If you Google the name “Robert Chester” the following is what Wikipedia says:

Despite attempts to identify Chester no information has ever emerged to indicate with any certainty who he was, currently all that is known of Chester is his name.

The simple reason for this is “Robert Chester” was not a real person, as the name represents a joke foisted upon a long-suffering readership, something I shall come to explain in detail, while critically the dedication in “Love’s Martyr” to ‘Sir John Salisburie’ is signed off the following way:

Yours in all service.
Ro. Chester.

The pseudonym “Ro. Chester” represents the city of ‘Rochester’ which stands on the river Medway in the county of Kent.

The ‘dedication’ second Pg of “Love’s Martyr”
the ‘quarto’ clearly signed: Yours in all service
(17 letters) Ro. Chester.

Our great author William Shakespeare and Robert Chester were exactly the same person and it is no coincidence the long allegorical poem Love’s Martyr by Robert Chester which first hosted “The Phoenix and the Turtle” was published in the Summer of 1601, the same year Robert Devereux 2nd Earl of Essex was convicted of high treason on February ‘XIX’. This explanation (of who Robert Chester was) also answers the conundrum of why so many famous poets subscribed their works to a completely unknown author, because “Love’s Martyr” concludes with ‘14’ poems strung over ‘17’ pages – in an epilogue entitled “Diverse Poetical Essays” with poems subscribed by such luminaries as ‘John Marston’, ‘George Chapman’ and ‘Ben Jonson’.

In fact, the fifth of these poems – the complex metaphysical “Phoenix and the Turtle” is a lament for ‘Essex’ whom (like a brother) our great author was very close to.

The first five verses allegorise five individuals:

 (1) The ‘Phoenix’ the (ethereal) and young Virgin Queen.

 (2) The ‘Owl’ Robert Cecil.

 (3) The ‘Eagle’ Henry Wriothesley.

 (4) The ‘Swan’ Robert Devereux.

 (5) The ‘Crow’ Elizabeth – in the last years of her life (dark with grief) a period described in the poem ‘importantly’ in line ‘7’ as “fever’s end”, while the ‘Turtle-dove’ (a symbol of the Holy-spirit) represents our great author.

Line ‘XIX’ of the Phoenix-poem introduces us to the first-iteration of “The Essex/Christ Allusion”, our author having perceptively noticed ‘Essex’ sentenced on day ‘XIX’ in February 1601 – before his beheading six days later, terrible events from which the Queen never recovered, and precisely why at “fever’s end” she so sadly morphed from the lighter “Phoenix” to the darker “Crow”, and if you are finding this scenario difficult to comprehend, this is most probably because the true motive behind the ‘Essex Rebellion’ was not to topple the Queen, but her chief ministers – headed by Sir Robert Cecil, and why Essex and VVriothesley rode the streets of London crying at the top of their voices:                                        

“For the Queen, for the Queen”.

Metaphysical the poem may be – but line ‘XIX’ of “The Phoenix and the Turtle” in no uncertain terms speaks creation and destruction:                                                                                                                           

‘XIX’ … With the breath thou giv’st and tak’st.

Meaning: Elizabeth (his birth mother) gave breath to Essex, and when she signed his death warrant and he was executed she took his breath away, and I would say it critical – humanity comes to terms with this ‘Tau-Truth’, because when you do understand it, everything you have ever understood about ‘Shakespeare’ changes, while it is absolutely imperative to realise on the day of the Essex execution our author found himself “LAG” of a brother.

The second-iteration of “The Essex/Christ Allusion” not surprisingly is sonnet ‘XIX’ its first stanza glorifying the passing of ‘Essex’ honouring his title (2nd Earl) (in the first and second lines) doubly alluding to his name:

Devouring time, blunt thou the Lions paws,
And make the earth devour her own sweet brood,
Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce Tigers jaws 
And burn the long lived Phoenix in her blood.

At the event horizon of a Shakespearean wormhole our author’s brother is consumed by earth as he informs us of his personal devastation at this gravity, his “happy” band of illegitimate brothers reduced from five to four when subjected by “the curiosity of nations” as in a “plague of custom” Elizabeth’s “own sweet brood” are depleted – our author finding himself deprived of a brother, as revealed in the third-iteration of “The Essex/Christ Allusion” in Edmund’s first soliloquy in Lear – where he is found:

“Twelve of ‘14’ moonshines lag of a brother”        

At this juncture, it is worth pointing out his favourite allusion for Elizabeth is “Beauty” (an honorific often used during her lifetime) closely followed by his second favourite “Nature”, followed by a third “fortune”.

The beginning of Edmund’s first soliloquy from “King Lear” succeeds:

Thou Nature, art my Goddess; to thy laws my services are bound. Wherefore should I stand in the plague of custom, and permit the curiosity of nations to deprive me?

For THAT I AM some twelve or ‘14’ moonshines Lag of a brother.

In terms of simple gematria “Lag” converts to ‘XIX’, we therefore understand our author had a brother he has been “deprived” of – a brother named “Essex”, because the number ‘XIX’ is the number that unites Essex & Christ – something confirmed because ‘Tau’ is letter ‘XIX’ of the Greek alphabet, a symbol of the Holy cross and the crucified Christ.

In terms of definition; the following concise perception by our great author explains the meaning of “The Essex/Christ Allusion”.

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

The line from Lear beginning “For THAT I AM” is entirely autobiographical, its slightly awkward initial grammar representing one of a number of surreptitious ways our great poet sort to inform us of his TRUE identity.

Not only are William Shakespeare & Robert Chester the same person but we can add to this list the allegorical “Edmund” an alter-ego of “Edward” who in Lear concludes the biblical idiom “I AM THAT I AM” in his second soliloquy – which in many ways is a code itself.

Moses was asked by God when going amongst the Israelites in Egypt to announce himself with these very words, and our great author uses them in a similar fashion – believing they reflect upon him and his son in a Godly way.

Gematrically speaking in conjunction with the Elizabethan alphabet the words: “I AM THAT I AM” convert to ‘91’, numbers our author saw in a bipartite way: ‘IX’ & ‘One’, while interestingly (alluding to Elizabeth) in the first stanza of (S.91) we find the word S*O*M*E appearing ‘7’ times! (Re: 7th Sept 1533).

Our author liked to consider himself a saviour of mankind – happy to be kindred with Christ – whose initials in Greek are ‘IX’ his name: Ιησούς Χριστός. Then, regarding the faire-youth (Henry VVriothesley) and himself, as an overall concept (in respect of Christian-numerology) he favoured association with the number ‘IX’, determining ‘XIX’ more appropriate for Essex.

Three historical dates ensue; Christ died at 33 years of age, princess Elizabeth was born in 1533 and was 33 months old when her father had her mother executed, dates helping our great author select (S.33) where line ‘IX’ describes Henry VVriothesley as:

My son ‘One’. (my Godly son).

‘VVriothesley’ was so very Godly because both his parents had Royal DNA.

‘Sacred 3’ is the system used by Shakespeare when verifying something of great importance – simply repeating it three times – the very reason there are only three Shakespearean dedications – all to Henry VVriothesley. A further good example is found in his poem “The Phoenix and the Turtle” where alluding to his son in lines 26, 40 & 46 he uses the word ‘One’ (the Hebrew word for God) which appears three times, and three times only – a perfect expression of ‘Sacred 3’.

Why Robert Chester was called Robert Chester!

If you have ever wondered why Shakespeare persistently wrote the history of Kings & Queens, the simple answer (already alluded to) is he was royal himself. In Edmund’s first soliloquy in Lear the numbers strangely written as “twelve” or “14” (in letters and digits) represent his Royal nativity, as all illegitimate princes had an official birthday and a TRUE date-of-creation (their actual date of birth).

The 17th Earl of Oxford Edward de Vere’s Royal nativity is therefore represented by a simple sum: 12 + 14 = 26.

The word “TRUE” had a special meaning for him as his personnel motto was “Vero Nihil Verius” (nothing truer than truth) which is why I use the word “TRUE” so liberally in matters of his biography.

His official 12th June ‘birthday’ is a calculation arrived at from his mother Elizabeth, as speaking gematria ‘E’ is the fifth letter of the alphabet, which when added to her date of creation 7th Sept – delivers us ‘12’ the figure representing his official ‘birthday’. Then continuing on this path of discovery his TRUE date-of-creation (the actual day he was born) we find explained in a mathematically fastidious way in William Shakespeare’s (S.14) strongly instructing us about the day the 17th Earl was born – by informing us:

‘14’ is ‘17’s TRUE date-of-creation.

A full explanation of William Shakespeare’s – sonnet 14 is found at:

www.call-me-naive.com

The figure ‘26’ relates to the fact Edward de Vere was born three months prematurely at gestation week ‘26’ something confirmed by line ‘14’ of (S.26) where alluding to what should be the most treasured day in the English literary calendar, he uses the words:

Show my head. (line ‘14’ of sonnet ‘26’)

Further confirmation of this is found on the first page of Lear when Gloucester (Edmund’s father) speaking of his illegitimate son says:

Though this knave came something saucily to the world before he was sent for, yet was his mother fair, there was good sport at his making, and the whoreson must be acknowledged.

For those of you have read the depositions required by the state from Elizabeth’s servants (her Governess and accountant) in respect of the activities of Lord Admiral Sir Thomas Seymour in respect of his alleged plot to Kidnap his nephew the young king Edward IV. Then in respect of his early morning ventures to the princess’s bedchamber, of his tickling and slapping her buttocks etc – I believe it no coincidence in respect of his father ‘Seymour’ that our author used the alliteration ‘saucy’ when describing him.  

Contemporarily, we generally consider INCEST abhorrent, but in understanding the upper echelons of Elizabethan society (Royalty & the courtier class) we need to have a broader view – particularly because – even as a child the precocious princess Elizabeth had made a study of it, for we know even as an 11-year-old she began to intellectualise ‘Holy-incest’, something for her – subsequently becoming a philosophy and model for life. The reason I write this, is because ‘Oxford’ was not only Elizabeth’s first son, but the son who fathered her final child (Henry VVriothesley) and possibly the “vulgar scandal” referenced by him in line two of (S.112) remembering the number “twelve” represented an official unwelcome reminder of his illegitimacy. While I must relay to you, one of the many scathing remarks he makes (in the dark-lady series of sonnets) beginning (S.127) about the mother he found himself “pent” within, the mother he inescapably loved:

Only my plague thus far I count my gain,
That she that makes me sin awards me pain. (S.141)

Now, while it may sound bazar – on ‘three’ separate occasions – Elizabeth and Oxford during her final pregnancy of Wriothesley sounded out the thoughts of the archbishop-of-Canterbury (Matthew Parker) in respect of their nuptials – an idea to which the archbishop took a very dim view – principally due to the fact Oxford was already married to Anne Cecil.

Nevertheless, in the years 1572 and 1573 as lovers Oxford and Elizabeth obviously were very close, a situation determining some ‘intelligence’ (with great potential) coming in his direction – information he found excruciatingly bountiful. Elizabeth had let slip that a posse working for the crown-treasury (overseen by his father-in-law William Cecil) would be carrying a cache of funds from London to Canterbury.

History has rarely put together two more opposing characters than the leaden ‘Cecil’ and the ’fiery’ Oxford, and with Oxford being back in his mother’s bed it meant he could get away with almost anything – and he simply couldn’t resist biting into the golden apple of opportunity fortune presented him with.

The Gads Hill Robbery Outside Rochester

The Earl of Oxford’s men were persistent in their attempt to rob Cecil’s men, a robbery coming to fruition on 21st May 1573 when at the foot of Gads-hill just outside Rochester ‘Danny Wilkins’, ‘John Hannam’ & ‘Deny the Frenchman’ successfully ambushed the Lord Treasurer’s men – beating them and relieving them of their burden.

It has been persuasively argued the shenanigans expressed in “The Famous Victories of Henry V” and “King Henry IV Pts 1 & 2” tales of patriotism and tom-foolery lying at the heart of the English soul – the brain child of Edward de Vere were narratives all written by the same person. Critically, Oxford always erumpent in singing the praises of his Godly son Henry VVriothesley (when putting pen to paper) cleverly decided to move the actual date of the Gads Hill robbery forward a day – to celebrate Wriothesley’s TRUE date-of-creation 20th May 1574, when in reality the original Gads Hill robbery actually took place on the 21st May 1573, not the 20th May.

There is no doubt in my mind the “Gads Hill Robbery” was Edward de Vere’s favourite story – the very tale which sets the ball rolling at the beginning of “Famous Victories” unveiling farcical events elaborated upon in the prince-Hal trilogy, episodes also alluded to in “Arden of Faversham”.

In Scene 4 “Famous Victories” we find the clerk-to-the-court addressing the dolt Cutbert Cutter before the ‘Justice’ hears from the victim Derick.

Clerk: “I indict thee by the name of Cutbert Cutter, for robbing a poor carrier the twentieth day of May last past, in the fourteenth year of the reign of our sovereign Lord, King Henry Fourth; for setting upon a poor carrier upon Gads Hill in Kent; and having beaten and wounded the said carrier, and taken his goods from him”.

Derick: “Oh, masters, stay there! Nay, lets never belie the man, for he hath not beaten and wounded me also, but he hath beaten and wounded my pack, and hath taken the great rase of ginger, that bouncing Bess with the jolly buttocks should have had – that grieves me most”.

As our esteemed friend Richard Malim in his book “The Earl of Oxford and the Making of Shakespeare” pertinently points out there was no May 20th in the fourteenth year of the reign of ‘Henry IV’ as the fourteenth year began on September 30, 1412 – finishing with his death on March 20, 1413.

Oxford therefore, rather cleverly manages to mention both his son’s and his own TRUE dates-of-creation, ‘20’ & ‘14’, while alluding to the year “1412” thereby referencing his own Royal nativity: 12 + 14 = 26, and all this before descent into a bawdy-mire-fest, conjuring up in my own seedy mind a ‘great-raise’ caused by the jolly buttocks of a ginger bouncing Bess!

Now – who could that possibly be?

Therefore, it is my personnel belief the play could not have been written before VVriothesley’s TRUE date-of-creation May 20th 1574 the most important date in our author’s life – described by him beginning line ‘IX’ (S.20).

And for a woman wert thou first created
Till nature as she wrought thee fell a doting.

A date confirmed by the announcement of the publication of ‘Shakespeare’s Sonnets’ in the stationer’s register on the 20th May 1609 in celebration of Henry VVriothesley’s TRUE date-of-creation.

Our great author also had the ability to see words mathematically, an ability making ‘Oxfordian numerology’ extremely complicated to understand, for instance, no normal person would see the ‘triple-tau’ represented by the “ct” ligature (something used throughout the sonnets ‘Q’) but he does!

As presented in (S.114) it deliberately appears in consecutive lines (7 & 8) alluding to the sonnet title, an eccentricity explained the following way – as gematrically conceived by him “c” = ‘3’ & ‘t’ = Tau or ‘XIX’, as seen displayed twice in the words “perfect objects”. Therefore, as the ligature (representing the Triple Tau) is repeated twice – the sum is: 2 X 57 = ‘114’ the number representing the sonnet in question.

Naturally, all Shakespearean gematrical equations must be considered in conjunction with the Elizabethan alphabet which is fundamentally the same as the classical Latin alphabet. The first English-language writing manual by Jehan de Beau-Chesne and John Baildon wasn’t published until 1570, officially it had only 23 letters, excluding the three modern day letters ‘J’, ‘U’ & ‘W’.

The following is a transcription of this Elizabethan gematrical code.

A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4, E = 5, F = 6, G = 7, H = 8, I = 9, K = 10, L = 11, M = 12, N = 13, O = 14, P = 15, Q = 16, R = 17, S = 18, T = 19, V = 20, X = 21, Y = 22, Z = 23

Possibly the simplest way of explaining Shakespearean gematria is by looking at the first word in his sonnet sequence capitalised and italicised – found in the second line of the first sonnet.  

R*O*S*E – translates gematrically like this:  R = 17, O = 14, S = 18, E = 5.

Our author perceiving these letters individually: ‘17’ doubling for his Earldom; ‘14’ his TRUE date-of-creation; ‘18’ for Southampton; followed by ‘E’ for Elizabeth (letter ‘5’ of the alphabet) their sum: 17 + 14 + 18 + 5 = 54, then almost miraculously – proceeding to sonnet ‘54’ we find a sonnet about a “Rose”, but not just any old rose – our author’s favourite rose: Henry Wriothesley.

His most famous (S.18) “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day” is of course about his son ‘3rd Earl of Southampton’ Henry VVriothesley, this particular sonnet finding itself in this particular position – his father seeing no discernible difference between the letter ‘S’ and the number ‘18’ (letter 18 of the alphabet) his son (in his mind) is Royal blossom and heir apparent – the state failing to recognise his TRUE-date-of-creation ‘20th May 1574’ and why for centuries our great author’s words have been misunderstood:

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May.

Due to the robbery at ‘Gads Hill’ the very first word in Lear is “Kent”, the second character is “Gloucester” because Oxford’s TRUE father’s stately pile was ‘Suderley Castle’ in the county of Gloucestershire! While it might be worth remembering at this point one of the original robbers at ‘Gads Hill’ was French.

Love’s Martyr by Robert Chester refers to ‘Essex’ ‘XIX’ times as Envious, while I find myself not without sympathy for him – because every illegitimate Prince suffered destitution of soul by disenfranchisement. In his heart all Essex ever wanted was his mother to pronounce him hers, while Oxford being “The first” (issue) was more fortunate than his half-brother – while both were “happy” (Royal) but unlike Essex – Oxford was ‘untouchable’ – something causing him serious reflection on 25th February 1601 the day the “painful warrior” was executed, thoughts transposed in (S.25) where ironically seen as (an historical headstone) the very last word we find is “removed”.

The elemental Oxford was all fire & air – his romantic nature imagining his own death to be (or not) that of a military commander on the battlefield his mother denied him – a glorious death ultimately found at the denouement of Hamlet.

Fourtinbras:  Let four captains bear Hamlet like a soldier to the stage, for he was likely, had he been put on – TO HAVE PROVED MOST ROYAL.

Sonnet 25

  1. Let those who are in favour with their stars 
  2. Of public honour and proud titles boast,
  3. Whilst I, whom fortune of such triumph bars,
  4. Unlooked for joy in that I honour most.
  5. ‘Great princes’ favourites their fair leaves spread
  6. But as the marigold in the sun’s eye,
  7. And in themselves their pride lies buried,
  8. For at a frown they in their glory die.
  9. The painful warrior famousèd for might,
  10. After a thousand victories once foiled,
  11. Is from the book of honour razèd quite
  12. And all the rest forgot for which he toiled,
  13. Then happy I, that love and am beloved
  14. Where I may not remove nor be removed. 

Mentioned in line six the colours of the “marigold” allude to Elizabeth’s hair, ‘her flower’ commented upon by Oxford’s secretary John Lyly:  

“She uses the Marigold for her flower, which at the rising of the sunne openth his leaves and at the setting shutteth them”. 

Then, returning to Lear Edmund’s outburst in (Sol 1) line ‘14’ Q follows:

Now Gods stand up for bastards! (26 characters)

The play then continues:

Gloucester:   Kent banished thus? And France in Choler parted? And the King gone tonight? Prescribed his power, Confined to exhibition?

All this done upon the Gadde.

“Gadde” of course is an allusion to the robbery at “Gads Hill”, conjuring up rather cleverly the original date of the robbery, as in conjunction with the Elizabethan alphabet the word equates gematrically the following way:

G = 7, A = 1, D = 4, D = 4, E = 5 totalling ‘21’.

The original date of the robbery – 21st May 1573.

Indisputably Reasoning: “Love’s Martyr” by Robert Chester was written by the 17th Earl of Oxford Edward de Vere.

On the first page of Loves Martyr by Robert Chester the work is described the following way:

“A poem enterlaced with much varietie and raritie; now first translated out of the venerable Italian Torquato Caeliano by Robert Chester”.

Translation: Our princely poets “varietie” (Vere) & “raritie” (Wriothesley) enter in finest lace – while just like “Robert Chester” no such Italian poet named “Torquarto Caeliano” has ever been identified – the page concluding with a quotation from Martial – immediately bringing authorship into question:

Mar: – Mutare dominum non potest liber notus. (a famous book is not able to change its author) which most likely is the wisdom of a man with a predilection for a nom-de-plume!

On the second page of Love’s Martyr by Robert Chester the dedication to Sir John Salisburie begins ‘significantly’ in line ‘7’ where we find a most obvious allusion to the leading protagonists of the ‘Essex faction’ represented by the words “Envie, every one” (Essex, Oxford & VVriothesley), with the first stanza of (S.53) helping confirm what I say.

Now, having already explained “Envie” & ‘One’ l shall attend to “Every”.                              

One of the ways, we know Oxford considered his sonnet sequence to be composed of 152 sonnets plus the already looked at pair of epigrams known as the ‘Bath Sonnets’ (153 & 154) is by what the central line of (S.76) tells us.

This line identifies precisely who our author was – by describing himself as an “Every”, a hereditary title bestowed upon the de Vere’s – from the 12th century.

That ‘every’ word doth almost tell my name.

While the “name” referred to in this central line of central sonnet ‘76’ is “Oxford” because O*X*F*O*R*D converts gematrically to ‘76’ because:

O = 14, X = 21, F = 6, O = 14, R = 17, D = 4  totalling ‘76’.

Mathematically speaking – Shakespeare’s autobiographical sonnets are constructed around a 100-sonnet centre, with wings on either side of ‘26’ sonnets a piece (numerically alluding to his Royal nativity) giving us the sum: 26 + 100 + 26 = ‘152’ plus a pair of epigrams.

Finally, I conclude with an observation regarding the quarto beginning of Loves Martyr by Robert Chester where the censors took objection to the first two poems – removed in the first reprint of 1611.

In the first of these – the Enchantment of Edward de Vere is plain to see (only by those who desire to be enchanted).

The Authors Request to the Phoenix.

Phoenix of beautie, beauteous Bird of any
To thee I do entitle all my labour,
More precious in mine eye by far then many,
That feedst all earthly senses with thy favour:
Accept my home-write praises of thy love
And kind acceptance of thy Turtle-dove.

Some ‘deepe-read scholler’ fam’d for poetrie
Whose wit-enchanting verse deserveth fame,
Should sing of thy perfections passing beautie,
And elevate thy famous worthy name:
Yet I the least, and meanest in degree
Endeavoured have to please in praising thee.

“S*O*M*E” is an acronym: Southampton & Oxford’s Mother was Elizabeth.

“Deepe-read scholler” = (17 letters) “fam’d for poetrie” obviously is Oxford.

“Whose wit-enchanting verse deserveth fame”

In the line immediately above, Oxford reveals the name “Vere”, succeeded by the name “de Vere”, if you can’t see it – you don’t want to see it!

“Yours in all service” (17 letters.)

 

Philip Cooper fecit © July 13 2024. 
Dedicated to ‘Captain Morgan’.

“Philip Cooper” is a genuine name.