, even when she was alive.</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span></sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
In any case she granted him a pension of 4000 a year starting from
1586.</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote2sym" name="sdfootnote2anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">2</span></sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
This was even before Mary's death! That event might have changed his
attitude, you might think? Yet it appears not. Sure he did not want
his mother's death, but it left him to become King, after Elizabeth.
Mind you the Spanish Armada sent by Philip of Spain would not have
set him on the throne, nor would he have seen it as revenge for his
mother's death. Philip in his message to the Pope, made it clear that
James was a heretic and wasn't going to make him King of England. No
he had a much better person in mind, Philip himself!</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote3sym" name="sdfootnote3anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">3</span></sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
Undoubtedly he would then go on to take the Scottish Throne
afterwards. </span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">Curiously
James was told (by Elizabeth) that Mary's death was a “miserable
accident” and she was “innocent” of the deed, although she did
not go into precise details of the event. This being left to Robert
Carey (Lord Hunsdon' son) and what he said to James is not recorded.
Oddly Robert also told James of Elizabeth's death sixteen years
later.</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote4sym" name="sdfootnote4anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">4</span></sup></a></span></sup></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span lang="en-GB">The upshots of this feeling towards him was that
Shakespeare and his acting colleagues would (by Royal command) have
to go to Scotland, to perform for King James. They might have gone
with their patron’s son, Robert. I think it’s too much of a
coincidence, when we find the King even took the actors to Denmark as
part of the entertainments for his courtship of Anne, as the fleet of
five ships would have been big enough. Certainly if William did not
go, which I think near impossible, he got the details from someone
who had gone, which was Ben Jonson, who‘s recorded as going. The
entire episode is used as the ‘wooing scene’ between Henry and
Katherine of France in the updated </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Henry
V</i></span><span lang="en-GB">. There was possibly no Katherine in
the first version at all. Fifteen year old Anne could only speak
French, apart from her native language. So James would have to speak
French too.</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote5sym" name="sdfootnote5anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">5</span></sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
It amused William anyway! All this would have taken place before
1590 and they would have been sent also for the wedding of James to
Anne of Denmark, in 1590. There is evidence that actors went to
Scotland for the purpose of entertaining James. They would have to
have financed the journey themselves, because Elizabeth was not in
favour of spending money on extravagant entertainments out of the
public purse. Even so the actors would have asked, as they would have
been cheeky enough to! Her reply would be that they could make people
laugh as they travelled to Scotland, calling at the various Lords
houses, the same Lords who would have been present at the court. They
would have agreed, to court Royal favour, yet moaned about it between
themselves after. Whether the Lord who was responsible for the troupe
of players, paid for the trip, is I think, doubtful.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">In
any case the trip itself would have been profitable for the players,
as they would not have to have paid for the expense of the theatre.
It was not a new thing for them. They toured all over when the
theatres had to be closed, even before as well. It also always did a
world of good for Shakespeare's imagination; boosted by talks with
the owners and family, plus the servants, of the places they stopped
at, or performed in. The characters of his plays, if they had all
come out of books, would seem dull and lifeless, but add some tales
(even tall ones) and you have realism in the play. He could also pick
up more information on the Queen’s past. Proof of tours can be
found in 1603. We have a direct reference to Shakespeare being at the
house of the Pembroke’s, (in Salisbury) performing </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>As
You Like It</i></span><span lang="en-GB">, for them and King James.</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote6sym" name="sdfootnote6anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">6</span></sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
The connection of James and the Bard was, in any case, there before
James’s ascension to the English Throne, for why would the Bard and
his fellows be in the procession through London in 1604? Not only
that, they were given (each) 4 yards of red cloth, by the King’s
Master of the Great Wardrobe, Sir George Home, who put Shakespeare’s
name first, in his none alphabetical order accounts.</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote7sym" name="sdfootnote7anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">7</span></sup></a></span></sup></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">I
suspect two plays would directly come out of these trips to Scotland.
No, one of them was not </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Macbeth</i></span><span lang="en-GB">!
Actually it was </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Hamlet</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
and the </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Tempest</i></span><span lang="en-GB">,
though the </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Tempest</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
would be greatly revised years later and the revised copies of all
the plays that were printed in the Works, the originals mostly lost.
Both had been performed for the first time by 1590. Most of
Shakespeare's plays are either English, Italian, or about Ancient
Rome. Only one is set in Denmark - </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Hamlet</i></span><span lang="en-GB">!
Why? Well we do not need to look far for the answer to that one. Take
one beautiful blond from Denmark and stick her in the court of James
of Scotland, only when she tries to get there, the stormy Scottish
weather nearly sinks the ship, one of 13. The </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Tempest</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
opens with a sinking ship, on board is Miranda. This is of course
Anne of Denmark; you can even make out her name in the word MY ANN A
DANE, and that </span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJKJk9MqEUV1KRQ08kCbOqzRUtwQm08zyA-Y8DLHVW8yuf9QeonAq9OtZA8j-Tj-zUCRq1C2E_Ky8H6hOcp1nXMNitPVco1XLze59g0ePNPylXBWT58bqKrNWRzlWe-1BORAXZSv0BWuJB/s1600/anne_denmark_hilliard.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJKJk9MqEUV1KRQ08kCbOqzRUtwQm08zyA-Y8DLHVW8yuf9QeonAq9OtZA8j-Tj-zUCRq1C2E_Ky8H6hOcp1nXMNitPVco1XLze59g0ePNPylXBWT58bqKrNWRzlWe-1BORAXZSv0BWuJB/s320/anne_denmark_hilliard.jpg" width="244" /></a></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">is a fair bet what was going through William's mind,
when he thought up the name. With shipwrecks and Denmark in his head
the likelihood that our Will was in love with a third Anne! </span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Now of
course this was way beyond what a man of Shakespeare's status should
be about, yet as he says love knows no barriers and as I have shown
with Elizabeth, he generally got his way. Yes good things do come in
threes; still he has one hell of a problem with this one!</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB"><span style="color: #38761d;">For
starters she is going to marry King James, who is not going to let
another man take advantage of his wife to be, is he? Then there’s
the problem of her Royal family, back home, the scandal of the court,
if it became known, not forgetting his wife and Elizabeth! After Anne
was married, to continue this affair would be dangerous as the death
penalty applied then for adultery with a Royal person. The other
thing is that we don't know if Anne felt the same way towards
William. Err we do! The results speak for themselves! No - unlike
Elizabeth she didn't write things, which we can find in Shakespeare's
Works. This is in the view of her limited intellect, agreed by most
historians to be the case. In other words she was even more of a
dumb blond than Elizabeth, having said that she would have to been
very intelligent to pull the wool over James's eyes, if she wanted to
make love to Will. No - again she wasn't. As we are surmising here,
I think she was quickly spotted (by James) making eyes at William and
he at her.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">So how do
we know that Anne and William made love? No I won’t tell you yet,
till we have explored the reason James didn’t object to it.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span><br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">King
Queer and King Drunk</span></h3>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">There
can only be one reason why James Stuart, King of Scotland and only
son of Mary Stuart, let William make love to his future wife, is that
he didn't want to! The marriage had to be arranged. Once again in
his court a great deal of pressure was applied to secure future
heirs. Unlike Elizabeth, James was made of weaker stuff and he needed
to find an excuse to get out of this marriage. Trouble was he
couldn't likely find one. Unfortunately the other candidates, that
were suggested, didn't meet with the approval of the Scottish people
or James. Sir James Melville goes as far as to suggest that the King
</span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYInO0QFRyRnOJaifC4fNRHiFDCGJ3aNiSC2pfV24V2QEWUhS9d-BuVmkEh3AwV4qpCumep2R7F6Hvus6GO4X1DWC82GJueyP_K_Vd-UHLL5_Xl6GChbjfcDlOzNCo2bmGqsQ6oZmAZ6rR/s1600/James.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYInO0QFRyRnOJaifC4fNRHiFDCGJ3aNiSC2pfV24V2QEWUhS9d-BuVmkEh3AwV4qpCumep2R7F6Hvus6GO4X1DWC82GJueyP_K_Vd-UHLL5_Xl6GChbjfcDlOzNCo2bmGqsQ6oZmAZ6rR/s200/James.png" width="145" /></a></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">himself started a riot, which occurred on the 28 May in Edinburgh,
about the King marriage to Anne. He was probably told Anne was the
most stupid princess in Europe and that he shouldn't marry her.
Which, desperately grasping at straws, he took as a sign that he
might not need to do the deed of making any children, as she wouldn't
know what to do. Particularly if he had heard the story of Henry VIII
and Anne of Cleves, another princess who Henry didn't get a divorce
from, as she had no idea what to do and the marriage was not
consummated. No woman wanted to marry him, who was not stupid. This
must also have been a big joke in the Royal Families of Europe for
some time after.</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote8sym" name="sdfootnote8anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">8</span></sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
So unlike Elizabeth who evades marriage, James consented. To be
accurate he was seen as quite keen! </span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB"><span style="color: #38761d;">On
the 18 June the party set off for Denmark and by December, James and
Anne where at Elsinore. That’s got to be a big clue! So was Ben
Jonson, another clue, for why is an actor there? Well we know what he
did. For Ben was watching James, Anne’s father Frederick II, get
legless on Danish sprits, German Ale and Prussian Beer! Doubtless
Jonson and Shakespeare joined in. Turns out that Anne’s father is
alcoholic as well!</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span lang="en-GB">Imagine James’ delight when he saw the pair of
</span><span style="font-family: Chancellor;"><span lang="en-GB">'star crossed
lovers'. </span></span><span lang="en-GB">This would have lead to
great favours for William. The real question is would his new Queen
go along with it, was she that stupid! Perhaps, we don't know,
nevertheless James left a lot to be desired for a young woman. He
drank excessively as we have just seen, and his table manners were
appalling, these are just a few among a long list. </span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote9sym" name="sdfootnote9anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">9</span></sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
Then again in the case of drink so did William and so did her father.
So perhaps she liked a drink as well! Maybe this is why the first
child isn’t born until 1594. Perhaps she’s waiting for King James
to do the deed, before giving up on him. After that she’s pregnant
at least 12 times till 1606 on a regular basis, though only 9 are
born.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">Then
the real reason James did not want to marry and have children, was he
preferred men, yes he was homosexual, unlike William and we know he
had many male favourites, as did his court. Long before he got
married the Scottish court had to intervene in a relationship with
another man, something James was very disappointed about. Nor was he
seen in the company of women before this, unless he had to. Secondly
he had been taught by George Buchanan to hold all women in contempt.
Poetry from his youth has survived, which is very bigoted towards
women! Even Queen Elizabeth knew he was gay, or as they would have
viewed it then, not quite right, as she was told that young men lay
in his chambers, this was in 1589!</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote10sym" name="sdfootnote10anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">10</span></sup></a></span></sup></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">To
be fair to James, he would have only been able to pull the false
marriage off, because he was King, needing to remain in the closet,
to stay King. If the people really knew he was what they called a
‘sodomite,’ he would have risked being put to death. To keep it a
secret is quite an achievement for him. He nearly failed! It is known
that the King in 1605 took libel action, against an unknown person.
This person claimed that Henry was not James’ son, almost
certainly, by suggesting that Anne was unfaithful.</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote11sym" name="sdfootnote11anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">11</span></sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
Most biographers put this incident in reference to Mary’s
adulteries and James’ suspect parentage, something that did vex
James. It is of course possible for a gay man to produce children
with a woman, but a belief, for many, in gay culture, it is something
they would prefer not to do. Historians simply think that James
turned heterosexual for a while then turned back. Few Gay people
today doubt that can happen, never mind heterosexuals! However for
many homosexual males, their culture then was of hatred to women. It
was not a bit like modern times, where women tend to feel at ease
more around gay men. In some ways it was just like those lesbians who
are not keen on men in any part of their life. James’ later
attitude to his wife is well recorded and her hatred is evident
towards her husband. </span>
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span><br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">King
Charles Shakespeare</span></h3>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">So did
James prefer not to do it? The results speak for themselves! Hilliard
and Oliver (the portrait painters) produced miniatures of the Royal
family of Anne and supposedly James, however their children don't
really look like James! You can see a match to Anne, but certainly
not to James. What is most interesting is that the children bare a
MORE striking likeness to Hilliard's miniature of a Man clasping a
hand, or William Shakespeare. One miniature of a child of Anne of
Denmark is so like </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD1awMhpEJT6xMPXjhlMuoZED-rr016aq0FPqtVivnyFWLseRNmY8vXTJANM97x57wJL02OurjkycOBbOVfdGJ2E69YaCUGe31jvRg9pf6Pr7a4OXWpUrNAqZhNhIg5qcWAWb63JrLZfG1/s1600/Charles+1st+young001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD1awMhpEJT6xMPXjhlMuoZED-rr016aq0FPqtVivnyFWLseRNmY8vXTJANM97x57wJL02OurjkycOBbOVfdGJ2E69YaCUGe31jvRg9pf6Pr7a4OXWpUrNAqZhNhIg5qcWAWb63JrLZfG1/s200/Charles+1st+young001.jpg" width="166" /></a></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">William, that when I first saw it I thought it was
some kind of back dated picture of William when young. This theory
was quickly abandoned, because of the painter and the clothing style.
It turned out to be Charles I. Now I'm not going to base all my
evidence on the fact that these paintings bare a resemblance to one
miniature. Unfortunately William's own family can't help us trace
evidence of hereditary features, as the lines all died out. However
the line of the Royals didn't end. We know that the present Royal
Family is descending along a female branch of their tree to Elizabeth
Stuart. The miniatures and other portraits, of her, bare a strong
similarity to William. If the present Royal Family were in fact
descended from James, genetics and hereditary chromosomes would
confer a likeness to James Stuart in members alive or dead. Yet when
comparisons are made to the portraits of James, none seem to fit!
</span></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">They same
is not true of William Shakespeare. Even some pictures of our Queen
Elizabeth are </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0nSCWjYvPee3FjCRyesACndZKE2c7YjcgMs67QnJHUNZPDKKivR0IEM7TvZzqGhtbeNsNJLuOeNNyxSfa1BYy9uPrX5K0JLrxc-dm0QoyGuCaRH0yfGo8ZsSU7YBZXfb8Er7hSOq8gQhs/s1600/ElizabethBohemia2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0nSCWjYvPee3FjCRyesACndZKE2c7YjcgMs67QnJHUNZPDKKivR0IEM7TvZzqGhtbeNsNJLuOeNNyxSfa1BYy9uPrX5K0JLrxc-dm0QoyGuCaRH0yfGo8ZsSU7YBZXfb8Er7hSOq8gQhs/s200/ElizabethBohemia2.jpg" width="107" /></a></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">remarkable like him!!
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">Compare
George VI, Edward VIII even Victoria and you will see William - NOT
James, in their faces. I was amazed to discover that because the
Royal members often married their relations, like Victoria and
Albert, who were cousins, the likeness to Shakespeare was carried
through to subsequent generations. The future heirs to the British
Throne by Charles and Diana have also the same combination of
genetics, inherited from their father and even more so from their
mother, just like Albert & Victoria. The Royal Family Tree is of
course the best-documented family tree ever. Members of the family
included the other Royal Families of Europe. A policy of marrying
Royal to Royal has meant the hereditary features of Shakespeare have
spread to all the European countries. We know that not only a
likeness but also other things are passed from generation to
generation. Disease is the most obvious one. Researchers have tracked
Porphyria through the Royal Family and we know Shakespeare openly
comments on madness in Hamlet and other plays. The conclusion that
can be drawn from this is that either William or HIS family had a
sufferer of Porphyria. However claims have been made that Mary
Stuart, Queen of Scots also suffered from it. I however disputed this
in the book </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Elizabeth I and Mary Stuart
</i></span><span lang="en-GB">and stand by this argument. Porphyria
is more common in women, so the fact that the Royals came off
Elizabeth Stuart means that she was the child of Shakespeare that
gave the family the illness, if at all.</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote12sym" name="sdfootnote12anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">12</span></sup></a></span></sup></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Without
doubt many of the Royal males have had Shakespeare's liking of women,
and have gone down in the book of great lovers!
</span></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The other
picture of Shakespeare by Soest, also strongly resemble members of
the Royals, like the Jules Bastien - Lepage picture of Albert Edward
from 1879, one of those great lovers. He is believed </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieh6WgLj4jJm9eZC9t3wtBO2K2Kd5mVii0Y0cAkz574RhBqNhAVuRCcNIiyxZ93aPiJUhvX3HtAPMCAl4QjQ48Qn2by7URY6kfhLALiRbornbABD6g-4m0zI7MNv3wtZMPscRMU46HFESC/s1600/Edward+VII001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieh6WgLj4jJm9eZC9t3wtBO2K2Kd5mVii0Y0cAkz574RhBqNhAVuRCcNIiyxZ93aPiJUhvX3HtAPMCAl4QjQ48Qn2by7URY6kfhLALiRbornbABD6g-4m0zI7MNv3wtZMPscRMU46HFESC/s200/Edward+VII001.jpg" width="156" /></a></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">to be another
one infected with Porphyria, yet his symptoms fit better with
Alcoholism, listed in James Graham’s book.
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">Admittedly
the ‘wig’ wearing members of the family are much harder to make
comparisons with William and James. However we know they are related
to the present family so it makes no difference. The other funny
thing is that some of the miniatures of James himself bear a
resemblance to William’s earlier picture. His main portraits do not
and the large doleful eyes</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote13sym" name="sdfootnote13anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">13</span></sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
of these and descriptions of him, are not a characteristic of his
children or descendants. Yet all this only means that the miniatures
of him are based on the patterns that were drawn for Shakespeare.
James detested having his picture painted. Nor did he like being on
public display at all.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">It’s not
inconceivable that William used to impersonate the King. As Will was
an actor this is not too hard to imagine and ideal for security
purposes. This idea has been used in recent times for a whole string
of important people and could have been used then. James himself
lived in fear of attempts on his life and one of these is still
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipooWwlRxMuvRXeeWcuj9YQlLBpyAsAX_6i00Eh1zRn93BDowcD8QtCxc18IYDCjONn0KMf6z7gKxpF2ZeRqgpsneokE1ikXlwA5-UzEkJdg0eq2igBCzc-VYEg-vg3Bvfi7W51orSajJD/s1600/George+VI001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipooWwlRxMuvRXeeWcuj9YQlLBpyAsAX_6i00Eh1zRn93BDowcD8QtCxc18IYDCjONn0KMf6z7gKxpF2ZeRqgpsneokE1ikXlwA5-UzEkJdg0eq2igBCzc-VYEg-vg3Bvfi7W51orSajJD/s200/George+VI001.jpg" width="110" /></a></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">celebrated oddly enough, currently. The King also suspected that
Anne, his wife, might have been part of the plots.
</span></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">We should
not play down Anne of Denmark part in this process of beautifying the
future ancestors. Her genes contributed good looks to many of the
Royals, plus William was also good looking as well. Her influence can
be seen at its best in the late Princess Diana, who has been seen as
one of the most beautiful women of the late 20th Century. In the end
Anne moved away from her husband and where she set up her home is
still called Denmark House even today.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span><br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
<h3>
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
<h3>
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
<h3>
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">King
Impotent the First</span></h3>
<span style="color: #38761d;">Of course
it’s equally feasible that James did want children with his wife,
for he doesn’t have ill feeling to the royal children. If you look
at the tombs of those that died early and the sheer expense on them,
it would suggest great love of the kids. Yet they still don’t look
like him. So what if James and Anne did try for children and their
efforts came to nothing? What other ways to procure heirs were left
open to them?</span><br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">However
what evidence do we have that they did try for kids together? Well
for one thing Anne doesn’t get pregnant for four years after they
were married. Then she never stops. Now if the kids did look like
James, then I would believe either a medical problem was responsible
for the delay (in either parent) or they were not trying for
children. As we are talking 16</span><sup><span lang="en-GB">th</span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
Century here they were unquestionably at it and again they don’t
look like… So as Anne could produce children it was James shooting
blanks. As I was so preoccupied with James’ being Gay, I never
considered the more likely explanation that James was infertile. Male
infertility is a problem now. Most males wouldn’t be keen on
talking about it now, yet there must be a percentage of the male
population who can’t farther children. That number must have also
been there in the past and would probably be greater than now, I
assume. We know that various common diseases can cause it and genetic
problems, as well as sexual transmitted disease. Some children’s
infections caught when mature can do the trick. With no cures male
infertility must have been widespread, compared to modern times.
Historian Alan Haynes also mentions injury by the kick from a horse
and other forms of injury. As I strongly suspected, male infertility
reports are difficult to find in historical records, according to
Haynes.</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote14sym" name="sdfootnote14anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">14</span></sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
If James did injure his genitals, I do not know of any records, but
the King being just sick, after puberty, was probably common. Any
recorded sickness after that could have made him un-reproductive.
James would never know. Haynes also suggests that, without the kick
in the balls, the 16</span><sup><span lang="en-GB">th</span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
Century man put this lack of knowledge (as to the cause of him
shooting blanks) down to ungodly or mystical ways. </span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">As
far as I know there are also no bastard children for James, not that
it is really significant, for Kings are not supposed to have them
anyway, but most seem to anyhow. Yet there wouldn’t be if my
scenario is correct. So James being a King had no-choice to go
elsewhere to get his wife pregnant. We also know that he suffered
with the usual diseases that have these side effects. Is there any
evidence though for infertility to be the reason William fathers the
royal children? Hearsay unfortunately is the answer. Haynes, looking
for clues to fill in the gaps caused by the gaps in recorded history
about infertility, picks up that Ben Jonson has an uncommon interest
in his plays about the subject. But he is not the only playwright
with a fixation. And there’s no smoke without fire! Thomas
Middleton picks up the story in his play </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>A
Chast Mayd In Cheapside.</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> Clearly both
Middleton and Jonson knew the King wasn’t the father of his
children. Middleton perhaps knew who was! He clearly made the two
Shakespeare brothers into his characters </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Touchwood
Junior\Senior. </i></span><span lang="en-GB">(William being Senior
the other being Edmund). We can gather from this play that William
has it off with any female he sees and these results in children more
often than not. </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Sir Oliver & Lady
Kix </i></span><span lang="en-GB">in the play are having problems
with getting a baby…Well you see where it’s going. Needless to
say </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Touchwood </i></span><span lang="en-GB">has
this magic water which he gives to Lady Kix – on the bed! If
Middleton has insider information on Shakespeare and he has put it
this play, we can take Sir Oliver’s instructions to Touchwood has
being King James to Shakespeare </span><span style="font-family: Chancellor;"><span lang="en-GB"><i>“get
children, and I’ll keep them.”</i></span></span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><i><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote15sym" name="sdfootnote15anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">15</span></sup></a></i></span></sup><span lang="en-GB"><i>
</i></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">James
also has a pet hate, which is thought to stem from storms nearly
killing him and his new wife. These storms were conjured up women who
were branded witches. Henceforth James persecuted them. I don’t
think he did this over storms. The ungodly ways of witches were
enough for him to be the cause of James’ impotence. Witchcraft was
blamed for anything without logical explanations and male infertility
was no exception. Perfect male arrogance, when you think about it.
Blame the witch! It’s quite possible that women called that, who
were single were lesbians and had male hatred chucked at them as
well. Thomas Campion, even put the idea that witches caused it, into
a song.</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote16sym" name="sdfootnote16anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">16</span></sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
Ironically witches killed had no idea they were dying because the
King was infertile. Even if they cursed his future generation their
curse would amount to nothing for he had no future generation.
Shakespeare however helped create the images of witches with his play
</span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Macbeth. </i></span></span><span lang="en-GB"><span style="color: #38761d;">
He also created… This new sort of occupation for William (creating
Royal children) could be an explanation why there are no new plays,
listed in the Works, being produced after1590. However I think this
highly unlikely. Then again I have found further evidence that fits
Shakespeare and his fathering techniques.</span> </span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span><br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">Dark
Lady Lane</span></h3>
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">In
his search for the now mythical </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Dark
Lady </i></span><span lang="en-GB">of the </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Sonnets</i></span><span lang="en-GB">,
the historian A. L. Rowse thought she would be in Simon Forman’s
writings of the period.</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote17sym" name="sdfootnote17anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">17</span></sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
Forman, astrology come doctor, made extensive notes, because of the
need to find the correct time and date of birth for astrological
purposes. He didn’t see Shakespeare (the man himself) because
William didn’t know his date or time of birth. Most likely he
couldn’t remember them, again due to drink, which is known to
destroy Brian cells associated with memory. This fact is established
from some court case, where Will was required to give evidence, they
did establish he was born in 1564.</span></span><br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">Forman
did see some of the plays, although his notes just record very basic
facts, which can be gained from reading them. Rowse wasn’t
interested in this for he saw a lady of some standing connected with
Lord Hunsdon, who had sex with just about anyone - even Forman. The
‘bad reputation’ he needed for the </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Dark
Lady </i></span><span lang="en-GB">and Shakespeare Boss if you like!</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote18sym" name="sdfootnote18anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">18</span></sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
Of course she had nothing to do with the </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Sonnets</i></span><span lang="en-GB">.
Yet name should ring bells. It’s Emilia Lanier (nee Bassanio), one
of William’s actress’. This does not put her out of the question
as some kind of mistress to Shakespeare, for she has a book published
in 1611. The printer, one Valentine Simms, also printed plays of
Shakespeare. The publisher was a Richard Bowen, who as yet in my
investigation reveals no connection with the Bard. </span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote19sym" name="sdfootnote19anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">19</span></sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
Called </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
(Hail, God King of the Jews) modern historians think it is one of the
earliest Feminist works ever recorded! Plus it’s also very rare, as
only 4 copies are known to exist.</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote20sym" name="sdfootnote20anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">20</span></sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
Feminists had a field day as well and Emilia is now taught to up and
coming feminists at the universities.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">Historians
and feminists should have known better. Rowse even spotted
similarities with Shakespeare yet passed them off as common. We must
forgive them, because they see no links with Queen Elizabeth, Anne of
Denmark, or a change of religion. On the other hand I do! I and now
you do that William was blessed by Liz’s favour in his youth and is
mentioned in a dedication to the Great Queen herself. Something that
Rowse, misreading Forman notes on Emilia attributed to Emilia
herself. Forman made it clear that she had it hard during her youth,
not very likely if the Queen was involved! Other problems are the
clear attraction to women, with more poems dedicated to them,
something that Emilia could be in all honesty, not be interested in,
putting it crudely she was a ‘slut’ by modern standards. She for
instance calls Susan, the Countess of Kent, </span><span style="font-family: Chancellor;"><span lang="en-GB">“the
mistress of my youth”</span></span><span style="font-family: Chancery Cursive, Courier New, sans-serif;"><span lang="en-GB">
</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">So
Emilia Lanier did not write these poems, William Shakespeare did! How
did Lanier’s name come to be on them, you say? Again it could be
just the publisher trying to make money from poetry scraps that had
come into his possession. Some clearly date from earlier than 1611.
But why put Lanier’s name on it? Personally I think the most likely
explanation is she was given them as a present from William himself.
As I’m convinced she was one of his actresses, and as shown in a
previous chapter had the royal backing to be one. Simon Forman’s
notes also back this up oddly! His only real description of Emilia is
that she has a mole on her neck. But he backs this up and the way he
does it is by saying “just like </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Imogen
</i></span><span lang="en-GB">in </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Cymbeline.”</i></span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><i><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote21sym" name="sdfootnote21anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">21</span></sup></a></i></span></sup><span lang="en-GB"><i>
</i></span><span lang="en-GB">Of course Simon didn’t figure out
that she was the actress. Nobody has till now! And we could lump her
as a prostitute as well, more than likely. Let’s face it she sleep
with anyone then, that’s how she got the texts. We find later she
is desperately short of money, from Forman’s notes, and must have
sold them off to a publisher under her own name. The volume is
suppressed for being blasphemous, it breaks the 1606 rules for a
start, plus other references which were way beyond what Stuart
society would have tolerated. The way it avoid detection as to the
true writer, is that Emilia added some gender changes and some small
details. This was easy for she was blessed by knowing more about
Shakespeare than his wife probably.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">It
reveals even more important details about Shakespeare (let alone the
fact he’s a feminist) than his works do. He makes it clear in this
book, which Elizabeth wrote for him. That her death he took
personally, with only the hope that Queen Anne would raise his </span><span style="font-family: Chancellor;"><span lang="en-GB">‘sad
dejected muse’</span></span><span lang="en-GB"> and to her/his
daughter Elizabeth (written later) Liz’s </span><span style="font-family: Chancellor;"><span lang="en-GB">‘first-fruits
of a woman’s wit.’</span></span><span lang="en-GB"> So maybe he
did consider letting somebody know of the late Queen’s part in his
works. William then tells us that he had known a long time Lady
Arbella Stuart, the nice of Mary, Queen of Scots, also both connected
to Bess of </span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNZI2NDQbcNzCvfw_7rXQiX3e7QqUA3vw9ysHa_dWPFvFkNoqFIRFlcdlrncA_E4kKEhrsD3Ibrw0Yd_3STWNkXA8WlER6dTdJmpBx-_5TvMPrhGcPQniovEDzitykiXuKoTLSAXRoiou_/s1600/Arabella+Stuart+by+Isaac+Oliver.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNZI2NDQbcNzCvfw_7rXQiX3e7QqUA3vw9ysHa_dWPFvFkNoqFIRFlcdlrncA_E4kKEhrsD3Ibrw0Yd_3STWNkXA8WlER6dTdJmpBx-_5TvMPrhGcPQniovEDzitykiXuKoTLSAXRoiou_/s200/Arabella+Stuart+by+Isaac+Oliver.jpg" width="143" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">Hardwick. He fancied Arbella too! Ruth Norrington along
with many university types, think she was mad and suffering from
guess what? The royal madness! Arbella admitted she had a lover,
though when questioned, told them the ‘King of Scots’ for she
wasn’t that daft and wasn’t going to tell them it was William
Shakespeare. Her ‘crazy’ letters are not crazy, when you compare
them with Shakespeare’s plays and are full of references to them.</span><sup><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote22sym" name="sdfootnote22anc"><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">22</span></sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-GB">
People appear crazy sometimes, if you don’t know what they are
talking about. When you do it makes sense. Her poor health (used to
prove the royal disease and madness) might be some kind of hereditary
thyroid problem, like Mary Stuart had.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span><br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
<h3>
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
<h3>
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
<h3>
<span style="color: red;"></span> </h3>
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">Bard
the Idol of women</span> </h3>
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">Arbella
was not the only one Shakespeare fancied, for the Mary Herbert
Countess of Pembroke, Lucy </span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlp4zUJhNnI_ZY5ua_sFgBsNUMb2qeA6qQIcwyY-Xe70VX-hA-M958e6ge1SX_MqXie3pP2UHhk2g3wRHOmutXeU_UaGw2ODeO1LPS5J2CtE59ZozQ4ja4SQb1EAnRLJICt0z-oxZrJpfg/s1600/EleanorHerbert.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlp4zUJhNnI_ZY5ua_sFgBsNUMb2qeA6qQIcwyY-Xe70VX-hA-M958e6ge1SX_MqXie3pP2UHhk2g3wRHOmutXeU_UaGw2ODeO1LPS5J2CtE59ZozQ4ja4SQb1EAnRLJICt0z-oxZrJpfg/s200/EleanorHerbert.jpg" width="150" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">(Countess of Bedford), Margaret (Countess
of Cumberland), have poems about them! You can also bet that the
Countess of Suffolk, though he did not know her when the poem was
written, knew him intimately afterwards. One suspects that Will loved
them all, maybe physically as well. Portraits of Mary Herbert’s
sons resemble the Hilliard picture of Shakespeare. And William was
only 16 when the first one was born! Which means that some of the
gentry may have Shakespeare genes in them? He thought so and gives us
the biggest clues that he fathered children of the gentry and if not
the Royals. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span> </div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span style="font-family: Chancellor;"></span></span> </div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span style="font-family: Chancellor;"></span></span> </div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span style="font-family: Chancellor;"></span></span> </div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span style="font-family: Chancellor;"></span></span> </div>
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span style="font-family: Chancellor;">Then how did the Gentry come to rise and
fall?</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-family: Chancellor;">Or who is he that very rightly can </span>
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-family: Chancellor;">distinguish of his birth or tell at all</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-family: Chancellor;">in what mean state his ancestors have been</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span style="font-family: Chancellor;"><span lang="en-GB">Before
some one of worth did honour win (</span></span><span style="font-family: Chancellor;"><span lang="en-GB"><i>Him)</i></span></span><sup><span style="font-family: Chancellor; font-size: xx-small;"><span lang="en-GB"><i><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote23sym" name="sdfootnote23anc"><sup>23</sup></a></i></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: Chancellor;"><span lang="en-GB">
</span></span>
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Then to
add to that he writes more cryptic lines, which must mean he did
father King James’ children, if you put emphasis on the word
“successors”.</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-family: Chancellor;">Whose successors although they bear his name </span>
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-family: Chancellor;">possessing not the riches of his mind</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-family: Chancellor;">How do we know they spring out of the same</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-family: Chancellor;">True stock of honour being not of that kind?</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">Actually
he was hoping that the Countess of Dorset would defend his work from
the </span><span style="font-family: Chancellor;"><span lang="en-GB">‘Scandal the
world can frame.’</span></span><span style="font-family: Chancery Cursive, Courier New, sans-serif;"><span lang="en-GB">
</span></span><span lang="en-GB">She did a good job if she did,
because it was censored and the world (till now) knew nothing! He
then finishes this piece with something everyone knows! </span><span style="font-family: Chancellor;"><span lang="en-GB">‘For
well you know this world is but a stage....’ </span></span><sup><span style="font-family: Chancery Cursive, Courier New, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><span lang="en-GB"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote24sym" name="sdfootnote24anc"><sup>24</sup></a></span></span></sup></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.5cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span lang="en-GB">Most
of the rest of the poems attack men for not treating women right.
Quote more information on Shakespeare’s list of famous women and
reveals that he was a tradesman’s son, which we know. Then he
mentions the place Cookham, where something important happened to him
early on in his life. Then you can guess what that would be when I
tell you it’s very near Windsor! </span><span style="font-family: Chancery Cursive, Courier New, sans-serif;"><span lang="en-GB">
</span></span><span lang="en-GB"> </span>
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The bigger
question is how did Shakespeare get away with being involved with
married women? To some extent this might have been his charm, or “his
way with the ladies” as many womanising men say. There’s a much
simpler answer. As most historians of the period will tell you
marriages were not love matches, but property contracts and securing
wealth and status. Most families, as in many arranged marriage
proposals, believed that affection between husband and wife would
come about in time. In some cases it may have done, in a few the
affection was there already, as with the Shrewsburys. In practice it
never came about and children didn’t follow on. Very common in
aristocratic males was the tendencies to have a mistress, who would
have been an unsuitable candidate (for various reasons) as a wife.
Most of these mistress’ were already around, before the arranged
marriage. Women generally didn’t have these kind of dalliances
before marriage, due to a condition report on their virginity, being
required sometimes to assure purity of bloodlines. Afterwards it
didn’t matter their being no tests, only if the child looked
different from the husband, however that can happen anyway. Crafty
William exploited this, there’s no reason to suppose the husband
was bothered and he might have paid the bard for his discretion. In
some cases the married couple might have hated each others guts, so
Shakespeare was doing them both a favour for allowing the line to
continue.</span>
</div>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">The
commoner sort of Royal</span></h3>
<span style="color: #38761d;">Nevertheless,
if William Shakespeare did father Elizabeth Stuart, the only one of
the children that has lead to surviving descendents, then it means
that the line of Mary Stuart died out with her son. The other
implication is that the descent of the Royal line is Anglo-Danish and
not Scottish-Danish! Also that the Royal blood is part Royal and part
commoner!! However the Royal Blood was part commoner, before William
Shakespeare couldn’t keep his trousers on with Anne of Denmark. It
turns out that Edward IV’s mother had it off with an archer. The
bastard son inherited the thrown and Shakespeare mention’s this in
the play about him. Thus the archer’s line dies out with James I or
VI. To be replaced by another commoner!</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym">1</a>
<span style="color: #38761d;">When he was a child, Liz thought he would be safer in England.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote2">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote2anc" name="sdfootnote2sym">2</a>
Ross P116.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote3">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote3anc" name="sdfootnote3sym">3</a>
Bingham P102.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote4">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote4anc" name="sdfootnote4sym">4</a>
Bingham PP 98-100. For the reason of Mary's death see My book
<i>Elizabeth I and Mary Stuart.</i> </span>
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote5">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote5anc" name="sdfootnote5sym">5</a>
Bingham PP 120-121.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote6">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote6anc" name="sdfootnote6sym">6</a>
Chambers & Williams PP177-8.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote7">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote7anc" name="sdfootnote7sym">7</a>
Chambers & Williams PP144-5.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote8">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote8anc" name="sdfootnote8sym">8</a>
It certainly was to some of the princess, one said ‘when I’ve
grown another head!’</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote9">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote9anc" name="sdfootnote9sym">9</a>
Somerset P31.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote10">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote10anc" name="sdfootnote10sym">10</a>
Somerset P43.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote11">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote11anc" name="sdfootnote11sym">11</a>
Stewart P182.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote12">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote12anc" name="sdfootnote12sym">12</a>
Dr Geoffrey Dean has completely ruled out the disease in both Stuart
and Hanoverians lines. Holmes P68.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote13">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote13anc" name="sdfootnote13sym">13</a>
Ross P114.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote14">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote14anc" name="sdfootnote14sym">14</a>
Haynes P148-150.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote15">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote15anc" name="sdfootnote15sym">15</a>
Muir P64.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote16">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote16anc" name="sdfootnote16sym">16</a>
Haynes P148.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote17">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote17anc" name="sdfootnote17sym">17</a>
Rowse <i>Simon Forman </i>PP96-117.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote18">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote18anc" name="sdfootnote18sym">18</a>
Rowse <i>Simon Forman </i>PP102-3.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote19">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote19anc" name="sdfootnote19sym">19</a>
Cook PP222-3. Richard had a shop near St Paul’s.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote20">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote20anc" name="sdfootnote20sym">20</a>
It came out within weeks of the Sonnets being printed.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote21">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote21anc" name="sdfootnote21sym">21</a>
Wood P200.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote22">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote22anc" name="sdfootnote22sym">22</a>
Norrington PP61-71. Ruth, however corrects the spelling of Albion to
Albian in the ‘crazy’ letter, there are a number of words
uncorrected and an ‘author’ remark.</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote23">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote23anc" name="sdfootnote23sym">23</a>
I think that the word ‘win’ should be ‘him.’</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><br />
<div id="sdfootnote24">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
</span><div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.3cm; page-break-inside: avoid;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3989615734957920270#sdfootnote24anc" name="sdfootnote24sym">24</a>
Rowse <i>Simon Forman </i>PP104-115. This is for all references to
Lanier’s book.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-10786588317763741042013-03-11T13:29:00.001-07:002013-03-11T14:59:07.712-07:00Real William Shakespeare Chapter 6<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style></div>
<h2 class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: red; font-size: x-large;">Chapter 6 </span></h2>
<h2 class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: red; font-size: x-large;">THE TALE OF THE WILL</span></h2>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Michael Wood thinks that 1603 would have been a good year for Shakespeare. Of course he’s no understanding of the real man. In reality 1603 would have been devastating to William. True he had seen a great deal of tragedy in his life already; the effects must have been profound to him. Many of his sisters and brothers had been lost, also childhood friends, yet these where when he was young and so could easily cope with them. As life presented more of its challenges to him getting older, new people and friends helped place these in the back of his mind and love overcomes many things. He had to get on with his life, however then a harsh life for many people was frequently cut short. Danger in the form of diseases and fire were commonplace, even the murder rate was higher in certain parts of England despite a smaller population. Even so when his first wife died, in undoubtedly tragic circumstances, he must have bounced back, with the love of Anne and Elizabeth to help him. The real question is what would it take to change a person’s behaviour and their attitude to life, plus what they do in society as a whole?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">In William's case it may have been just too many deaths over his life, or one in particular, or the deaths of persons who are just too important to him. There is beyond a shadow of doubt that Shakespeare was a very different man, in the reign of King James then he was during the </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuvBh4JIX8udRv3R7FgeW56CuwqKGUrQ0UKlZGtv9KSfqlFzeSrDcAxzgjpzF9jzkRIId5uu_rCLcKYXAKxHDc4y7oNtIgsVj8qDzkAbNNGI-OqsBDoC-3DBu7OySXyrzYJmJ4N31grCM3/s1600/Funeral+of+Elizabeth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="283" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuvBh4JIX8udRv3R7FgeW56CuwqKGUrQ0UKlZGtv9KSfqlFzeSrDcAxzgjpzF9jzkRIId5uu_rCLcKYXAKxHDc4y7oNtIgsVj8qDzkAbNNGI-OqsBDoC-3DBu7OySXyrzYJmJ4N31grCM3/s640/Funeral+of+Elizabeth.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Queen’s. So did the Queen’s death change Will? To him this just was no outpouring of grief like we have seen over Diana’s death. Though there would be an element of this. She was his muse and also a great love of his life. Though did not leave him a penny nor did she mention him in her will, yet left him something. To find out what this is we need to go back to the <em>Passionate Pilgrim</em>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Trying to date things attached to William Shakespeare can be a minefield. As with his plays other people printed them. They often have very different motives to William, as well as scruples. William Jaggard was not opposed to printing things without permission of the authors; however this is not the only thing he was guilty of! The writer Andrew Gurr came across evidence that Jaggard used dates on plays to make them appear, as they were first editions. The reason for this being the leading company of players “The King’s Men” had got the Lord Chamberlain to pass an order to stop printing any plays before a certain date. Old plays were not affected and could continue to be printed. <em>The Passionate Pilgrim</em> has a date of 1599 on it. We find in verse ten a reference to someone’s death, as in the sonnets no name, just the same cryptic clues to that person - roses and pearls. You should know who that is by now - Elizabeth. Only in 1599 she was still very much alive! It’s reported to be one of Jaggard earliest works. It is more likely to be much later, with an early date attached. This piece and the above evidence put this verse after 1603. Later references by contemporaries of William make comments about Jaggard’s bad practices, but only well after 1603. They were not reprinted till 1609 and William Jaggard, later became printer to the city of London in 1611. Peter Zenner trying to use the same evidence for his views on Marlowe being the writer came to the same conclusion, for all the wrong reasons. However he did get Kate Welch of the Shakespeare Institute Library to check the records of the Stationers of London. She found no entry for the Passionate Pilgrim. Peter correctly concluded (in my opinion) that Jaggard could not backdate the book in the register and to put it in at the real time would have him up before the law. Though I would suggest to Peter that the reason Jaggard was one of the printers of the Works, was because he knew Shakespeare’s name on it would make money, they all did nothing to do with trust! Actually it’s his son Isaac whose name actually appears on the First Folio as one of the printers.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Having sorted out the discrepancy over the date, we can go on with Shakespeare’s reaction to Elizabeth’s death. William is in tears, strangely he doesn’t know why. She’s (as I said) left him nothing, he craved nothing. I get the impression, however that William wanted her forgiveness, as this verse appears to be constructed a bit clumsily, hardly surprising as he was in much grief and trying to put on a brave face as he wrote and something else might have effected him. The sting as in many verses by William comes at the end: “Thy discontent thou didst bequeath to me.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">So William Shakespeare did change after her death! It’s not the only verse in this set that refers to how he felt. If you cast your mind back to the sonnet chapter, there William tried to get her beauty to continue down the generations. In verse 13 he has to admit that it’s been lost ‘In spite of physic, painting, pain and cost.’ The pain, which he went through and others did too. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Wait a minute…I think we’re jumping the gun here. As she seems to be as fit as an Ox most of her life why did she succumb in that year? What did Queen Elizabeth in?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: red;">The Queen’s extraordinary diet</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Several explanations have been given by historians, including one based on bad teeth. These however are based on the assumption that the Queen had aged badly and that her young looks were false. So myself knowing this not to be the case, question this. When we look at precisely what she was suffering from at the end, all we are left with is severe depression. Well you tend only to die from that if you kill yourself, which is of course impossible with all the staff of the court around you. The lacklustre expression on her face and looking into the distance, all indicate depression, even the sucking of her fingers (a comfort gesture). However she must die of a secondary cause this is also seen, I believe, in another thing at her untimely end. That is the refusal to eat. Severe depression over a long period could cause the loss of appetite; this would depend on how long in the doldrums she was. From what I can gather this was nearly three to four years. The cause seems to have been the Earl of Essex.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Essex’s revolt of 1601, strongly suggests he was a power-mad fool. Yet he was very special to </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixgqIUOhHqTztsShVcjHfE_E1PGQhvkPLocFUoQV3GVJFM4Aj5TyQbs6GKspJBfh-yUJ6K2hUs5sCANzmJ6KZB3CLsvCrRjyYjBGwWBL_TsUmkIQRVvA9Qh51IUh8sPK7RQA8HjZx2kt8k/s1600/Robert+Earl+of+Essex.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixgqIUOhHqTztsShVcjHfE_E1PGQhvkPLocFUoQV3GVJFM4Aj5TyQbs6GKspJBfh-yUJ6K2hUs5sCANzmJ6KZB3CLsvCrRjyYjBGwWBL_TsUmkIQRVvA9Qh51IUh8sPK7RQA8HjZx2kt8k/s320/Robert+Earl+of+Essex.jpg" width="252" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">the Queen, being Robert Dudley’s son. The Queen and Essex’s relationship was very stormy and seems to have been based on a mutual misunderstanding on both sides. From the way she treats him you would have thought he was her son, precisely what (I think) she believes. Deep down she knew he wasn’t, but she imagined that’s what her son would have been like if she and Robin had a child together. Despite the theories put forward by some, he was not her son, exactly what Essex thought and he would scoff at the idea she would see him as her son. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">On Elizabeth’s part she would have scoffed at the idea he loved her, so we have the basis of their partnership. Essex did love her, like his father and many men before. Not just because she was Queen. He like the rest could see her as kind, jolly, fun, beautiful, rich and most important powerful. As Essex grew up Elizabeth probably had told him to call her, like he was a properly related to her, maybe Ant, Grandmother, or even Mother! This would last till he was old enough to comprehend she wasn’t any of them, but the Queen. She wasn’t prepared to except him on the terms of being just the Queen. He wasn’t willing to compromise either. In 1601 he made this very clear. Power was what he wanted, this led to his downfall. Nevertheless he did something that sealed the Queen’s fate. He really insulted her with something that he knew wasn’t true, that was merely spoken in anger. I don’t think he would have said it if he knew the damage it would have done and yet he may have said it anyway because he didn’t really know the Queen. All the same his death would have done a lot of damage. To her she was executing her son and Robert’s. ‘Would Robin forgive me when they met in paradise’ would have been going through her mind.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">I’m reminded of the nursery rhyme “<em>Sticks and Stones</em>” and how it might be total false in its conclusion in this case. Did Essex’s name calling leave to Elizabeth’s death in 1603? Once you know that Elizabeth had such a low opinion of herself, then Essex saying her ‘carcass was crooked’ would cut deep into her mind. The Queen’s body wasn’t anyway near as bad as Essex painted her with his words. Nonetheless nobody said anything like that to the Queen, not even her enemies, probably nobody would have dreamed of saying it, even in private. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The effect was dramatic still; she had always been obsessed with her bodies’ image due to low-esteem, after she would be preoccupied with it. She had greatly controlled her diet all her life. Her food intake went down even more. The stress of the execution and her job, the country’s problems getting worse, she was doing like Ghandi did; only she didn’t do it on purpose. In many ways not to dissimilar to women now she had to stop weight from being put on and any fat became a burning issue. Only one problem! She wasn’t exactly… Well, put it this way, the skinny model of today would understand Liz’s mental state in 1601 than any historian would. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Historians of course didn’t, so they put the physical effects of this starvation diet to old age. Yet they are clearly the pure lack of food, with steps taken by her to disguise them, such as the fine cloths in her cheeks to disguise the absence of fat in the tissues. So how did she cover up this extreme diet with the food that was being brought to her, avoiding eating it? The same way that women do today and don’t forget the flushing toilet was installed into her palace by this time by Sir John Harrington. So she could always make herself sick and nobody knew. Harrington noted that in 1600 she was only eating bread and pottage, perfect for bringing up later. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Lastly the doctors were chucked out, the reason being they would have been able to tell that her diet was poor. The beautiful body in the space of three years was transformed, not really by age, but by malnutrition. Ironic to say the least that the richest woman in the country starved to death, just like the poorest would! </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">It was common knowledge in the writing circle of that time that she had starved herself. And Thomas Heywood in <em>A Woman Killed With Kindness</em>, has the woman of the title die from malnutrition. Though for the most part of the play she is Shakespeare’s wife, only as she wasn’t dead in 1607, when the play went into print, he had to use another death scenario. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: red;">King Death</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">What really happened to Shakespeare when Elizabeth died, was he around? Of course we’ll not find him in real records; servants rarely get a mention in them. The death shouldn’t appear in his plays, because they were written before 1590. Yet we know that they continued to be played long after and he rewrites them, though probably not adding much. Near to the end of <em>King Lear</em> for example, Lear seems to repeat his grief of the death of Cordelia. And he dies looking on her again after hearing the death of Edmund. In a previous chapter I said she is Elizabeth and the other cast members think Lear/actor has fainted, which can be implied by the text. This is too strange to be true, albeit it is true, if Shakespeare was playing Lear. It’s possible to construct what happened from this piece. He did faint on both occasions. The first occasion was hearing the real death of the Queen and seeing her body….his reaction-disbelief - “Never, never, never, never, never, look on her lips, look there.” Thinking he can see her lips move, then he faints, while asking someone to undo his tunic button. The second time was on the first performance of the revised work. The actress playing her reminded him just too much of the reality he experienced, so he collapsed again! </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: red;">Degrees in cobblers</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The Bard also already had to endure the death of some of his own children, and one of his friends, who had died in 1593. Christopher Marlowe was of course the same age as Shakespeare, which would have an affect on any person. This affect must have been double, as a victim of a violent crime. Marlowe was stabbed in the eye, whilst arguing over the bill in a tavern. As it turns out, this is not quite correct, fuelling arguments about his authorship. Nor was justice done either, as Marlowe’s killer was pardoned. True we don’t know if Shakespeare reacted to his death, yet we don’t know also that he didn’t. However evidence of his death may put light on the fact that William could have reacted that way.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Researchers trying to establish that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare; found that Christopher was up for trial for atheism at the top court in Tudor England. This was also treasonous, as this meant that he was denying the Queen’s right to reign. He died a few days before that trial, which they see as evidence of a cover up. The fact that the religion content in the Works of Shakespeare is high, means that Marlowe couldn’t </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw6HilJ_Dj3A7m-slYwC23D34CTaiy1jCmm67DsYbzmBWnb1lOtY-d1HYijZHM4Eo_uJrPKHkzZrW7T-Yyv8oaGt3sRMRO3uSYwzXtNzaqomnhbaXQM1-TGoyNPlLfNxRhQtw3F_Zwibvz/s1600/UnknownMan2+thorns.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw6HilJ_Dj3A7m-slYwC23D34CTaiy1jCmm67DsYbzmBWnb1lOtY-d1HYijZHM4Eo_uJrPKHkzZrW7T-Yyv8oaGt3sRMRO3uSYwzXtNzaqomnhbaXQM1-TGoyNPlLfNxRhQtw3F_Zwibvz/s320/UnknownMan2+thorns.jpg" width="171" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: red;">Figure 1 Christopher Marlowe</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">be a candidate, if he was blaspheming, that together with the evidence showing the Works endorsement of Elizabeth‘s right to reign. Putting all this aside, apart from the obvious instances that drinking establishments tend to often lead to acts of violence, particularly amongst young men, a cover up could still be possible, yet why? My explanation is that if Marlowe had gone to trial, he could have defended himself by disclosing facts! What about, you may wonder? The Queen’s involvement with a married man, sure it is William Shakespeare! Yet Christopher might not have said a word about it. If we are talking cover up, then some people in the Elizabethan Court could not risk that, especially the Queen herself. She is in the end, the one who pardoned the killer! No evidence has been found that she is the one who authorised the death of Marlowe, we wont find it in William’s works either, he would have not let his friend’s death gone un-avenged, we can see this in his plays. Though as they were all written before his death you won’t find it there. So the concealment included William Shakespeare not getting to know the truth! I could defend the Queen, by saying she didn’t know either, because she might have let it slip to William, then again I think you could accuse me of bias, in this respect, so I won’t. If the conspiracy story is too fanciful for you, then Marlowe was often in trouble before that, even when he was supposed to have been in education. He too may have been talent spotted by the Queen. She may have used her influence to get him a scholarship at Corpus Christi College Cambridge in 1580. He was absent a lot! This may have been due to him being a shoemaker’s son from Canterbury, suffering from the snobbery of these places. In any case he was painted alongside William, for the Queen, as she danced, precisely when he should have been at college. Francis Walsingham had to get rumours stopped that he was a Catholic. Christopher’s “good service” may have meant no more than his entertaining the Queen! Marlowe preferred the low-life world of the playhouse to the more noble education of himself. Enter obnoxious privilege to give him the M.A. and B.A. he doesn’t need anyway, courtesy of Walsingham, pressing the governors of the College to ‘further’ his degree. William himself may have been offered the same chance as Christopher, yet turned it down, judging by his lack of enthusiasm for learning. Marlowe after his degree was given him didn’t go on to use his learning in what might be called in a productive way, because he continued in writing plays and poems! I doubt very much if he could have been relied upon to spy for his country when he got into fights, which left one William Bradley dead, or making threats against Constables of Shoreditch! Both his poetry and plays are different to William. Neither is he a suitable candidate for writing the Works. His plays generally start with long speeches, his poetry unrealistic in tone. In <em>The Passionate Shepherd to his Love</em>, why would for instance, musically gifted birds sing Elizabethan songs to waterfalls in shallow rivers? Marlowe on the other hand may have been as comedic as Shakespeare. Since it doesn’t directly attack him the unknown work <em>The Cobbler of Canterbury</em> clearly lampoons his background from the title alone. He probably wrote it. Another play links him with the Bard completely. <em>Timon</em> which has survived in manuscript form appears to have been written by Marlowe and William Shakespeare. The only surviving copy of it is in the Victoria & Albert Museum and has two writers script on it. No name on it, yet the play uses unusual words that only Marlowe used. The Shakespeare connection comes from his own play <em>Timon of Athens</em>. Most of course think he pinched it from this play! We do know that Marlowe worked with Thomas Nashe on <em>Dido Queen of Carthage</em>, so it doesn’t rule out collaborative work. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: red;">The black ink faith</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Science today gives people an alternative view to that of religion, when people die. We can now say it was a virus that killed someone and so on, not an act of God or God’s punishment, if we so believe. William being religious had no alternative explanation, for all these deaths. Would he have then blamed himself for them? Suppose he did, what would be his actions and behaviour in these circumstances? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">There are clues in his pictures and his tomb, as well as his will. Starting with the first of these, his style of clothing dulls down considerable in later portraits. In most of his later ones, he is seen in black, with just a touch of white lace. I think because these pictures were not seen as being Shakespeare, few if any writers have commentated on them. Certainly they could just be the fashion, yet I have always been under the impression that this was the style that Puritans dressed in. Another more cryptic reference can be found to his religion, in Leonard Digges quotation in the 1623 Folio. He speaks of the actor friends, as being ’pious’ which may have been the case, at least in some of them, or a crafty reference to William. The Karel van Mander painting of Shakespeare and Ben Jonson, certainly fits with this statement that Ben was pious, as he has the same style as William. Yet can Shakespeare have turned Puritan! How does this relate to his grave, if he had? When first interred in 1616, no name is placed on the gravestone, though some think that part of the stone is lost. No lavish ceremony, is recorded, something which for a famous playwright and poet, actor, doesn’t make sense! Unless he requested these that way, then, coupled with his puritan beliefs, would see these as trimmings and unnecessary ones at that.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">We know that Puritan preachers lectured the audiences and actors of the theatres, pointing out that their sins would find them out one day. In such a man as Shakespeare, he knew that he had sinned, the consequences of these sins played on his mind. The deaths of loved ones! This grief had to air somewhere. Plays and acting, plus his fame are the only logical culprits. By adopting the puritan faith, which he must have seen as the only way to save his soul and redeem his sins. Actually he was already inclined to that faith before the Queen died. For she hits out at him in the sonnets with that “New Faith Torn” remark remember! This change might have been due to the Catholic plots to take the Queen’s life. Even though many of his plays, which have references to Puritan people, are negative towards them, this does not mean that William couldn’t take up that faith. Most if not all of the plays attributed to him were written by 1590-93. By 1616 his views could have strongly changed. In any case we can back up this change as his son-in-law held that faith and Shakespeare entertained a Puritan preacher at his house in Stratford in 1614. The town itself was a hotbed of Puritanism. The Corporation had banned plays from its land directly apposing the Alderman, Burgesses, and Bailiff, granting them licences to perform. This was most likely the work of Daniel Baker, a mercer, who controlled the town council for 40 years. People are only human, even with this faith, and Baker got a local woman pregnant, so like Shakespeare, being Puritan did not stop men from having sex!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">His will is even more of a mystery to many people. Some people think it should read like a piece of poetry. You find me a tax return by a poet like that! Seriously it makes sense if you look at it with the eyes and belief that William Shakespeare was Puritan! Okay so he didn’t leave a Bible. That’s very easy to explain. He wrote it! Well at least large sections of the King James one. People have seen connections with the plays of Shakespeare. I see them too and some references to some passages with descriptions of people sound like they are talking of Queen Elizabeth! If he did not contribute (secretly) to the Bible, there is another reason the Bible is absent from his house, he didn’t like the available versions of it. Puritans believed most obtainable Bibles to be corrupted in there texts. They argued some were too linked with the Catholic faith, which is why the James Bible came about, but some were disappointed with that as well. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Back to the will, he avoids references to his life on the stage, even when leaving money to the actors Hemings, Burbage and Condell to buy rings. He refers to them as his “fellows” though notably Ben Jonson is left out. Not surprising really when you hear his views on Elizabeth, which he poured out to William Drummond, after making himself ‘at home’ with William’s wine and ale! The Queen’s ‘membrane’ was impenetrable. “For her delight she tried many” said Jonson. He had a go at many people too! Sir Philip Sydney’s face was full of spots! Drummond wasn’t fooled and concluded that Ben was a great lover - of himself! Jealous of others and brags! Shakespeare and Jonson were always combating one another, William generally won, Jonson did like the Bard, yet he hated him at the same time. Shakespeare clearly distrusted him and explains him being absent from the will. However Ben had the last laugh, as we will see later in this chapter. I believe I also have found more evidence for the religion change, which I explain in the next chapter.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The Stratford gent died a rich man if his will is correct. He left £350 in money as well as personal effects and property (buildings). While in London he may have rented or owned 3 houses, though like many tried to avoid paying taxes, which places him in public records, plus leaving baffled historians, wondering if why he moved! He didn’t amass this from being a merchant in malt or any other grain. Stratford on Avon was in recession! One third of the population was by 1601 poor. Tales of the money Will had, were still circulating there in 1660s, when the Vicar, John Ward heard that Shakespeare had been going through money at the rate of £1,000 a year. William in the town would have stood out like a sore thumb! Hence the tale! Most historians think Ward was exaggerating. Well nuts to that! Vicars then, if not now, tend to be trustworthy. After all Burbage left £300 and Alleyn was able to buy the Manor of Dulwich for £10,000! King James was a big spender too, paying £10 for each play’s performance at court. Actor Augustine Phillips in his will singled out the Bard, giving him a 30 shilling gold piece, while the other actors had to split £5 between them. People asked William for £30 loans, which he granted, also he could even afford to give Stratford Council a load of stone. What did Shakespeare do with the rest of the money? He boozed most of it away!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: red;">A merry, very merry and not so sweet man</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">He lived in an alcoholic’s paradise for a start, in both “this merry England” and his home town, ‘Merry’ being a polite word for ‘drunk’. England had 16,000 alehouses and taverns by 1570, TWICE the number per head of population than modern times. Only it grew as well, when Sir Walter Ralegh received sole right of licences for selling of ‘sweet’ wine. As for his home town, the writer, plus author of <em>Robinson Curose</em>, Daniel Defoe recorded that Stratford’s ‘chief trade’ was ’malt in great abundance’. Shakespeare had 18 quarters of barley at his house in 1597, plus sells 20 bushels of malt to Philip Rogers. Standard household stuff there was around 6 barrels - for beer. The Town also had 30 alehouses and 3 inns for a population of around 2,000 people. Plus not all of that number (very young children) could drink alcohol, though it might well have been given them! A latter-day Burton-upon-Trent was Stratford, boasting 50 malt houses. It wasn’t just for other people to consume either. The Town’s Council criticised the alehouses for selling unreasonable strong drink, while it held its annual feast at the Inns of the town! The name of one these Inns gives us a clue to Shakespeare’s drinking habits. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The Bear and the Swan Inns were pretty large establishments in Shakespeare’s time. The Bear employed 14 servants alone. Sunday drinking at the Swan resulted in a murder; proportionally there were probably more murders in Stratford then, per head of population than in present day London. Many of these murders centre on the Swan itself. When you consider the number of people who carried daggers, knives and swords, it’s hardly surprising. The law did not consider the carrying of such things as dangerous, even after people who had been drinking! Poverty was also high and with high crime drinking was inevitable for the poor of Stratford. Yet drinking is not limited to the poor, numerous tales spread of the rich Shakespeare and his drinking exploits and not just in Stratford. He would go anywhere when he found out that someone was a better drinker than he was. This resulted in him kipping under the local tree after the contest was over! </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">John Shakespeare, his father, might well have been the cause of this habit. Thomas Plume records in 1657 that he was a ‘merry-cheeked old man’ which may mean that he too liked his drink. However there is much stronger evidence than John was drinking more than he should. It had been his job! As well as being the town’s Mayor and Bailiff, a job that required him to be well dressed and behave himself, which he lost for some unknown reason, he was the Ale Taster for the Leet Court. This job, a sort of inspector of beer, presumably needed him to taste the stuff, as it required the checking that hops and other things had not been added to the ale. The young William must have been around sometimes with his father to the places he inspected, plus there was no under age drinking rules then!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">William was certainly knocking them back at 18 plus! Between the years 1580-90 the plays reveal his liking for drink. Falstaff praises the stuff like a wine connoisseur in <em>Henry IV part 2</em> <em>scene III</em>. “A good sherris-sack hath a twofold operation in it. It ascends me into the brain; dries me there all the foolish and dull and crudy vapours which environ it; makes it apprehensive, quick, forgetive, full of nimble, fiery and delectable shapes; which delivered o’er to the voice, the tongue, which is the birth, becomes excellent wit.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">At least we know how he overcame stage fright. Falstaff as I have already explained is William himself and what he says you can bet that William thought. The funny thing is that nature would turn the thin man into the bloated Falstaff! </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">He continues in his speech, which was direct to the audience and alone. ‘Sherries warm the blood, making the face red, give courage and help learning.’ Alcoholics’ Anonymous would have had a fit, if they were around. That’s the trouble! Nobody could have tell him what he was doing was wrong. There were signs, in his first appearance in this play, Falstaff had sent his urine to a doctor, which must have been discoloured for the doctor (joke aside) said he was diseased. Falstaff/William had seen or knew that the liver changed colour with alcohol. He knew too that you could become addicted to drink. This made no difference and he has Falstaff say “If I had a thousand sons... I would teach them...to addict themselves to sack”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">You soon realise that Sherry, Sack, and Wine were William’s favourite drinks. Also you can tell that William has a fondness for drunks! Like Sir Toby Belch, wonder how he got his name, plus the drunken butler in The Tempest. This brings us back to the 1623 Works and Ben Jonson. The introductory verses to that have never been explored in the light of William being an alcoholic. So Ben (praising William) can enable him to get a sneaky reference to his drinking in. The much-quoted “<em>Sweet Swan of Avon</em>” doesn’t refer to William, but the Swan Inn, where if you could find William Shakespeare drinking sweet Sherry! His ’sweet’ nature thus refers to the fact he was an alcoholic. This fact didn’t go amiss on one of Shakespeare’s relatives. As mentioned in a previous chapter, one had a ‘dig’ at William. This chap, his brother, says he was carried on stage on the back of another actor! Plausible if he was drunk, but sounds like sore grapes to me.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: red;">A New Place for the old bed’s wife</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The part of Shakespeare’s will that has caused more debate than anything else, is the only thing he left to his wife was a slightly worn bed. The house called ’New Place‘, which by the way he bought for £60, considered by some to be cheap, which he had to completely rebuild, because it was a ruin, had a vineyard. This was left to his daughter, and his wife went to live/stay there. Obviously, it is feasible that part of the will has gone missing or that his wife had other money. I personally doubt this to be the case. She could have rejected this lifestyle of riches, in line with puritan doctrines. We do know that William was having affairs with other women. Yet it would be the other way round, with William getting left only the bed. The bed is a common thing to leave to wives in wills, however Shakespeare’s is the only known one where that’s the only thing that is left to her. Sidney Lee in 1897 even got a Q. C. to comment on the dowry of the Blackfriars property, which he claimed barred Anne. So he did not want her to have the money. Why then? Well I think she was still in love him, for she requested that she wanted to be buried with him. She’s not! That stone did not just stop the sexton digging up the grave; it so far has stopped everybody! Even the interment of his wife! Did he want this too? We can never know. One potential explanation for his rejection of his wife or at least spitefulness is that she caused the break with his ’muse’ Queen Elizabeth. Remember the sonnets they end with the rejection of William by the Queen, because of Hathaway! Without her support William could not produce plays and subsequently the production of new plays stopped after at least 1593, if not earlier. She may even have forbidden him to write anything more about her! She had the power to do it after all. They had agreed to not mention the other, so much so that both he and Ben Jonson were criticised for failing to compose a funeral elegy for Elizabeth. We know why Shakespeare couldn’t do it, yet Ben by the sound of it was not fond of the Queen anyway, which explains his reason. William must have had some sort of restriction placed upon him by the Queen, for him to stop writing plays after 1590, till her death in 1603. After that his alcoholism might have naturally restricted his ability to write, nevertheless before 1603 it would not have that greater effect, I don’t believe. The only play I would put after 1603 would be <em>The Two Noble Kinsmen</em>. Only due to a young boy singing “Roses their sharp spines gone”. A direct allusion to the Queen’s death. Undoubtedly alcohol doesn’t stop writers doing their trade, more likely slows them down. The Queen could however! When Liz’s temper was aroused it would have been hell for William. In order for him to continue putting on plays, even to the public in the newly built theatres along the Thames, he needed the Queen’s approval. She was given the perfect excuse to shut them down when plague struck. So she did! This left William in a mess! He was prepared to do anything to get back in the Queen’s good books. There is a story that Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, gave Shakespeare 1000 </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfaafZn2ggvop7u010Gk5O3JiIiP6ynWnuixK5xVIyRvhw0C0o3xsiDmEaMgbVCh8PRFw8_BNenqEwBpi0Zt5YsRsNH5HUw0gCBksulpOrTTm_7NfIOeBlsJNjfDdIrw9dIjKQ2m1K53L0/s1600/HenryWriothesley.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfaafZn2ggvop7u010Gk5O3JiIiP6ynWnuixK5xVIyRvhw0C0o3xsiDmEaMgbVCh8PRFw8_BNenqEwBpi0Zt5YsRsNH5HUw0gCBksulpOrTTm_7NfIOeBlsJNjfDdIrw9dIjKQ2m1K53L0/s320/HenryWriothesley.jpg" width="247" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">pounds. I do not think he did, instead William gave the Earl the 1000 pounds to try and get back in favour with Elizabeth. It is known that the Earl was a favourite with the Queen, that he liked poetry too, this gave William the excuse he needed, to do what? To get some poetry published! He leaves his name off the front cover though. Will gets fellow Stratfordian Richard Field to print <em>Venus and Adonis</em> in 1593. The story relates Venus (who if you haven’t already guessed it represents the Queen) and Adonis (Shakespeare) and how they fall in love and ends tragic with the death of Adonis. Leaving that aside for the moment, the dedication to the Earl mocks Elizabeth’s style of putting herself down. Southampton would of course object to the comments Shakespeare put, unless he knew the truth behind the ploy to get Shakespeare back in favour. It only partly worked, because he had to get another poem, The <em>Rape of Lucrece</em>, printed with an even stronger dedication to Southampton, the following year. That did the trick, as we have plays printed in Liz’s lifetime, theatrical performances of his plays before her, as well as the accounts of less lordly people going to see William’s plays at the various theatres. NONE of them were brand new! <em>Loves Labours Lost</em> for example states that it is </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBMa9rJ_s08yrf7ZLVs8Lh4c-R8ebABk4OSzO4kdi5VLkQA6iG-FTFkL_TrKYw-NHAYmpwfqO1uAjKz4bdh2HG18mjp-XuO2DJ-jCbms27wmXAkpyzyVvyucM-WI04OZ6Oj6yVAhUVe2mV/s1600/Loves+Labours+Lost001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBMa9rJ_s08yrf7ZLVs8Lh4c-R8ebABk4OSzO4kdi5VLkQA6iG-FTFkL_TrKYw-NHAYmpwfqO1uAjKz4bdh2HG18mjp-XuO2DJ-jCbms27wmXAkpyzyVvyucM-WI04OZ6Oj6yVAhUVe2mV/s320/Loves+Labours+Lost001.jpg" width="214" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">newly corrected and augmented, when printed in 1598. So he was not allowed to write new plays still! After her death he might have been putting out these at insignificant two plays a year, if our Vicar is right, though the same vicar had not (when he made his notes) seen or read any of the plays, so would not recognise if the where new or revised dramas.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The other point of Venus and Adonis was the Adonis gets killed! This being Shakespeare does not mean he was killed or even necessarily thinking about committing suicide. All it means is that he is very sorry for lying to her and as ‘killed’ the bad part of ’himself’ that did so off. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">That takes us forward to 1603 when she died. He was free to write then; sadly if he did he knew that the truth would destroy the memory of the Queen. Yet as I said, the problem of his drinking was getting worse. By 1610 he gave up correcting plays and then after the performance at the Globe of the revised <em>Henry VIII</em> in 1613 he gave up acting. We know this because he comes on at the start and says so. The first folio editor made certain that was placed in, for most of the prologues for the other plays are not included. However the story is that at the first performance a cannon was fired off, setting fire to the roof of the Globe, which resulted in its destruction. The Globe we know did burn down on the 29 June. However this was most likely not the plays first performance, as that would have had the King and Queen, if not members of the Royal family there. The evidence maybe is that James and Anne had watched the plays performed at court. Though they did enjoy them, because the fact is they knew they were repeats! Added to that, should be that the fire is not mentioned by anyone in the connection of putting the Royal Family in danger. Obviously the royals would not have gone to all the performances of each play. Rather like our Queen not going to see a movie again after its Royal Command Performance. Perhaps too Shakespeare never repeated the first performance of <em>Henry VIII</em> in 1613.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The evidence is there in this play that very little of the original play was altered, for the 1613 audiences, only perhaps a few of Archbishop’s Cranmer lines at the very end, which deal with male heirs and the Queen’s death. The rest of this play gives a slightly distorted view of the end of Queen Katherine’s marriage to the King and praises Elizabeth to the sky; it even uses the Sonnets, in references to Liz.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The reason William only wrote small corrections and the like was his hand could hardly hold the quill pen. The only known writing by William dates from 1612 onwards. When H.T.F. Rhodes analysed the gross deterioration of his handwriting, which many had speculated was of a physical nature, he ruled that out completely. His conclusion was that ill health or senility where not the cause, but alcoholism! </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Retiring to Stratford may have reduced the stress from acting; this did not make him give up the drink. His mind may have been quite irrational from drinking as well; maybe this explains why there are no books or manuscripts in his will. Pressed with puritanical thoughts as to the sins that he had committed, perhaps he destroyed the books and the rest. We know for example that both Roger Bacon and John Dee burned theirs. Another reason to destroy them occurred in 1609 when Thomas Thorpe printed the Sonnets. The dedication by Thorpe (T.T.) has confused historians for ages. The original copy of William and Liz’s sonnets must have been sent to someone by Shakespeare for perhaps safekeeping. The W.H. could be any one of numerous people, though Barbara Everett believes it is William’s brother-in-law William Hathaway. Someone however got hold of them and sent them to Thorpe. They were printed without Shakespeare’s permission and were probably not numbered, yet printed in nearly the right order, perhaps due to whatever they were written on or kept like. One possibility is a bound notebook. The printed recognised two styles of handwriting in the Sonnets, only any other indication of the Queen’s name had been eliminated by William, presumably before he sent them to the mystery ‘begetter’. This explains the hyphen on ‘Shakespeare’ which is well known in those days as being a symbol for two writers. Also how Thomas knew, without being let in on some complicated conspiracy theory those opponents of Shakespeare use. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The printing of the Sonnets might just well have pushed the man over the edge! Burning all the plays and manuscripts that he had! Shakespeare realised the danger of holding on to the material he had - the danger that it would damage Elizabeth’s reputation, perhaps also his. I found evidence of this in the poem <em>Phoenix and the Turtle</em>. Though if this poem was written before that event how did it survive? The answer must be that he couldn’t stop writing and this ceremonial event (for him) inspired him to write it. If it did he put the ashes of his (and her) works in an urn according to the last bit of the poem. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The other thing that struck me, though I knew the Queen knew about Anne, did she know what Elizabeth meant to William? Before his death in 1616 -NO was the conclusion I came to! Although it’s possible that Anne destroyed the manuscripts for the same reason, I think because she requested to be interred with him this rules out this likelihood. I believe it cancels out that she even found out about his relationships with all the other women he had. There is a good example of a woman of that period, finding out about her husband’s relationship with a servant, after the will is read, in the Countess of Shrewsbury, best known as ‘Bess of Hardwick’. For she is buried in Derby Cathedral and her husband in Sheffield Cathedral!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: red;">When the cats in the playhouse</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The only thing, I can add, to clarify why Anne Shakespeare was left only the bed, concerns adultery, though not William’s. Back in a previous chapter I told you that I thought <em>A Woman Killed with Kindness</em> was about William Shakespeare’s early life and marriage. <em>John Frankford</em> in this drama is William and his wife is Anne Frankford. At the marriage in both the play and in real life are his friends. Shakespeare’s most obvious friend in 1582 would have been Christopher Marlowe. The friend to Frankford is a man called Wendoll, though no first name is given. The trouble is, although I can’t prove it, I really believe that Marlowe and Wendoll are the same man. If this is the case then it opens up the Shakespeare story even wider, but solves the bed in the will. Why do I think they are? Easy, poetry flows out of Wendoll’s mouth; therefore if he’s not the Bard he must be Marlowe! This poetry is used on the other hand, to seduce Anne Frankford, with a declaration of love. If the play follows true to life, then Christopher did declare his love to William’s wife and she succumbed. However the play reveals that a servant, who told William, saw them. He (after disbelief passes) resolves to say nothing, which also fits in with some of the plays in the Works. He returns home one day to find Marlowe and Anne “close in each other’s arms and fast asleep.” Though he chases Marlowe with his sword he does not kill him. As for Anne, he resolves not to treat her badly (hence the title) but send her to another property he has. Nevertheless she is not to speak to him or have any association. In the drama, Anne does not eat and goes into decline (health wise) which she does not recover from. It does bring her husband back to her and reconciliation, before she expires. This may have happened to Anne Shakespeare, only she did not die. It does explain the bed though, in the will. For that is where William caught them. It’s William’s idea of a joke, though clearly it’s a sick one! The question however that remains unsolved, for a brief moment, was Marlowe the man having it off with William’s wife? Let’s get Christopher to admit the truth. This he does in his own poetry <em>All Ovid’s Elegies</em>. Verse 4 starts with “Thy husband to a banquet goes with me.” So there you have it! He then makes it clear that William drinks a lot, that we already have gathered, and he did have sex with her! To continue with this extremely passionate affair he tells her, ‘the Moon’ sleeps with her husband every day and he thinks Anne is as beautiful as the moon, which was the Queen of course. Needless to say Shakespeare never had sex with Elizabeth, though Anne must have doubted her husband was loyal to her, as far as the Queen was concerned. If William’s muse is the Queen, then in turn Christopher’s was Anne Shakespeare. So I was wrong Anne did know about the way William felt to Elizabeth. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: red;">The Queen’s official flattery</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Many people have a problem with Marlowe having it off with the Bard’s wife for an entirely different reason to that of the sin of adultery. It’s the gay lobby again! Sorry lads, you’re wrong about Marlowe being gay too. Thanks to our ‘nasty’ friend Robert Greene we can work out that Marlowe himself played Gaveston in his own play <em>Edward The Second</em> and Edward Alleyn </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2yJSSFgvNJMNMnMWNNi_YM8XvpFJaJNlklx0KHqiY8_toKC0GDmBHlxgw9-eK7sgvvO1gSctjthrUdGF5gIaB1rUY4xmVQj_9nPxgJ8gawFrYl-4Y_HkoQhY-kHBri6u2DRRaKrL3GvT-/s1600/Alleyn001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2yJSSFgvNJMNMnMWNNi_YM8XvpFJaJNlklx0KHqiY8_toKC0GDmBHlxgw9-eK7sgvvO1gSctjthrUdGF5gIaB1rUY4xmVQj_9nPxgJ8gawFrYl-4Y_HkoQhY-kHBri6u2DRRaKrL3GvT-/s320/Alleyn001.jpg" width="199" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">played King Edward, (clever use of the actor’s own name!). The gay and anti-gay lobby quickly picked up on the close relationship between the two characters, jumping to all the wrong conclusions. What seems to have happened is that Marlowe acting in somebody’s play was seen as the ultimate sycophant! He became typecast and used it fully. With Elizabeth feeling the way she did about creeps like that, maybe it was her that sparked it all off. So he did it to flatter her even more and so the problem got worse. Greene couldn’t stand any of them. So he called Marlowe (and Alleyn) a “prat in the King’s chamber”. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Of course there is a remark of Marlowe about liking ‘boys’. However this was probably the dislike of the female actress’s in the Queen’s players and that Shakespeare was cheating on his wife with them. The ‘boys’ were the acting members used by some of the companies. Again Shakespeare probably did not like using them for female roles. Since nobody latched on to the use of female actors, this is only a modern mistake; still what is it about this gay latching thing and Elizabethan acting? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Returning to Christopher Marlowe’s death in 1592 you may think that this would be welcome by the Bard, after what he has done. It would correct the idea he was his friend, which I mentioned earlier in this chapter. I believe it doesn’t, as friendship can survive even this. Therefore I don’t think for one moment his death was anyway connected to William ordering it, it could have been due to someone who saw his act of adultery as a rotten thing to do to the Bard, though of course the Bard had no need to talk. After all when the cat’s away the mice will play, which is even quoted in the play. For William did leave his wife in Stratford on her own. The play never resolves what happens to Wendoll, it does show the immense toleration, even to Marlowe, Shakespeare has and his wife’s self-punishment, which reflects after William’s death, I think. Although like his wife, the Bard may have made Christopher pay in his Works. In <em>Much Ado About Nothing</em> the Bard clearly got him to play the nasty Don John part. This comedy dates to 1586, so fits in nicely. And now you know why his wife stops having children with him! Historians point out that it’s unusual for a married couple to have so few children then, he had three with her by 1585 then they stop. So it must have been 1585/6 when he caught her! </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: red;">Printing muck</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Then suddenly I was struck by the thought that just maybe I was viewing the bard with a rose-tinted view! Supposing other playwrights didn’t like Shakespeare, we know the Green didn’t and he appealed to others to take him on! What if they did? Then maybe they hit him where it hurt most, by telling about his private life. They knew it alright, Shakespeare bragged too much. So loads of other writers milked Shakespeare’s life, for instance Beaumont and Fletcher in <em>The Maid’s Tragedy</em> have a character frightened of being exposed as being cuckold. It makes you think that all these writers did was observing one another and writing it down! Anyway in the same play the chap who’s been cuckold has a sword fence with the culprit. If this is Marlowe and Shakespeare brawling it probably happened in 1586 or the following year, because Marlowe brings out some plays of his own that year and because he is Walsingham’s man he gets them recorded! Maybe he was politically silenced after all! </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Then again! I think maybe Marlowe was actually the cause of this split in the first place. All the play writers go on about cuckolding incident, they were happy working with one another then Marlowe messes things up, so in the end reported to the Queen that Shakespeare had a wife. And you can guess the rest. Maybe that’s why the picture of Shakespeare holding the Queen’s hand is painted in 1588, to get back in her good books? The other thing that bugs me was that knowing Marlowe acted in the works, why is he not in the list of actors in the 1623 volume? Then I understood. He was more hated than Greene! If Shakespeare wept for his friend nobody else did. Most of the actors were pretty rough types, Ben Jonson a sarcastic hero worshipper of The Bard, called him ‘gentle’ well as I said he beat up the schoolmaster and there are incidents in public records of violence towards others. Marlowe in court could have put an end to many of actors/writers living for good, closing the theatres down. Marlowe might have been as popular as the King of Spain! </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">I do not except the view that it took his Shakespeare’s fellows seven years to prepare the Works for publication. A single printing press maybe could turn out 250 sheets an hour. A small number of copies could take a few months to be ready to sell in shops. Even now biographies of dead people are out within months of their death, this includes writing time! So why wait? I think Anne would have prevented them from carrying out anything to make any kind of monument to her late husband, in accordance with his wishes. His daughters did not however feel the same way. After Anne died of old age, perhaps after a long illness, or and also being in such a way that she no longer had the power to make decisions or even speak during the sickness. William’s remaining family took the decision to consent to the publication of the Works. However they were not, I don’t believe, in a position to provide the plays, as they had been destroyed, as above. So the plays in the 1623 works were found in the theatres store rooms, printed up from them. That explains why they are all revised plays, with none purely from the earlier period of 1580-1590. But then again if, like historians, you don’t know what you are looking at, you will never see Shakespeare having a go at Catholics in some of the plays. The truth is that this book is a sanitised version of the real works. It’s like a modern film, badly edited to pass censorship requirements. Or indeed a political work again censored to make a government look good. And indeed in this case it was probably done to make the King look good. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">With the death of Anne in 1623 and the need to dig around Shakespeare’s grave, the family and fellows finally got the monument to the man put in place. Leonard Diggs also knew the stone with the curse, that Shakespeare had composed himself, which he calls “that stone” in the first folio, would not last, nor would the “Stratford Moniment”. This ‘Monument’ was erected to coincide with the printing of the Works. At a pound a copy they were not cheap, so they must have been made to order from the shop they were sold at, though one is not mentioned. The monument when first erected was not quite the one we see today. The figure is nearly the same; and yet by 1746 the fame of Shakespeare was sufficient to have people going to see and take bits away with them, plus the natural decay factor! So Joseph Greene had it restored and “beautified”. Later on it was ‘whitewashed’, before being restored again! The figure was originally carved by a Dutch man who was living in Southwark at the time; some people think it’s a crude depiction of William. However it could have cost as much as 100 pounds and was therefore a very classy showpiece, when you consider that the most expensive ‘family’ monument of the period was just £600. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Still why did he die at only the age of 53? Back to the drink again, I’m afraid, in the end it killed him!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: red;">Verdict on Bard’s death</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">You now know that he did have a drink problem and so when we see a record of Shakespeare having a ‘merry-meeting’ with his friends we can be certain that it will be true. Then when you </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDGESVOkn9k0W5FzcIMMJgq4ncSGj2eUd8-rAdXhx_wFzilF0HDVFQiYvBPx4oPDQTawYlOTt5MnQ71jRDvrgBbmUaBsnZ5PAHKqRWlJ6Gs0FiQzhmeP03WtGK6OFuhYcWHLs7olH4qkdX/s1600/2095CC0D.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="146" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDGESVOkn9k0W5FzcIMMJgq4ncSGj2eUd8-rAdXhx_wFzilF0HDVFQiYvBPx4oPDQTawYlOTt5MnQ71jRDvrgBbmUaBsnZ5PAHKqRWlJ6Gs0FiQzhmeP03WtGK6OFuhYcWHLs7olH4qkdX/s400/2095CC0D.bmp" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">know that this is from the same vicar John Ward, admittedly in a late reference in 1662, then you know it’s true. “Merry” is by the way the polite way of saying, and excuse the language, but it makes the most impact to those who doubt, “PISSED”.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">We learn that those involved, also were Ben Jonson, another who liked his drink, and Michael Drayton, who later became the ’Poet Laureate’. Ward says that William drank too hard and developed a fever and died of it. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">This ’fever’ was alcoholic poisoning and that his liver could not take it anymore and packed in. He would have looked yellow while ill and in agony. On the 25 April he was buried - as legend has it 17 feet down. This was of course unlikely to be true and is another testimony to his </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgidhn7EISGEvDAcxINjJEkWDorO266HHv5ScO0ARdHZNoPTD28E2qfbUEWzzSlimykOGxefoNiCt7yg-ocybe8ofe1o9o4VZMuis4eMlowjyG1cxER8Xf-WkGnRLSsHRltzQ2vCxpa8CU5/s1600/Death+Mask.BMP" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgidhn7EISGEvDAcxINjJEkWDorO266HHv5ScO0ARdHZNoPTD28E2qfbUEWzzSlimykOGxefoNiCt7yg-ocybe8ofe1o9o4VZMuis4eMlowjyG1cxER8Xf-WkGnRLSsHRltzQ2vCxpa8CU5/s200/Death+Mask.BMP" width="130" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">drinking ability! Stratford Church is on the banks of the River Avon, if you dug down 17 feet you would hit the water table of the river, meaning his body would have been washed away, according to those who don’t get the comic story! The joke being he could sup a river dry!! It all fits with the perfect joker that William Shakespeare was.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Incidentally over in a German museum, there’s a death mask reputedly belonging to Shakespeare. Is it him? Well if it is dated to that time and everything seems to suggest it is, then it does look as if it is our man. It looks like portraits; it strongly resembles the Stratford Church memorial and why go to all that trouble of faking it! </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">By 2006 extensive research had been done on the Mask, which did prove it was a genuine face mask… A team also linked it with Shakespeare… And showed how it related to the memorial… They also found things wrong (health wise) with the man in the mask. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: red;">Graham’s Brick</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">I was going to end this chapter just before the mask details coming to light, however in the course of doing more research I came across James Graham’s <em>The Secret History of Alcoholism</em>. His book hit me like a large brick on the head!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The alcoholic symptoms seen in James’ book match Shakespeare’s precisely. James Graham believes that people who become writers don’t just get drunk, because of what they do or have developed into. They start out as alcoholic to begin with and then turn famous or writers or both! This is done to satisfy egomania, usually a selfish desire and can be destructive, as Thomas Nashe describes it “Lion drunk” where the drunk breaks pots and glass in windows, calls the landlady names and picks quarrels with strangers. Conceit and telling lies are way up on Shakespeare’s - ‘I did that list.’ Both are symptoms and were recognised at the time, by others as well as Nashe (who calls it ‘sheep drunk’) much like Robert Green in his much quoted attack on the Bard. Though as it turns out Green was also an alcoholic, thus suffering from the same problem. They are not too dissimilar to journalists or politicians that are drinking nowadays, when they spread lies about other people. All of them have ego-boosting roles, like the playwrights of Elizabethan times. It’s also worth mentioning that Thomas Nash was also a drinker and is seen as one of the founders of newspaper journalism. He didn’t get on with his associates calling them ‘base ink-droppers’ or ‘scurvie peddling poets’. Fortunately for them he didn’t live past 33. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">James Graham’s other symptoms fit William (and his writer pals) tooth and nail. They are listed as: craftiness, grandiose behaviour, door-matting, rejection of friends, aggressive sexual, unreasonable resentments, charm, careful grooming, association with social inferiors, rejection of religion and extraordinary consumption. Although it’s not possible to confirm all the other effects of his drinking, in Graham’s lists, while others only relate to modern times, it is easy to spot the others. Many of the indicators can be seen elsewhere in this chapter and book, however others need elaboration. His spending money, as mentioned fits the ‘grand’ behaviour pattern. We can add Anchovies and Capons at around 2 shillings each item, to the luxury list. The cost for these can be got from <em>King Henry IV part 1.</em> Along with TWO gallons of sack to make up the extraordinary consumption, costing 5 shillings and 8 pence! A computer check of all the works for the word ‘sack’ reveals it is used in 12 of the plays and 45 times, having said that 7 are the other forms of the word. That’s only a quarter of them still, not really alcoholic levels, till you see that wine is mentioned in 3 quarters of the dramas. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The sexual adventures of William are legendary; two wives, ladies in waiting at the court, and wives of the rich and powerful, as well as prostitutes. He must have had charm to do this. Only one tale has survived however. One woman after seeing a play about one of the King Richards is reported as wanting to see the actor who played him. However Shakespeare intercepted this female, telling her that: “William the Conqueror came before King Richard.” We have more references, relating to sex, than Jesus, because of censorship stopping “Jesus” on religious grounds. The word ‘will’ has sexual overtones, as indeed the whole of the bard’s name does. For instance in the marriage entry for his second wife, his surname is ‘Shagspere’. William being a comedian said that to the vicar you can bet! Indeed his shortened Christian name is used in the Sonnets in a sexy way. The Revels office, which did the censorship, didn’t mind sex much, only politics was censored! Talking of Richard and politics, you can’t get more resentful than the line “Now is the winter of our discontent” and that has gone done in history as the resentment of trade unions in 1979 ‘winter of discontent’. Again social issues where around in his day and the middle class Stratford man hung around with the London low life.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Spending more money on clothes to look good, dressing up market, was what William did, till another symptom of his drinking changed his religion and clothes!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Nevertheless statistically William has a high chance of being an alcoholic anyway, with his profession of being an actor and writer. For death from liver disease, related to drinking, is second commonest in writers. Indeed the only ones who suffer more than writers are those who work in drinking establishments. As for actors you only have to look at the show-business publications to see how many finish up in rehab clinics, get caught on drink-driving offences or ruin there careers through it, many of them Shakespearean actors too. It seems they have more in common, with the Bard, through drinking, than acting! </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Another effect of the drink may have been to make sure his parents were social outcasts, though his religion and contact with the Queen did that as well. Sadly (to our eyes anyway) John and Mary Shakespeare finish up with no friends and needing poverty relief. While their son is getting on in the world, not to unlike some famous people today is he?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Lastly the physical effects of drinking can be seen in the way he appears in known pictures of him. He seems to have grown fat as he aged and lost his youthful good looks. William got to look like a chipmunk in later portraits, though his high forehead may have been hereditary. He has long thick hair, which turns out to be one of the few benefits of his drinking. We also have yet another explanation of his speculated bad treatment of his wife, there’s little to be said that is nice of what a drinkers home life can be like. So I’ll let one of Shakespeare’s women give us a clue “Very vilely in the morning when he is sober; and most vilely in the afternoon when he is drunk. When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. An the worst fall that ever fell.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: red;">Dead drunk or just dead?</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Nevertheless, if you take out all the material relating to alcohol related problems and even pour scorn on the only document relating to the Bard’s death, by John Ward, you can make news headlines by saying Shakespeare died of a rare disease. A Professor Hertl in 1998 made a diagnosis of Mikulicz Syndrome just by looking at the portraits of Shakespeare and this was eventually added to in the book <em>The True Face of William Shakespeare</em>. Mikulicz syndrome is very rare (even today), it affects the tear glands of the eyes and it was also noticed on the death Mask. In fact numerous portraits and busts were all compared in this volume. Various other doctors gave medical opinions that seem to be connected with their fields of expertise, such as Professor Metz, who is a dermatologist. He for example, thus finds a skin condition that would kill William. This needless to say would have seen the man having a lot of pain. There’s no evidence for this, so a sonnet number 110 is used to back this argument up in the book. Unfortunately it was an Elizabeth one! They also have him in considerable pain in the 1590’s, but most have him writing and performing during this period. The book also concludes Ward’s story was invention and that Shakespeare detested drunkenness from the usage in his plays! If you know anything about alcoholics they might well detest drunks, most people do, it’s just that they are ‘never’ like that!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">It’s not clear if any of the symptoms found by these experts could also be applied to anyone who suffered from alcohol related illnesses. Nor if these people would change their minds if they were made aware of this, then again did they already know that Shakespeare might have been an alcoholic? One of them did find ‘yellow spots’ (a liver problem?) and yet I do know that the cancer references in their reports could be linked with demon drink. Drinkers are also well known for having blood shot eyes. Perhaps if an expert in alcohol related problems looked at the evidence? Then again can we find an expert to lead us into a merry dance, as with Mad George and his field of experts on his sickness or Mary Stuart and hers? More importantly I just can’t understand why Ward’s comments are dismissed and those of John Aubrey accepted. I am not saying that Aubrey’s comments on Shakespeare are not nearer the truth or indeed truthful. Yet if Ward is right there may be evidence to back this up. Thus to pick and choose between ‘documentary data’ is to my way of thinking possibly bad practice. However I can’t say I’m not guilty of this either. Perhaps historians and indeed we humans are all guilty of this? To be fare to those doctors they did believe he was suffering from a chronic illness. Ironically the proof of Ward’s accuracy could possibly be in the same book on page 101. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: red;">Dead Yellow man in bed</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">The merry meeting that Shakespeare had with his friends that Ward describes includes Ben Jonson and on that very page we find Jonson’s deathbed scene, having said that the frame says Shakespeare. Once again the details are explained for this picture being Jonson and not </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNmGBbctt4qSno2UVq35ZjhYYC1DQkI5-3725aqG3M5An6w147WAFpbc61wcf71fifG866T6Mk4CDqRAsjhwJcUmZ5XfX_iuhwNFoPh3SuRb4chkhbj1DSDNFp9Cg_18H7OqnD_6h-oUTn/s1600/Dead+man1.BMP" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="181" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNmGBbctt4qSno2UVq35ZjhYYC1DQkI5-3725aqG3M5An6w147WAFpbc61wcf71fifG866T6Mk4CDqRAsjhwJcUmZ5XfX_iuhwNFoPh3SuRb4chkhbj1DSDNFp9Cg_18H7OqnD_6h-oUTn/s320/Dead+man1.BMP" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Shakespeare. Yet they are simply based on the portraits of Ben and a date of 1637. This date is of course the date of Jonson’s death and not William’s in 1616, the rest of the material confirms that it is genuinely of that date - pretty convincing stuff, well yes and no. So why did Shakespeare’s name appear in the first place? This is off course not discussed. So what happens if both name and date are not errors and were both placed on the picture at the time period 1616-1637? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Now we can return to Ward, if Ben was there he would have hung around to see what happened to William. He wouldn’t have to wait long and he would have seen him go yellow, before he died. Back to the picture, if the colour illustration, in the book is correct our corpse in bed is pale yellow. Many people have also seen a resemblance to Shakespeare in the dead man and this is mentioned and dismissed in the same book. Yet back to square one with the date…No, Jonson makes it clear in the first edition of the works that he idolises Shakespeare. We also know that he likes painting people as well. So is it so great a leap of imagination that Jonson painted the dead Shakespeare, because he worshiped his dead friend? And the date, well Jonson would keep this picture of Shakespeare secret; quite possibly because it was just too personal to him and as I have explained Shakespeare also rejected the fame side of his life. Jonson might want to abide by this rule, yet more likely wouldn’t want to discus that his idol died drinking. So the painting is found in Jonson things when he died and 1637 is added to it at that stage. Problem solved, Ben Jonson’s painting of William Shakespeare after his death in 1616 of liver failure! If Ben was there he would/could have told us what happened. If only he kept a diary, or some other written work! Well these writers are all the same the take real events and make plays about them. We just have to fit the pieces together. <em>The Devil is an Ass</em> is believed to have hit the stage in October/November 1616, a good few months after the Bard’s death. Katherine Duncan-Jones in 2001, who doesn’t pour scorn on the vicar’s news of the death of the Bard, saw the link with Jonson’s play. Unfortunately she had no idea of the connections of alcohol, Anne’s adultery, or Jonson’s sarcastic comments about the Bard. Well we do now and the death-bed scene in Ben’s play is a full description of the Shakespeare’s death. Jonson calls him Fabian Fitzdottrell and as liver failure would lead to poisons entering the brain and fever, we find him mad and laughing. Anne Shakespeare is there and she is getting a torrent of abuse from William, according to the play. He is foaming at the mouth and calling her a ‘whore’ and swearing at both her and the lawyer who wrote out his will, also apparently present. But Ben gives out his best clue to the fact it’s Shakespeare’s death he is casting light on, when the dying character starts giving out bits of bad Greek, Spanish, French and different forms of English. And we all know what Ben said about the Bard over his Latin and Greek. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;">What about the eye disease? Well he might well have, but could he notice it when he spent a great deal of time blind –drunk that is! </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-77065554252002388062013-03-11T10:59:00.000-07:002013-03-11T10:59:16.476-07:00Real William Shakespeare Chapter 5<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: red; font-size: x-large;">Chapter 5</span></h2>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: red; font-size: x-large;">ART OF DECEPTION</span></h2>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">CULT OR NO CULT there is still something wrong with the way the Elizabethans painted pictures and in particular the Queen’s. Artists clearly had moral restrictions placed on them or they were self-imposed. This is best demonstrated by the absence of eyebrows in pictures. However if the mask of Mary Stuart’s face is her or was taken from some woman's face at that time, then it is clear that women did not always cut them off, as many academics think. Nevertheless most of the female portraits (English) look very odd to modern eyes. Elizabeth’s even more so. Did the people then view them strange to look at? The answer must be yes. So why did they not make female images that looked like the real women? Men’s pictures on the whole seem to be reasonably accurate. You can see resemblances to men alive now in them. The only portraits that look like how real women appear are the miniatures. Larger scale paintings of women rarely capture a good likeness to any person living, never mind those who are dead.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Discrimination in pictures seems to be at work. Feminist might argue that because artists were mostly male then this would answer the question. There is something wrong with such a theory. Men would tend to portray these women as being very beautiful. In some cases this may be true. Hilliard’s miniature of his wife is certainly one of his best. Yet you would expect his wife to be painted just like that. It certainly isn’t the case with many of the women painted. Perhaps the artists were not very good at painting women? Can't be that! Many are very good at painting men, so why the big difference with females? While it may be true that some are not good at painting scenery, especially in perspective (Hilliard himself was hopeless at it!) Yet many are good at fine details, so why should the female face flummox them?</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">We could also ask if the men are painted good, why didn’t their wives and so forth, object to their own painted likeness and for them to be treated in the same way. No there wasn’t a feminist movement then, though if this was the case it would surely have started one! What about the reverse of this in the men’s pictures, why did artists go into detail on their faces?</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">As I ponder over these problems, I kept being drawn back to the fact that a woman was on the throne, not a man. As I have already spoken of the problems of Elizabeth and having portraits painted, I do not need to add emphasis to that aspect of her. Yet we need to go into greater depth on many of the portraits that are supposed to look like her. This I think is necessary, because I think it can resolve some of the above problems.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Leaving aside the miniatures for a while, we can look at a few earlier pictures of the Queen to start. The first must be the coronation picture; here we see the first of many problems, connected to the Queen. This one is unavoidable and plagues all of them; it’s a question of age. No not when it was painted, though it is a later copy of the original, but the length of time since it was painted. Four hundred years plus. Like most things paint changes over time. Art experts know what materials these pictures were painted with; they also know how stable each one is over time. Yet I am not convinced they can predict what a colour will do after 400 years. These paintings have been hung in many different places, not just galleries and museums. Today we can stop colour change and decay or restore most paintings. Yet how do they know what these paintings looked like 400 years ago, if you really do not know how paint changes over that time. The climate of the place they are placed will change from day to day; others are all random, pollution, smoke, cleaning methods. The artist too did not just pop into his local shop for a tin of Dulux either! They mixed there own colours, though they did buy the base colours, plus he or she did not leave a manual as to how each individual picture was painted. So nobody can tell me that any picture (restored or not) looked like it did then as it does now!</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">That doesn’t explain why the two sex’s pictures are different. Though many white faced women may have a more pinkie look to them, including the Queen’s coronation picture. So the colours of these pictures change, dramatic loss can be seen in some. Silver pearls are now black. Yes, I do know there are black ones! Green and Yellow seem to be the worst offenders. The yellow loss on this portrait must affect the colour of her hair. Though this is still within the descriptions of her, it’s much worse on other pictures of the Queen with it turning or leaving it red, making us believe she had red hair! Now I can imagine art historians saying "NO NO it was painted that colour". We thus need a test picture! Today when pictures and colour things are printed, a pattern of colours is printed, mostly on the edge of whatever is being printed, though sometimes it can be seen say on colour newspapers for example. The printer compares his original pattern with what's been printed and can adjust the colour on future copies. Of course, 16th Century painters did not run off copies with machines. There are copies though and we can compare colours between these. Still there is one picture of Elizabeth that has a colour pattern that could be used as our test, though we cannot be certain of the perfect colour match.</span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">Rainbow affect</span></h3>
<span style="color: #38761d;">I first started thinking that the Rainbow Portrait of the Queen was much earlier than 1599. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_cI9DekcCTuP8WlyXMi-FYbHb-3CblM2l9WQdRkj_nBXQnuKPTY8zOwrB0DlbJ7Tg5NRKnGbE3S23BKaHdFNLa0t7jKymOpet9V6vDw8QvasLjLqNaNPTFK6-2w7L7kQN8gmjuLN1D7mU/s1600/eliz1-rainbow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_cI9DekcCTuP8WlyXMi-FYbHb-3CblM2l9WQdRkj_nBXQnuKPTY8zOwrB0DlbJ7Tg5NRKnGbE3S23BKaHdFNLa0t7jKymOpet9V6vDw8QvasLjLqNaNPTFK6-2w7L7kQN8gmjuLN1D7mU/s320/eliz1-rainbow.jpg" width="252" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">However the thing that caught my eye was the strange object the Queen held in her hand. It looks today like the ghost of some kind of chair back! Yet it's a rainbow, hence the picture’s name. Close up you can see the bands. Though I don't care what anyone says, surely rainbows are meant to be brightly coloured, yet this one isn’t! Plus where is the yellow and green? And blue come to that? </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">You now know the test pattern; yes it’s the rainbow. So if this were brightly coloured when painted, and lost this much in 400 years, what would have happen to the rest of the colours in this picture. In this painting Elizabeth has red hair; however with the yellow gone, could it have been blond hair! What colour I wonder was the now orange cloak originally, was there any blue in the picture? The patterning on the right sleeve could have blue and yellow, gold on it. The now stone coloured cloak has lines of pattern on it, which may have been more elaborate, also the bodice and sleeves (body) colour has gone either white or has a brownish stain. This suggests that either bad varnish is responsible, or more likely this has also degraded and with the white patches unevenly. The colour of the pearls may give us a clue to what the original pigment was on these two parts. These pearls can be either white or silver, and with the bodice hue matching the pearls so much so, the pearls leading to the large cluster are nearly camouflaged. As the white lace seems intact though perhaps dull, this surely means the pearls, the bodice and sleeves, where silver when first painted. It must be said that this picture was very highly coloured. The reason for this is that Elizabeth is the sun, bringing out the rainbow, which is what the artist (unknown) is trying to say. The Latin motto adds emphasis to this; not without the Sun a Rainbow, it says translated properly. I next saw the rainbow terminating at the strange cloak and realised what colour that garment was. Gold! What else do you find at the end of a rainbow? Before I leave this picture its worth pointing out that I think the original artist never painted the eyes and ears on the gold cloak. Indeed parts of the cloak don't have them attached. In some cases they cross over the folds in the material. This early vandalism of the painting was probably brought about by a later member of the Cecil family. I would certainly dispute that it was because the Queen could hear and see everything that went of, as some historians have stated. Really she would not want to go down in history as a nosey parker, would she? Many people (after her death) don’t like her views on religion and the execution of several people. They could have added such things, shortly after her death in 1603. Perhaps Robert Cecil had them added when James Stuart saw the portrait for the first time making some comment, about her, which fits in with the eyes. There’s another possibility due to the Queen’s very own eyes, the way this image has developed. It’s purely a physical thing, in that those black eyes of Liz’s had an unnerving effect on people, when she looked at them. I’ve seen this is one modern woman whose eyes were so striking they might even make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, when looking (quite normally) at you. Lastly that hat is amazing with the bands of pearls, then mixed with what are now black figure eights, it’s hard to say what colour it was, although the hat even today has delicate patterns still visible. </span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">Armada bows</span></h3>
<span style="color: #38761d;">Another test picture could be the Armada Portrait. Keeping in touch with reality, the ships in </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdOKoyQ3QXG1H5fUVkeLW_CSGf3JQf0AKGFA94677Btb3kJiVNQqWdChATjVs7_WRSH5T7QzUgLMyuRLUUUDFBSsARXVikgRSdPmjJVlTpbzDiLA77qrWlp29gTwtxf4bPLfIxKDu7qfq2/s1600/Armada+Portrait.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdOKoyQ3QXG1H5fUVkeLW_CSGf3JQf0AKGFA94677Btb3kJiVNQqWdChATjVs7_WRSH5T7QzUgLMyuRLUUUDFBSsARXVikgRSdPmjJVlTpbzDiLA77qrWlp29gTwtxf4bPLfIxKDu7qfq2/s320/Armada+Portrait.jpg" width="249" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">this one appear to be in a sea of sand! Blue therefore would be the correct colour and once again appears absent from the portrait. Like the previous picture a second version was made. It has been chopped down, yet comparison can be made between the two. The reds in both pictures have massive variations in hue, although I think that the bows (some) might have been scarlet. The other bow colour was blue. In one picture this blue has become chocolate! The other picture has oyster, for both colours of bows, with streaks of grey/blue on the original blue bows. So both pictures would have had alternate Scarlet and Blue bows. Once again it suggests a massive loss of colour and the loss being variable on both pictures. The globe has lost its water colour and sit on a cloth, which would have been that beige green style cloth. The picture must have inspired Shakespeare and his friends to name the later theatre after the globe.</span> <br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">While looking at these pictures I noticed that the head and ruff were strangely put on to the rest of the body. The complete one looks as if it had been stuck on or painted over whatever was underneath. The reduced picture has the ruff destroying part of the jewels; the pearls (hung around her neck) are roughly treated and outer strands missing as they go under the ruff. The full picture has them disappearing completely under the ruff, which should show a trace of them! So this looks like, in both these paintings, the artist who painted the face of the Queen and had to remove it and then paint a new face on. Perhaps even a different artist was used; maybe the original artists refused to alter the picture!</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">This has to have been the Queen’s doing. The originals were too good looking for Elizabeth! Once again colour loss might mean that even these white faces were not painted that colour and the red hair again was blond! Both of these features have become synonymous with the Queen’s image yet both are false. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">To demonstrate the difference between a portrait as it appears now and how it would have looked then is to put back the colour. Now I’m no artist so what I’m going to show you is by no means perfect, but it will have to suffice. So I have put back the colour to the Armada picture.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPyLnSPj6_Tp1lXBnA1zlgSJ4z4dfvveO7P0fOMvcv7sYEV8C9_0e9PAX8_2nZ4osG9UhoGxDHEp3FTRb9ttqJwx_ul96Ugk6BK2xvW2rgtSMVk4FlGsKZpFf8FHK7Eu1r4sQXebYAaerj/s1600/ARMADA+RESTORED.BMP" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="371" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPyLnSPj6_Tp1lXBnA1zlgSJ4z4dfvveO7P0fOMvcv7sYEV8C9_0e9PAX8_2nZ4osG9UhoGxDHEp3FTRb9ttqJwx_ul96Ugk6BK2xvW2rgtSMVk4FlGsKZpFf8FHK7Eu1r4sQXebYAaerj/s400/ARMADA+RESTORED.BMP" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">Darnley hand</span></h3>
<span style="color: #38761d;">Evidence of changes can be seen on earlier pictures too. The Queen's left hand on the <em>Darnley </em></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwvulBm9mp-jB4fJ41Bb5SchMukv90CoZG-3tQ99CbdZM4wbDyNxaYMuKuBYAgLGGssux6eIm-k2MEmuuXsgXNjX_s102zpzYTNo8B6QY3OvL6zNOfDYKmaoK3dpQY-bZdxytJNM9m7ZyS/s1600/Elizabeth+1+1575.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><em><img border="0" height="200" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwvulBm9mp-jB4fJ41Bb5SchMukv90CoZG-3tQ99CbdZM4wbDyNxaYMuKuBYAgLGGssux6eIm-k2MEmuuXsgXNjX_s102zpzYTNo8B6QY3OvL6zNOfDYKmaoK3dpQY-bZdxytJNM9m7ZyS/s200/Elizabeth+1+1575.jpg" width="128" /></em></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;"><em>Portrait</em> is very lifelike; on the other hand - literally - the artist has not grasped how to paint hands. This pale hand looks deformed compared with her left hand, which has flesh tones remaining and shadow tone. The head was remodelled by the same artist has the right hand; I believe the original head that was undoubtedly first placed on the body, was by the left-hand artist. It wasn't at an angle as the present head, but was like the coronation picture, face forward. The ruff was U-shaped and ghostly patterns can be seen around the shoulder and in the dark background. When it was then painted becomes a problem. For the two artists may have not seen one another at all! A date of 1575 has been attached to the picture and this may have been the case for the second painter. Yet the first painter may have started this as early as 1559. So the second artist was probably told to repaint it 16 years later. The reason must be that the Queen was sick of looking at it, like some of us now she would cringe at the sight of it. Even more so with her inferiority complex!</span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">Wanstead women</span></h3>
<span style="color: #38761d;">The Wanstead Portrait is full of symbolism, the Queen clearly likes her clothes to be shown in full advantage, yet the three parts of her body that stick out of this dress are subdued. Like a </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJzqyXQ9Bimt2g8t3tZvM0L12HeOJ7tcryR0aX2_X64sGPJ5cIPwL3G7JRqa0FPZ7RIVfOhAg7P9GcGiPNW9wuWx1EjaBBY5WFS6cL2cCyBvO5oDOEzED6i43FaN2d2xm7Pur9x4P8TSy4/s1600/elizabeth_at_wanstead_house.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJzqyXQ9Bimt2g8t3tZvM0L12HeOJ7tcryR0aX2_X64sGPJ5cIPwL3G7JRqa0FPZ7RIVfOhAg7P9GcGiPNW9wuWx1EjaBBY5WFS6cL2cCyBvO5oDOEzED6i43FaN2d2xm7Pur9x4P8TSy4/s320/elizabeth_at_wanstead_house.jpg" width="257" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">hermit crab ready to withdraw into its shell, so is Elizabeth here. However the artist then paints three figures in the background. Robert Dudley who must have commissioned the picture is seen chatting to two women. The woman on the left is perhaps Robert's sister and close friend of the Queen. The middle woman is actually Queen Elizabeth. Robert of course knew what the Queen looked like and although he didn't have the nerve to have the main figure altered, he could have the three of them added later, with the real face of Elizabeth. Maybe he thought she wouldn't notice the small face, as she did have a visual problem. It also fits in with a sketch of a woman that was credited as being unknown for many years, though is now said to be the Queen, something I drawn the same conclusion to as soon as I saw it, long before it was credited as her. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Sometimes portraits were used as gifts to foreign Kings and Queens or possible husbands. So the Queen would be reluctant to send her true likeness and sends others, which always came late. Henri Navarre was besotted with her! Presumably sending a fairly good picture to Catherine his sister (she wasn't going to marry her) Henri intercepted it and wouldn't part with it, pointing out that Elizabeth was to blame for her “great beauty”. Not surprisingly when Sir Henry Unton shows him a miniature of her Henri, goes wild with passion and kisses the miniature three times. This is despite Sir Henry saying it comes far short of her beauty! These people had nice things to say about the Queen and though her looks were greatly admired, her actions were sometimes not, even more so in Europe, where she had no control on what was said and painted. Equally where countries were supportive of English policy, it wouldn’t mean that the Queen approved of some of the pictures painted. One Flemish picture does show an attractive Elizabeth feeding a Dutch cow with Philip II sat on it. She may well have objected to the cow, yet I suspect the strongest objections would be the portrayal of herself. We don’t know if she did pose or she even saw the picture, though the fact it’s still with us may indicate she did neither. Her own personally attitude may testify to why there are not more pictures of her. Sir Walter Raleigh makes it clear that all ‘common’ painters’ pictures were destroyed by her orders. That was in England were artists were trying to make money from this popular monarch. Documentary evidence also shows that they were being sold in the streets of the major towns. Some may have been better likeness than those we have today! Like our Queen, she did wander around the south of England, with common artists, like press photographers now, may have tailed the Queen around to get a true likeness. The artists in European countries did not have the same advantage or any restrictions on what they painted. The English ambassadors sometimes complained about some of the pictures they saw. The ‘gutter’ tactics of these painters were not just confined to the politics of the day. The officials mostly objected to indecent or rude pictures of the Queen. As far as I can gather these pictures no longer survive, all we have of them is the descriptions by those who sent reports back to England. Such comments are often short, like she was on a horse, with her right hand lifting up her clothes to reveal parts of her body. Perhaps it was too embarrassing even to write about for the ambassadors. </span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">Elizabeth not Stuart</span></h3>
<span style="color: #38761d;">There again there are cases where people and the owners of some pictures don’t know what they are looking at. The popular image of Liz has made it to impossible for anyone to </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNm-4NdNVB_HGIatLK67gBawF_MykohVnUV72k4UGnuew4kJIZZloJrlQfLSETwST7uaEWBmjaK3ZsR-ZmljOWFY9wBcghcb78zXg6KuI3g1WokY-btzuMj8KmbpZ52MsdAEwhfWkp-haq/s1600/UnknownLady35+Eliz1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNm-4NdNVB_HGIatLK67gBawF_MykohVnUV72k4UGnuew4kJIZZloJrlQfLSETwST7uaEWBmjaK3ZsR-ZmljOWFY9wBcghcb78zXg6KuI3g1WokY-btzuMj8KmbpZ52MsdAEwhfWkp-haq/s320/UnknownLady35+Eliz1.jpg" width="228" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">recognise an authentic portrait of her. Once this image is rejected completely, some pictures of other people can now be disputed. So I discovered a picture, I think dating around 1565, which was credited as being Mary Queen of Scots. Hardly surprising when its frame has her coat of arms and the same can also be seen on a plaque (hung on a tree) inside the depiction. The blond woman, shown as young looking, is bedecked with jewels, rings and pomanders. However this does not mean the blond haired woman seen is Mary! She also has long fingers, more importantly she has NO cross or crucifix. Stuart’s dress style, seen in other portraits, is simpler than this picture. Her crucifix is generally shown (in full-length pictures) and has even survived, finishing up in the hands of the current Duke of Norfolk. The face bears little resemblances to neither the Francois Clouet picture of Mary, nor the picture of her youth, which does match with later portraits. The blond woman picture has no match with any later portraits, in the face or otherwise, so it can’t be Mary Stuart!</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">What would explain the coats of arms on the frame and inside, if it were not Mary? The answer is simple. Stuart owned the picture and that’s why they are on it. It was consider being either very valuable, or considerably important to her. This isn’t the only occasion when Mary puts her name on a picture for ownership purposes. A picture of Bess of Hardwick was thought to be her because of her name on it. This was even credited with being a mistake, but clearly the lettering was done when the picture was painted and presumably by the artist. He or she could have rectified this wrong name very soon after.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">It is known that Elizabeth did not consider there meeting up to be the proper thing to do, even though Mary (by 1570) was in England. The custom with all diplomatic relations between monarchs was to exchange portraits. For 18 years the only thing that these two Queens saw of each other was through art. We know this from the correspondence between them, the only other way they communicated, apart from ambassadors. It is also known that they exchanged pictures early in Mary’s captivity. Most historians believed that the picture Mary got, during this initial swap, was destroyed or lost. Yet it becomes clear from the previous observations, that this picture is a swap picture!</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">So this is one of the earliest accurate pictures of Queen Elizabeth. There’s more too! In the Victoria and Albert Museum is an unfinished miniature by Nicholas Hilliard, of an unknown woman, possibly dating to around the same time as the above? The face does resemble the face in the picture owned by Mary, which I will henceforth call the ‘Exchange Portrait’. So, although I did say the miniature was unfinished, to the artist that painted it he considered it complete. For what we find, is that the face is finished, but the dress is just drawn in with no details. Artists then, worked from an ‘approved’ pattern of the Queen, rather than having her sit for every study. The important part was the face, once the pattern artist had completed that; other artists would work from that. The clothes could be added later either with made up designs, or samples of real clothes on a dummy or a model. An example of this can be seen in another Mary Stuart picture that again is more like Elizabeth, which I will call the Crown Portrait because the Queen wears a crown in it, having said that it’s not as good a rendering as others of Elizabeth. The ‘crown’ in question is not the Scottish Coronation Crown, as that was not destroyed, unlike the English one, during Cromwell’s time. It also does not match the English one either, which seems to have been a bit like the present Scottish Crown. More to the point the sitter’s face doesn’t match any of the known images of Mary Stuart, from either when she was young or later.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Once again the V&A museum’s miniature is that of Queen Elizabeth, plus a ‘pattern’ miniature to boot! Clearly the unknown artist used it for the Exchange Portrait’s face. Another drawing entitled Shakespeare’s Consort was thought to be Anne Hathaway, the Bard’s wife. Once again this can easily be shown to be the Queen, by comparing it with the above portraits. If this picture was connected to William in any way, it is further proof of her beauty and of their relationship. Indeed the word ‘consort’ fits the Queen better than his wife would. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span>
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">Phoenix</span></h3>
<span style="color: #38761d;">The dress style with fluted puffs of material on the sleeves in the Exchange Portrait crops up on the Phoenix Portraits. Both of them are supposed to be by Nicholas Hilliard. What is interesting </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVPAC6pS9tvWwhy5K0zFCtL4lWMo6napEgTrtwrVDebSph91l_Afyo0S2hqZotlka6Y_tp4gvpf3-nRh5OnFe-3TngPpPpufeLPFA3l3uCn4E1RDU2OZIFxnspv7AP96zD454hxAnsLJ4l/s1600/Elizabeth20.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVPAC6pS9tvWwhy5K0zFCtL4lWMo6napEgTrtwrVDebSph91l_Afyo0S2hqZotlka6Y_tp4gvpf3-nRh5OnFe-3TngPpPpufeLPFA3l3uCn4E1RDU2OZIFxnspv7AP96zD454hxAnsLJ4l/s320/Elizabeth20.jpg" width="261" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">is the hand, clutching a rose in one depiction, a glove in the other. It compares well to the good hand in the Darnley Portrait. In fact I think that Hilliard must be responsible for the hand and dress in that picture, my belief based on that he specifically draws Liz’s hands to his knowledge of them. If you compare his hands of the Queen, to the other hands of the people he has painted, no match can be found with the Queen’s hands. This leaves little doubt that these pictures of Liz’s hands are as unique as fingerprints. The hands on all three portraits have the finger and thumb spaced like an arch or doorway - Hilliard’s trademark for the Queen. However the Exchange Portrait hands do not and Hilliard cannot be its painter. This may point to this picture being painted, before Nicholas started painting. I know this does contradict what I said about the pattern miniature, being the forerunner of this picture! But this does mean that Elizabeth did sit for another artist and then sat for Hilliard. He produced a pattern similar, yet independently, of the Queen’s face, which resembles the Exchange artist’s interpretation. In simple words a good resemblance of Elizabeth the1st! </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">If the Exchange picture was sent to Scotland, it’s likely that Hilliard never saw the picture at all; maybe he never met that artist and never viewed a picture of anything by him or her. Another conclusion I came to, is that both Phoenix Portraits are doubles of her. I don’t mean in their likeness, but the images themselves. Put them besides one another, and you have a mirror image; though not perfect. For one has a glove, the other a rose, plus smaller details. Nonetheless the pose is a mirrored. These images may link into the Sonnets, which use a double person. The rose is used in them also; I can but mention that William Shakespeare’s father was a glove maker too! </span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">How many Queens!</span></h3>
<span style="color: #38761d;">This is not the only time we see multiple imagery of the same person, especially Elizabeth. She crops up all over. Most art historians miss the fact that artists, like the rest of England, thought she was a goddess. So that when you see the recognisable image of the Queen and then she is followed, or in the company of other female deity, my advice to them, is to not simply assume she embodies the virtues these gods represent. No the best thing to do is assume they are (each one) Elizabeth, as much as the one everyone knows is her. Several paintings use this principal, such as <em>The Succession of Henry VIII</em>, evidently painted around 1580 to 1588, </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisx4i8RwQXiMdMmu__MX-ODviFtTbRTbTSGWr39AC63RKEtTVWoC5SNlbjsjU0-F-02uiq32sUAxzBdSq6rklKnJSazo2PP30Svi1ZoufYZrgtdacBx8ru6t-p56Ls8pZ5l1Fe1ybnzZWX/s1600/henry8family.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="291" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisx4i8RwQXiMdMmu__MX-ODviFtTbRTbTSGWr39AC63RKEtTVWoC5SNlbjsjU0-F-02uiq32sUAxzBdSq6rklKnJSazo2PP30Svi1ZoufYZrgtdacBx8ru6t-p56Ls8pZ5l1Fe1ybnzZWX/s400/henry8family.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">because of Philip of Spain, being followed by the God Mars. This picture has recognisable goddess that may not always be the case. As in a picture by the artist Hans Eworth, where she is followed by what look like ladies in waiting, when they are really copies of Elizabeth, showing different aspects of her personality. This can get very confusing when individual portraits show the same thing, especially when they are split. This might account for the features of the Ditchley Portrait, which Roy Strong thinks were softened, on copies of it. In truth you have to seen them together, like in the two sides of a coin. This also fits in with the allegorical fashion they had. It reveals they were also fascinated with personality, which is pushed to extreme in some pictures. Hilliard’s pupil, Isaac Oliver, revels in it, in a miniature dated around 1590, which fooled Roy, once again, into thinking it was about marriage, Isaac duplicates the Queen 11 times! We might also be able to Shakespeare at least 3 times! The picture is divided into two, with stately figures to the left and happy people on the right. Near the middle the Queen (depicted in black) gives a passionate kiss to a very young man, presumably </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5Xi3vRAH423HwXnvAm4p1sNPAnBllJpG5Ti0_LwT0OM7HVZWlGdt5PNQmFYm7k-Tc6LOtzwtLL-mwOKql2eyt1jG9YclIe9gRq0gFy8tSTPpP7MZyPkucD8zckZFZe19zP2dRymukCW_b/s1600/Isaac_oliver_allegory+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="206" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5Xi3vRAH423HwXnvAm4p1sNPAnBllJpG5Ti0_LwT0OM7HVZWlGdt5PNQmFYm7k-Tc6LOtzwtLL-mwOKql2eyt1jG9YclIe9gRq0gFy8tSTPpP7MZyPkucD8zckZFZe19zP2dRymukCW_b/s400/Isaac_oliver_allegory+1.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">the first meeting with Shakespeare. He wears a red jacket and the company livery of the actors was red, yet Isaac might have made a mistake for William might not have been connected to a company of players then. Still it gives the clue away. Hunters are seen as well, which ties in with William’s first meeting. The men may not all be the Bard, however, for at the left side the Queen is seen strolling with a blue jacketed man, with his arm around her waist. The two half’s of this miniature might also be showing the sad and happy sides of life.</span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">Split man</span></h3>
<span style="color: #38761d;">Oliver uses the happy side and sad, in two separate miniature’s. In A Young Man Seated beneath a Tree, the melancholic symptom is demonstrated. His arms folded, his legs crossed at the ankles, which is the same posture people have when at the dentist, his face looking like it was raining, plus he was getting wet. Yet the sky is blue, the small flowers at his feet, in bloom. The background to this picture is a palace with geometric gardens. He’s of course the ‘sad dejected muse man’ or should that be the rejected by his muse man, because Oliver has painted the opposite of this man. In this other picture, the same man, dressed in classical costume, playing a lute is happy. He sits under a tree too, the sky though is cloudy, and also to tie it in to the other picture it has the same arched canopies. With the cloudy sky he shouldn't be happy, yet he is and loads of people are, in the background. The implication being that a happy man would make everyone else happy too. He’s in love; we don’t need to work this one out for the Latin word for ‘lover’ is floating above him. At his feet are musical instruments, games, books, plus anything associated with the pleasures of life.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Who he’s in love with is not shown, though it may just be life! I don’t think he’s Shakespeare, or somebody I could put a name to. Maybe he’s not meant to be anyone! </span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">Strong’s wrong</span></h3>
<span style="color: #38761d;">Before dealing with Shakespeare and the other miniatures of the Queen, it’s only right to deal with the only large picture, from the end of her time, which shows the golden blond hair she had. <em>Elizabeth in a Procession</em> though attributed to Robert Peake the Elder; I can find not much to </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN8wkTjqWJGBtt3SeDUjJYg06vzJvoqzgtzsHqQbs6HnVW5YOn9NXgt-zcdYosKN9V6JyHueHYDZeMGjzGJJ4RrPBBZ34-rRQ971_l3V75sIqMoRNt66reMfZYiIT8mh6R2kGX_C_5bMuA/s1600/Elizabeth37.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="214" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN8wkTjqWJGBtt3SeDUjJYg06vzJvoqzgtzsHqQbs6HnVW5YOn9NXgt-zcdYosKN9V6JyHueHYDZeMGjzGJJ4RrPBBZ34-rRQ971_l3V75sIqMoRNt66reMfZYiIT8mh6R2kGX_C_5bMuA/s320/Elizabeth37.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">back this view up. Many art historians have assumed two things: First that the Queen is being carried by her courtiers and second that it is something to do with a wedding. Roy Strong dismissed both ideas and for once he is quite correct. He believed that the poles holding the Queen’s chair were too flimsy to hold the weight. Thus the courtiers were carrying a canopy to keep the sun of the Queen. Two men in red push the Queen, who’s on a wheeled carriage. The ladies in waiting then follow behind the Queen. The white/silver dressed woman and man are the reason that some have thought that they are the wedding couple. But white didn’t become popular for weddings till much later. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">While agreeing with Roy on some points, I don’t agree with him that Elizabeth didn’t look like that around 1595-1600. There’s is also the tell tale signs of paint decay in the picture and a close up on her face (apart from paint cracking) reveals that a crown can be made out, from a few trace dots of silver pearls or diamonds. Yet the frame and possibly a blue bonnet has gone completely leaving only a faint trace. The artist did however paint the wall of the building before adding the Queen’s head, at least. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Much of the blue in this picture has vanished. If you look at the sky, which can be seen only in the small area upper left, there’s hardly any blue at all. And since it’s a sunny day, from the use of the canopy, this can’t be right. The hands in the picture are very odd. The man next to the silver dressed man has a hand that looks like it’s been in a press! Also the leading man, at the far left, has a very deformed hand. Since he is reckoned to be Lord Howard, the Admiral of the fleet, we can rule this out as a physical problem. The ladies hands are not much better. There’s some similarity with Isaac Oliver, though I would have doubts about his reproduction of these hands. Perhaps it was somebody who worked under Oliver? </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">The problem over all is however what is the purpose of the procession? Even today most Royal walkabouts are connected to some opening or event. If you look at the courtier men they appear to be wearing garters. This is because they are mostly Garter Knights. As magnificent as the Queen appears, your eyes are drawn to the men’s legs almost proudly displaying their garters. Something ceremonial must be going off, because all have chains of office and carry swords, which are probably not for fighting with. As the Garter Knights ceremony still takes place to this day, this picture is clearly about it. The colours attached to each person thus signify something. The silver man may have been the most important figure in the Queen’s entourage. I think he has a look of Walsingham? Also the silver woman may be the chief of the ladies in waiting. Her importance can be added to as she has the most elaborate of the tiaras of all the women. She resembles Mary Fitton too! The dome headed man, in a sort of orange jacket and skirt; is quite possibly the key to the ceremony, as he stands out. Maybe he was awarded by them (for special service) or even created a Garter Knight. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">I think you can reverse the notion that the Queen looked like some of the representations; which depict her as full of wrinkles and some kind of battered face, that even today we might think a woman should look in her sixties. Pictures like Marcus Gheeraerts impression of the Queen in 1595 and that tomb image that can be seen in Westminster Abbey are what Elizabeth wanted us to think she was like. No doubt some university types might squander paper and words, trying to explain why, but I think you can get the general idea from the sonnets chapter. These old woman icons, they are the false images, not the Rainbow picture or Hilliard’s miniatures. Evidence in portraiture can also be seen at Cecil’s house again. A ‘wrinkled face’ of the Queen can be seen to have been placed over a young looking one. Quite well done till you look carefully and see the face doesn’t match the body position, like a mask. In this case the mask of age, not youth! If you want to know what Elizabeth really looked like in her fifties and sixties then choose a Hilliard miniature picture!</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">It turns out the Nicholas Hilliard had further training in Europe, from we don’t know who. Nevertheless he comes back with a much better grasp of the technique. These miniatures were often placed in jewel cases. After all Nicholas was a jeweller. Where they have been kept closed a lot or not handle much, they maintain some of the more delicate colouring. It was a real bag of rummaged materials that he used to paint on, from playing cards, even using ear wax, for mixing paint... Yuck! </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Nonetheless he was only allowed, by official command of the Queen, to paint her in “small compass only”. This meaning the small circles/ovals that he did. We might see that he was not the only one under strict control.</span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">Hats off to Shakespeare</span></h3>
<span style="color: #38761d;">Next we come to Shakespeare’s likeness in art. Apart from the depictions of William already mentioned in other chapters; such as the 1588 Man Clasping a Hand, or Isaac’s 27 Year Old Man, quite a few more pictures have been made of the poet/actor. Strangely Hilliard gives us a </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDb_zJ-DsoD_K9NQEdrQqIhwyd1JA92URUi0wK4VFuXw8Cwwk7q-ZL5Gt9n482LwYZlhcfbPQq5pYr_ty64kzEG7k__4G5wJ-VwvEhD47vXSgiI-T6WN8dETW8Ged59FH1YH1dnUUE0gQb/s1600/Shakespeare+1.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDb_zJ-DsoD_K9NQEdrQqIhwyd1JA92URUi0wK4VFuXw8Cwwk7q-ZL5Gt9n482LwYZlhcfbPQq5pYr_ty64kzEG7k__4G5wJ-VwvEhD47vXSgiI-T6WN8dETW8Ged59FH1YH1dnUUE0gQb/s320/Shakespeare+1.bmp" width="278" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5acsOe_KNJbj1nfZC6A0fRjjtNtcn79X-VteltiXZiWeZFGNjpk9afiN01EkCzFeBTe6QrPDCxjTOsO3NYHQJdvcFzzTnfWYn39YT3wvWwcGnpUHmv-rKQ6ANe_el1tr7LkRK5qwDqZ5f/s1600/Shakespeare+2.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5acsOe_KNJbj1nfZC6A0fRjjtNtcn79X-VteltiXZiWeZFGNjpk9afiN01EkCzFeBTe6QrPDCxjTOsO3NYHQJdvcFzzTnfWYn39YT3wvWwcGnpUHmv-rKQ6ANe_el1tr7LkRK5qwDqZ5f/s320/Shakespeare+2.bmp" width="224" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">clue in the Man Clasping a Hand picture and it’s not what you might think. The early theatres were open to the air and actors to keep the sun and rain off wore hats! To link with Shakespeare, John Audeley of Nottingham gets into a spot of bother with the authorities, being Catholic. He just so happens to be friends with the Bard’s father. He is friendly enough to pay more than £20 for him over the trouble. What is this Nottingham man’s trade? A hat maker! So that’s how you get a decent hat - shop him – and don’t pay the bill!</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Many artists have cashed in on the man’s fame to produce types of paintings that do not even resemble those that others and I have credited as being Shakespeare. Some of these fanciful icons have him looking more like a Lord than an actor! Whilst there’s much information spread about, which I can prove wrong, about the years when William was famous, or at least had the opportunity to pose for artists and pay them! You can never be certain if they don’t match the only known drawing in the 1623 works. Allowing for the age difference, which I would put when </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqAs0Q4EeesRf46xOqHWYgrB9RHdCyEPQjH_z8i0DOMzLnmnLTUwSioR5jhLNW5gbev29rg50eX7p24ocFAc8mDEI1r6oEKTD9B-Y598A39UOfEbkNbtllAqwoJIhlw37HIJ10DGYhKe-2/s1600/UnknownMan10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqAs0Q4EeesRf46xOqHWYgrB9RHdCyEPQjH_z8i0DOMzLnmnLTUwSioR5jhLNW5gbev29rg50eX7p24ocFAc8mDEI1r6oEKTD9B-Y598A39UOfEbkNbtllAqwoJIhlw37HIJ10DGYhKe-2/s320/UnknownMan10.jpg" width="194" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">he was around 50 years old, when commissioned, of Martin Droeshout engraved image; those early pictures do fit in with it. Martin’s print was taken from a painting, though this is now in a terrible condition, maybe that was done for his fiftieth birthday! Yet again the painting may have been taken from Martin’s print! Another miniature by Isaac Oliver, that I do not believe has ever been credited as being William, as it’s always seems to be qualified as unknown in art books, has the same look of both of the above. The only real differences between these two and Oliver’s is that he gives him slightly more hair on his head and the arched shaped ruff has lace around it. The lace may have been present on the ruff Shakespeare wore when he sat for the other painting and its copy. However the artist may not have felt like doing that extra detail. Yet there’s detail on the Droeshout drawing which does match the detail on its painted original. I think that this is artistic licence on the part, because the jacket that Will wears is also like Oliver’s depiction, just better decorated, as is the ruff.</span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">The National Portrait Gallery’s picture, which they attribute to fellow actor John Taylor, I am pleased to say also matches the aforementioned paintings. A previous historian did assign their picture to Ben Jonson. I’m not sure if I would agree with that, knowing Ben’s boastful nature. If Jonson had painted his picture, then why did he not insist that his work went aside his dedication in the 1623 book? Few I think would exemplify Ben Jonson as “modest”! However I am concerned that the quality of these large scale images is much reduced and they are either copies of grander paintings, or people trying to produce depictions of William long after his death. With of course the emphasis on keeping him humble. When in reality he could easily afford a top class painter. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">I do however consider the Gerard Soest painting to be a fare likeness, of all the larger scale portraits. Its main problem for many, which it is why it’s not considered authentic enough, is that it was put on to canvas in 1656! That aside for the moment, it still fits the pattern, which can be seen, for all the depictions of the man himself. In that Shakespeare seems to have had a high forehead from being young. His hair starts out light and goes dark with age. Also it recedes, leaving him with a monk “Friar Tuck” hairstyle! As Soest image matches this pattern, I can confidently put Shakespeare’s age at around 40, maybe at the time of Elizabeth’s death. Therefore Soest was backdating his rendering by near on 53 years! Some people even think it was painted in 1723. Quite near impossible, I would have thought, as the artist died in 1681. So he must have seen some picture, painted at that time, perhaps even a faded or damaged miniature. Therefore Gerard Soest rescued Shakespeare’s image for all of us. However it may date to 1660 for the restoration of the monarchy and a boost for the theatre world. Then in 2007 the original turned up. The eyes were much larger and other features had changed. Yet this was probably due to Soest thinking they were incorrectly painted in the first place. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">The funniest thing is that William did have the auburn hair that Elizabeth craved. So no wonder her portraits have this feature. One last picture can’t be William Shakespeare because it has the wrong hair colour. The Grafton Portrait does show a man aged Shakespeare’s age in 1588, however he has black hair and this rules him out, unless he was making a reference to the black hair of the Sonnets. I wouldn’t go down that road, for the reason it was shown to be a ‘cheap’ version. The academic circle may like this but real William could easily afford a Hilliard miniature, full of symbolic meanings by 1588. Hey guess what there is one! </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #38761d;">All of these images portray William Shakespeare as wearing the black and white style of a certain religion, but why would the man become more religious than others and what was causing him to loose his good looks?</span> <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3989615734957920270.post-27735605082716748682012-10-08T13:40:00.001-07:002015-04-06T12:24:32.301-07:00Reflected People 1967-70<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: red;">1967 TO 1970</span></h2>
<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: red;">RADIO ONE OFF!</span></h2>
<br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">I wonder what would have happened if a woman had gone with the Apollo astronauts, in 1969, to the Moon? Being that the Moon is connected with the female menstrual cycle. Could a woman go to the moon? By the end of the next decade the question was would anyone go back to the Moon? A great apathy was to descend on space exploration; the costs of it were proving too much. The risk was also great. Sceptics thought that sending people to the moon was sending them to their deaths. But the US government wasn’t interested in spacemen’s lives, just showing how wonderful the USA was to the world or more likely the USSR. At the same time Hippies protesting over the Vietnam War were shattering the American dream. They were too much to handle, even for Captain Kirk! And their hair!</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvAY03ADw1XTUhvusTfhFi6v4uqDoCixe276AuozHH5nIHuLZR81yN1m53qMydTKy4fl9oh2ZiuhDURXfKfns2i53302SSA0rXwJvci8GIEful4iinE1f5SVTj43Ck8GDPFRlM9xKEaQ9x/s1600/Radio1-1967.BMP" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvAY03ADw1XTUhvusTfhFi6v4uqDoCixe276AuozHH5nIHuLZR81yN1m53qMydTKy4fl9oh2ZiuhDURXfKfns2i53302SSA0rXwJvci8GIEful4iinE1f5SVTj43Ck8GDPFRlM9xKEaQ9x/s320/Radio1-1967.BMP" height="290" nea="true" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">In Britain the radio waves were full of pirates at the start of 1967. They were soon to BBC employers or shut up, precisely what they didn’t want to be. The BBC had a monopoly on what music was heard. It was for this reason that Ronan O’ Rahilly had set up Radio Caroline in 1964. Musician and singer Georgie Fame had employed him as an agent, but Ronan had hit a brick wall trying to get Fame’s music on the airwaves. Like the internet users many years later, Pirate Radio didn’t pay for the music, unlike the BBC and the Musicians Union didn’t like that. So Tony Benn who had the power to stop the pirate stations, ever in support of Union power, did so. The pirates did end paying as they fought to stay on air, mostly in vain. Consultants were brought in to update the BBC image and the radio stations changed their names to - 2, 3 and 4, instead of Light, Third and Home. Lord Hill forced the BBC to set up Radio 1 and told them if they didn’t he would force pop on Radio 4. So the BBC employed the pirate DJs. Most were sacked within 6 months and replaced by BBC DJs such as Murray, Freeman, Young and Hamilton and of course BBC stalwart Terry Wogan. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Meanwhile teenagers’ rights were being interfered more directly at government level and they didn’t even no about it, never-mind protest. Well not directly. The 1967 Licensing Act closedown clubs for teenagers like the famous MoJo. Instead new adult type clubs opened, like </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwjctIpLe28cdCGCG6h7B57YeXE1JCTTA3TaWHxVNGCec_0KX25cFyq90kULDl6jENVTfS2yZ8PMP4BVGR1p5Qii-yn-i9b5kmRWR1D1DTfn31yAzOeU6-uDMykS7kDVoJzYoI3_ZdiEH_/s1600/Dance+Floor+at+the+Fiesta+Sheffield.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwjctIpLe28cdCGCG6h7B57YeXE1JCTTA3TaWHxVNGCec_0KX25cFyq90kULDl6jENVTfS2yZ8PMP4BVGR1p5Qii-yn-i9b5kmRWR1D1DTfn31yAzOeU6-uDMykS7kDVoJzYoI3_ZdiEH_/s320/Dance+Floor+at+the+Fiesta+Sheffield.JPG" height="199" nea="true" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">in my hometown Sheffield, the (2,000 seated) Fiesta, these became known as the Cabaret Circuit. These benefited the careers of many pop stars such as Tom Jones, Engelbert Humperdink, and a Sheffield singer called Tony Christie. Many like Tom and Engelbert had the huge number ones Delilah, The Last Waltz after clubs like these sprang into action all over the country. In Scotland the trend was the other way and clubs were folding due to the gangs and legal problems. Glasgow and Edinburgh were worst affected, some thirty Friday dances go to the wall, even civic halls sank without a trace by 1968. It didn’t stop a band setting up that would later see teenage girls wearing Tartan all over the country. However at that time they were called Saxon! Cabaret records were of course all played to death on Radio 1, which was really another radio 2, with the exception of John Peel. Tony Blackburn became the first on and played The Move’s <em>Flowers in the Rain</em>, a well known dig at the Labour Government, less well known is the record jumped all over the place! Despite bands like the Move getting some airplay Radio 1 wasn’t aimed at teenagers. Ed Stewart an ex pirate was giving the job of entertaining children and the show he was on was formerly on the light programme. He must have been sick to death of playing comedian Terry Scott’s <em>My Brother</em> and <em>Three wheels on my wagon</em>. Neither of which entered the chart, but probably sold sufficient to make it, just on his airplay.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Also in 1967, two factors put an end to the baby boom that would fuel unemployment during the late seventies and eighties, making the Government look bad, because of it. Nevertheless the politicians at the time were not keen on either. Ironically they made the unemployment go away and thus made the Government look good, taking the credit, by politicians saying it was there policy. Nor did they give them credit. The first was David Steel’s Abortion Act. This legalised and thus increased the use for women who did not want a baby. It’s generally thought by the population to be used mostly by girls under 16 and aged 16 to 20. This however is untrue and those women over 20 are more likely to have an abortion than under 16s. Still at around 30 per 1000 females, at the highest, it would only limit the population growth marginally. The major effect had to be the contraceptive pill. Without doubt this killed off the baby boom. Two doctors in the USA Gregory Pincus and John Rock had began clinical tests there in 1954, yet the pill arrived too late to stop the baby boom. By 1970 most GPs were prescribing the pill.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Something also returned to Britain that year the Gibb Brothers. </span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">Kids in love with teachers</span></h3>
<span style="color: #38761d;">As the extended school leaving age took its effect, the public turned a blind eye to bad behaviour and portrayals of this bad school life were not welcome by the British public. Lulu found out this, when because of her size she was cast in the film <em>To Sir With Love</em>. The film made mega bucks in the States and everywhere except where it was set. The reason for this was because of the racial connection of a young white girl and Sidney Poitier playing a black teacher. Lulu practical played herself apart from her name! However what shock the world and </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheUYuy5apcbWW5Fn2I4mTJPTNlKQXjQ6g4it0_PTa9l75aywhs9k1khta8IupE64UffKdY16zhdfsUxuW_3rMqaThx3qc0mTLFLsziQC1DGRPWaTIH1WK-df71uHoP6Y5yCY0TXXkQcOpv/s1600/Lulu+2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheUYuy5apcbWW5Fn2I4mTJPTNlKQXjQ6g4it0_PTa9l75aywhs9k1khta8IupE64UffKdY16zhdfsUxuW_3rMqaThx3qc0mTLFLsziQC1DGRPWaTIH1WK-df71uHoP6Y5yCY0TXXkQcOpv/s200/Lulu+2.JPG" height="200" nea="true" width="128" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #38761d;">especially the USA was mixed race teaching. Race issues such as this were not of interest to the major British public. The only real British race issue was the idea of ethnics taking low skilled jobs from workers or jumping council house waiting lists. This in the case of black teachers doesn’t apply. The title song sung by Lulu, wasn't released, which shows how unpopular the film was in Britain. The idea that bad schools foster bad behaviour comes out in the British comedy classic films about Saint Trinian’s school. Run by bad & bent head-teacher who takes money from stupid - rich (generally) – parents, with the education ministers trying to close them down, without success. The girls all spoilt rotten and the cliché more money than sense. Up against this, the public didn’t want to see working class brats. </span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: red;">Upper Class twits</span></h3>
<span style="color: #38761d;">The public however loved middle and upper class brats. In 1969 Oxford and Cambridge students had produced a TV show which typifies students even down to the title, though it bears no resemblance to the programme itself. No rock\pop music theme music, just a brass band with a raspberry blown at the end. YES it’s Monty Python’s Flying Circus, the result of practical jokes of student life, in a male dominated college. Many sketches could have been lifted from revues at college. Cleese and Co often dressed in women’s clothes, due to lack of female contact at these places. The show itself had only one bit part actress. However if you didn’t like Monty Python and found it annoying there was an American version of University students entertainment that was worse. Arizona University, found something that could annoy most people except young kids “Bubble Gum Pop”. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">Created by two men that became known as Super K, they got session musicians to put out singles with titles such as <em>Yummy Yummy I’ve got Love in my Tummy</em> and <em>Simple Simon Says</em>. Band names were just as weird, like Ohio Express and 1910 Fruitgum Company. Thus they filled chart books with acts having one hit only. Super-K had little time for the band members and shuffled them around, always complaining about making B-sides, which could feature the A-side going backwards or some other gimmick. </span><br />
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #38761d;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: orange;">Chapter incomplete</span><br />
<div align="center">
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0