‘OM’ – The 17th Earl of Oxford Edward de Vere’s Royal nativity is expressed – by this simple mathematical sum: 12 + 14 = 26.

Queen Elizabeth 1st was born on the 7th September 1533, while her initial ‘E’ is letter ‘5’ of the alphabet – numbers which added together amount to ‘12’.

Approximately eight weeks before her fifteenth birthday Princess Elizabeth gave birth to her first son ‘Oxford’, she was ‘14’ years old, and he was born in the month of July on day ‘14’ the year 1548. While it must be said, of the “divine thrusting on” that resulted in her pregnancy – her consent for this act was most probably not given? Having said that, it is a well-documented reality that Elizabeth was emotionally moved ‘her complexion flushed’ when in the company of ‘Lord Admiral Sir Thomas Seymour’ Oxford’s father.

All illegitimate princes had two birthdays (which didn’t necessarily have to be in the same year) Oxford’s official birthday was the 12th June 1550, while his TRUE date-of-creation (the actual day he was born) was July ‘14’ 1548 and precisely why Shakespeare’s sonnet ’14’ begins with an astrological allusion:


Not from the stars do I my judgement pluck
And yet me-thinks I have Astronomy.


This fanciful-world of ours (besotted by fairy-tales) is completely unreceptive to the TRUE fact ‘Oxford’ was Elizabeth’s first child, a reality confirmed by a poem he wrote called “The first” found in a work entitled “Love’s Martyr” written using the witty pen-name “Robert Chester” alluding to the city in ‘Kent’ known as “Rochester”, a location central to his very favourite tale – which tells of a robbery he organised that culminated successfully at the foot of “Gads Hill” on May 21st 1573.

His initials “E” & “V” appear in the very first line of the poem, where unusually for a title – the word “first” begins with a lower-case “f”, to focus our attention on the sinuous “T” of the word “The”, which deliberately resembles the horns of an ‘Ox’ – thus identifying himself as subject/author of the work. In confirmation of these facts, we find his triangulated anagrammatic signature dead centre of the poem: “E de Vere”.



Oxford never wrote anything more autobiographical than “King Lear” where amongst the stealthy spectre of – incest – allegory and allusion dominate Act 1. The very first word in the play identifies the character “Kent” so called in memory of the “Gads Hill” incident – when the Earl of Oxford’s men robbed his father-in-law (William Cecil’s men) a crime for which they were indicted – a tale retold in “The Famous Victories of Henry V” & “King Henry IV Part 1”.  The character “Gloucester” who appears in line three of the play Lear is so called because Oxford’s father ‘Thomas Seymour’ born at ‘Wolf Hall’ (brother of Jane Seymour) as siblings were sometime resident at their country pile ‘Sudeley Castle’ – in the county of ‘Gloucestershire’. Looking at the ‘quarto’ of Edmund/Edward’s (Sol.1) comprised of ‘14’ lines, which should more correctly be termed a ‘solson’ (as it is a soliloquy of ‘14’ lines) we find ultimately it concludes ingloriously – with the famous:

“Gods, stand up for bastards!”

While two lines later we hear from Gloucester:

“Kent banished thus? … All this done upon the Gadde”.

In the play “Gloucester” is the illegitimate Edmund’s father – pure allegory of ‘Thomas Seymour’ being Edward’s father, while Edward (Oxford) alluding to the “Gad’s Hill” robbery, cunningly selects a more expressive spelling “Gadde” thereby cleverly referencing the day of the original robbery, because in terms of gematria in conjunction with the Elizabethan alphabet: G = 7, A = 1, D = 4, D = 4, E = 5 numbers totalling ’21’ thereby identifying the day in May 1573 when the original robbery took place!

Edmund/Edward’s father then deliberates on his illegitimate son’s nativity:

Gloucester:  But I have a son, sir, by order of law (legitimate) some year elder than this, who yet is no dearer in my account. Though this knave came something saucily to the world before he was sent for, yet was his mother faire (Elizabeth), there was good sport at his making, and the whoreson must be acknowledged. Do you know this noble gentleman, Edmund?


The words “before he was sent for” relate to one event – and one event only – the 17th Earl of Oxford Edward de Vere’s Royal nativity – a miraculous event (as he was born at gestation week 26) ‘14’ weeks prematurely – a fact we find confirmed in respect of the Bastard Philip in Act 1 of the play “King John”.


Full fourteen weeks before the course of time.


Now, to briefly reiterate what I have already revealed, in referencing “Romeo & Juliet” Act 1 Scene iii – we find a proliferation of the number ‘14’ appertaining to the fact Elizabeth at age ‘14’ gave birth on day ‘14’ to an infant who was ‘14’ weeks premature.

In the play, some conversation is found between Juliet’s mother and her nurse informing us (indirectly) precisely how old she is. Juliet is ‘thirteen’ years of age when she meets her Romeo – but rather strangely only number ‘fourteen’ is mentioned – a fact mentioned five times.

Initially, Lady Capulet sends the nurse away as she wishes to talk “in private” with Juliet, before immediately recalling her saying; ‘she too must also hear our counsel’ – the conversation then continues:


Lady Cap:    “Thou knowest my daughter’s of a pretty age”.

Nurse:          “Faith, I can tell her age unto an hour”.

Lady Cap:     “She’s not fourteen”.

Nurse:          “I’ll lay fourteen of my teeth and yet to my teen be it spoken, I have but four, she’s not fourteen. How long is now till Lammas-tide?

Lady Cap:     “A fortnight and odd days”.

Nurse:          “Even or odd, of all days of the year, come Lammas-Eve at night shall she be fourteen.

The Nurse then repeats this: “On Lamas Eve at night shall she be fourteen”.


Lammas-Eve is the 31st July – while surely “A fortnight and odd days” must be ‘17’ days, numbers presenting us with a simple subtraction 31 – 17 = ‘14’.

Therefore, we find divine literature – providing us with divine fact: “Romeo & Juliet” meet on Edward de Vere’s birthday – July ‘14’.

Returning to the 17th Earl of Oxford Edward de Vere’s Royal nativity – this we find brilliantly highlighted in Edmund/Edward’s first soliloquy in Lear:


For THAT I AM some twelve or 14 moonshines lag of a brother.


This line is composed entirely of autobiographical allusion, “THAT I AM” abbreviates words received by Moses from God – who instructs him what he should say when going amongst the Israelite’s in Egypt. The idiom “I AM THAT I AM” Oxford particularly likes as it casts him and his son Henry VVriothesley in a Godly light. While “12 or 14” relate to his nativity, Elizabeth is alluded to by “moonshines” for as hitherto generally agreed (by a multiplicity of commentators) she was associated with the moon-Goddesses of ancient myth – while remembering ‘Shakespeare’ described her death as the “mortal-moons eclipse”. The gematical word S*O*M*E begins speaking of Southampton and ends with Elizabeth – with ‘Om‘ representing Oxford’s Royal nativity ’14’ & ’12’ sandwiched in the middle. “I AM THAT I AM” converts gematrically to ’91’ numbers Oxford sees individually as ‘IX’ & ‘One’, consequently, if we fast forward to (S.91) we find a sonnet beginning with the word S*O*M*E – in point of fact – alluding to Elizabeth’s TRUE date-of-creation because in the first stanza there are ‘seven’ renditions of the word S*O*M*E – alluding to her divine 7th September creation.

While S*O*M*E as an acronym represents three Tudor princes – meaning = Southampton & Oxford’s Mother was Elizabeth.

Returning to Lear the half-brother Oxford found himself rather sadly lag of was ‘Essex’ (Robert Devereux) as we see the word “lag” converts gematrically to the Christian number ‘XIX’, this being the nineteenth letter of the Greek Alphabet ‘Tau’. Now, with Oxford blessed by genius – he cleverly conceived (represented by the following two lines) “The Essex/Christ allusion” because:


Both Christ & Essex were born of virgins
And both put to death for their beliefs.


Following the words “divine thrusting on” (composed of ‘17’ letters) found in Edmund/Edward’s (Sol.2) Lear – which allude to Oxford’s own conception, we find these words immediately succeeded by:

“An admirable evasion of whoremaster man to lay his goatish disposition on the charge of a star – my father compounded with my mother under the dragon’s tail and my nativity was under Ursa Major.”

The word ‘admiral’ is a marsupial of the word “admirable” confirming who Oxford’s father was – while the year of his birth ‘1548’ is alluded to as he informs us his “nativity” was under “Ursa Major”, he says this because this star-cluster was one of the original ‘48’ constellations identified by Ptolemy.

Looking quizzically at Edmund/Edward’s (Sol.3) Lear – the disenfranchisement felt by all illegitimate princes we find confirmed – as Oxford’s TRUE year of birth is – because the word “wit” is word ‘48’ of the soliloquy.

I do serve you in this business, a credulous father and a brother noble, whose nature is so far from doing harms that he suspects none – on whose foolish honesty my practices ride easily. I see the business, let me, if not by birth, have lands by wit. (48 words).

This 3rd soliloquy concludes with a line of complete gobbledegook – and although it is a travesty of literature – it makes perfect sense mathematically:

All with me’s meete, that I can fashion fit.

Cutting to the chase (remembering there are no more-Christian numbers than 3, 9, 19 or 33, we interestingly find this line (it’s punctuation critical) composed of 33 letters, with the comma dividing the sentence in two. The first section is made up of ‘15’ letters, which rather intriguingly when added to by 33, amounts to ‘48’, we therefore arrive at ‘1548’ the TRUE year of Oxford’s creation.

Then, looking at the second half of the sentence we find it composed of 18 letters – confirming our previous findings, because 18 + 33 = 51 (digits in reverse) equalling ‘15’, a number representing the only century (the 16th) Oxford could possibly have been created in. Consequently, it is easy to appreciate the purpose of the apostrophe in the word “me’s”, because as we shall see – it confirms Oxford’s premature-birth.

All with me’s meete

Returning to division again – this first section of this sentence (shown above) composed of ‘15’ letters, can be seen as ‘9’ letters followed by ‘6’ letters – divided by an apostrophe – our author speaking ‘gestation’ – the meaning he seeks to convey to us – that he wasn’t delivered at nine months like ordinary folk – but miraculously at six months (or week 26) as described in Act 1 of his play King John.

Sonnet 26 by William Shakespeare.

Consciously, or sub-consciously Edward de Vere’s Royal Nativity (represented by the simple sum 12 + 14 = 26) is what he is musing over when composing sonnet 26, where conventional filial “duty” is turned on its head – as father becomes vassal to son – as in sonnet 26 William Shakespeare clearly reflects an “embassage” of duty to his son. Henry VVriothesley’s Godliness – his Royalty (expressed in sonnet 33) determining him the superior being – the reason for our author’s inverted sense of duty. While more mundanely, we find the word “bare” appears in line six, “all naked” in line eight, then straight out of ‘The History of Midwifery’ in line ‘14’ Oxford “proves” his own miraculous birth by using the words “show my head”, in fact the word “show” can be found four times in the sonnet. 

Shakespeare sees the word “show” gematrically and as ‘Helen Vendler’ in her lovely book “The Art of Shakespeare’s Sonnets” correctly points out – it is the key word of the sonnet, although she completely fails to understand – the reason for this is gematrical.

S-H-O-VV.  S = 18, H = 8 making 26 * O = 14  &  VV = 40.

These numbers: 26, 14 & 40 allude exclusively to the author of William Shakespeare’s Sonnet 26 the 17th Earl of Oxford Edward de Vere, representing his Royal nativity (26) his TRUE date-of-creation (14) plus the number of his name 17 + (40).

Officially speaking, there wasn’t a ‘W’ in the Elizabethan alphabet – only a double ‘V’, therefore in terms of gematria ‘V’ = 20, while ‘VV’ = 40.

Interestingly then, the name “William Shakespeare” can be translated mathematically: ‘VV’ = ’40’ followed by the remaining ’17’ letters of his name, ‘1740’ (or 174T) these being the numbers most ‘Oxfordians’ would recognise our great author by – a code alternatively seen as: 

“The Oxford/Shakespeare brand 1740”.

Finally, if you are inquisitive enough to know where an ‘avian’ reflection of this phenomenon can be found – please proceed to ‘page 26′ of my work “With the Breath thou Giv’st and Tak’st” where I analyse Shakespeare’s famous metaphysical poem “The Phoenix and the Turtle”. There you will find (colour-coded) within the parameters of the poem (representing ‘Sacred 3’) a mathematical explanation regarding:

“The Oxford/Shakespeare brand 1740”.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             


Philip Cooper fecit © XIX October 2023.

Sign up for news updates

Join our mailing list to be notified of news updates from Call-me-naive.com