Sonnet 91 by William Shakespeare (Analysis)

William Shakespeare’s S*O*M*E acronym appears ‘7’ times in the first quatrain of (S.91) alluding to Queen Elizabeth’s 7th Sept. 1533 creation.

‘E’ for Elizabeth (importantly letter five of the alphabet) comes last but not least in the acronym as our great author, poet & playwright addressing the ‘faire youth’ informs us in line ‘IX’.

 Thy love is better than ‘high-birth’ to me.

Shakespeare dedicated three works only, “Venus & Adonis”, “Lucrece”, & the “Sonnets” all to the “Faire Youth” Henry VVriothesley 3rd Earl of Southampton represented first by ‘S’ for Southampton in William Shakespeare’s S*O*M*E acronym, while his father is represented by the ‘O’ and his Mother by the ‘E’.

Our noble author endowed with lofty accomplishments – steeped in the metaphysical (including his “high birth”) was a polymath still wise enough yet grounded enough to have learned the universal truth – nothing in life is more important than love – stipulating Southampton’s love more important to him than his “high birth” which in actuality was ‘Royal’ birth – as the following is the TRUE incestuous meaning of William Shakespeare’s S*O*M*E acronym:

Southampton & Oxford’s Mother was Elizabeth.

There is no doubt in my mind what this acronym denotes is absolutely true, although I am aware too much truth can be hurtful even when this profound.

Southampton & Oxford defined Gematrically

For those of you now asking who ‘Oxford’ was – this is easily explained in terms of gematria by examining (S.76) where we alight on the ‘central line’ of Shakespeare’s work – composed of a sequence of 152 sonnets embellished with a pair of epigrams known as the ‘Bath Sonnets’ (S.153 & 154). The central line (which follows) of central sonnet ‘76’ tells us precisely who our great author was, as using simple gematria the name ‘Oxford’ translates to ‘76’, while the word “every” had a special hereditary meaning for him.

That ‘every’ word doth almost tell my name. (S.76 – L.7).

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’. In conjunction with the Elizabethan alphabet (which is fundamentally the same as the classical Latin alphabet) an encoding of the ‘simplest’ form of gematria follows:

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.

Encompassing the ‘quarto’ of the first three sonnets the word Rose is the only word found both capitalised and italicised – found in (S.1.) line two, it can justifiably be described as the most important word in our author’s lexicon while also representing a perfect example of how he understood the system of gematria.

From fairest creatures we desire increase
That thereby beauties Rose might never die.

“Rose” transcribes the following way: R = 17, O = 14, S = 18, E = 5 totalling 54, if we then fast forward to (S.54) we find a sonnet about a “Rose”, a prince of English flowers and importantly a marsupial of the name VVriothesley.

“Rose” is one of several words found in (S.54) alongside the words “sweet”, “faire” and “show” having special gematrical meanings, while more profoundly “beauties Rose” was Queen Elizabeth’s ‘Tudor Rose Dynasty’, the word Beauty being our author’s favourite allusion for Elizabeth, an honorific often used during her lifetime either to address her or flatter her obsequiously.

Therefore, we understand the ‘Tudor Rose’ represented by the letter ‘R’ which equates gematrically to ‘17’ which we shall come to see as extremely significant in respect of the name “William Shakespeare”, with the following a quick gematrical summary of the word Rose:

‘R’ for Rose = ‘17’ which is followed by ‘O’ for Oxford ‘14’, ‘S’ for Southampton ‘18’, and ‘E’ for Elizabeth ‘5’, three princes for whom (considering their divinity) I have composed a special Christian title: “The Tudor Trinity”, while I must add for words that should be pronounced ‘alliteratively’ Rose, VVriothesley & Tudor Rose, our author’s senses were easily sated by these “sweet odors” (T.B.E.)

How Aristocratic Pursuits Identify our Author

Charlie Chaplain was not only a brilliant comedian but an intellectual who made a telling observation regarding Shakespeare saying: “He had an aristocratic attitude” and nowhere in the sonnets are his links to the aristocratic life more obvious than in (S.91).

Our great and noble author “William Shakespeare” produced handwritten manuscript copy from which printing compositors through the medium of typeset transformed his words into print. Looking at (S.91) the Quarto (above) in line eight we see a most probable error as the word ‘better’ is transposed to “bitter” which if accidental is an obvious mistake? The reason I mention this, is we should always be alert to human error because the modern words and letters we read in contemporary publications are frequently some distance away from what our author originally intended. For instance in Helen Vendler’s rather lovely book on Shakespeare’s Sonnets we find important expository ‘capitalised words’ identifying our author omitted in her modern take on (S.91). From lines four & eleven the capital letter ‘H’ of which there are five renditions in ‘Q’ are not transposed as they appear in the original above, which follow:

“Hawkes, Hounds & Horse” (line four) “Hawks & Horses” (line eleven).

Gematrically speaking: H = 8  &  5 x 8 = ‘40’ or ‘4T’ a simple code informing us Oxford ‘40’ was responsible for writing Shakespeare’s sonnets. Having already seen ‘7’ iterations of William Shakekespeare’s S*O*M*E acronym succeeded here by ‘5’ capitalised letter ‘H’s, this confirms the fact that these two numbers ‘5’ & ‘7’ are those deployed when he wishes to allude to his Mother.

It is of course in line ‘5’ (S.107) where Oxford announces his mother’s death:

The mortal moone hath her eclipse endured.

In Shakespeare plays including: A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Pericles, Two Noble Kinsmen, Twelfth Night & The Winter’s Tale the word “odour” is spelled in the modern manner – but significantly throughout the sonnets the letter ‘u’ is deliberately omitted.

Knowing Southampton and Oxford to be the Queen’s issue (and very proud of it) in line four of (S.54) the words “sweet odor” appear before in line twelve their plural “sweetest odors” occurs – the reason, “todor” & “todors” were arrangements of letters as close as our author dare get to the honourable truth the “Rose” VVriothesley and himself were two “Tudor” princes – father and son.

The Rose looks faire, but fairer we it deem
For that sweet odor, which doth in it live.

“Sweet odor” (the scent of a Rose) as a metaphor – signifies the Royal Tudor blood line – the blood that ran through VVriothesley’s veins, which may be further determined because these two lines are composed of ‘18’ words, our author seeing ‘S’ for Southampton and ‘18’ synonymously, just as he saw the words Rose and Tudor synonymously. This synchronicity (in part) was also responsible for the pen-name William Shakespeare – equally composed of 18 letters, and why (S.18) was the locus where he compares “a summer’s day” to the undying love he had for his son.

The word “sweet” has ‘Tudor’ connotations as it translates gematrically to: ‘18’ Southampton, ‘40’ Oxford, ‘5’ Elizabeth x 2 and ‘XIX’ (Tau).

In (S.54) ordinary citizens “fade” becoming sidelined as ‘canker-blooms’ (subjects depleted of scent) as more fragrant princes Southampton and Oxford referenced by the word “So” hoped and prayed their Tudor blood line would continue ad infinitum.

They live unwoo’d, and unrespected ‘fade’
Die to themselves. Sweet Roses do not So.
Of their sweet deaths, are sweetest odors made.

Here the Tudor succession alluded to – anticipates the concluding couplet:

And So of you, beauteous and lovely youth
When that shall Vade my Verse distils your ‘truth’.

Oxford’s  personal motto “Vero Nihil Verius” (Nothing truer than truth) is alluded to in the last line – ironically maturing from “fade”  to “Vade”, as these aloof Royals distanced themselves from the hoi polloi.

Oxford also tries this “Todor/Tudor” trick in lines 9 & 10 of the rather beautiful (S.98) although the censors were alerted to it as our over confident author mentioned the Tudor colours red and white – causing the authorities to swap around the order of the words “flowers” & “different”. It is my contention the manuscript copy was as follows – with the word “Hew” being a marsupial of the name “Henry VVriothesley”.

Yet nor the lays of birds, nor the sweet smell
Of flowers in different odor and in Hew.

It continues:

Nor did I wonder at the Lillies ‘white’
Nor praise the ‘deep vermillion’ in the Rose,
They were but sweet, but figures of delight
Drawn after you, you pattern of all those.

“Lillies” is a sensibly substitute for the white Rose of York, although if you have ever wondered why ‘30’ or more of Shakespeare’s plays have ‘worms’ in them it is because Oxford’s (assumed) forefathers who arrived in England with William the Conqueror from Normandy originated in a place called ‘Ver’ or worm in French. This is why in Shakespeare’s version (contrary to every other version) Cleopatra dies from the bite of a worm and not a serpent, a snake, or an asp. Having mentioned the founding colours of the ‘Tudor Rose’ the white of York and the red of Lancaster, Oxford makes himself conspicuous by using the word “vermillion”, its French derivation coming from the Latin ‘Vermiculus’ meaning (little worm) referring to the insect ‘Kermes Vermilio’ which the bright red dye was produced from. Made clear in lines 11 & 12 of (S.98) the “pattern” Henry VVriothesley was “drawn after” was the ‘Tudor Rose’ and with Oxford aware his son was still banged up in the Tower ‘spring still seemed like winter’ as he played with counterfeit red & white flowers, blooms a pitiful “shaddow” (quarto spelling) of the ‘Tudor Rose’, with its gematrical translation following:

S *H * A * D * D * O * W
Sh = 26, add = ‘IX’, O = 14, W = 40.

Excluding the pseudonym “William Shakespeare” in Tudor times spelling was still not completely standardised, so it is impossible to tell which words precisely were merely compositors interpretations of manuscript copy, while the above word translates gematrically equally beautifully with just a single “d” while the initial number ‘26’ relates to Oxford’s miraculous nativity.

“So that myself bring water for my stain.” (S.109 – L 8).

In line five (S.91) the pronoun “his” appears in conjunction with two words relating to our author, “Every” and “Humor” the first of these historical the second gematrical.

That ‘every’ humor hath his adjunct pleasure.

The position of an “Every” formed part of the hereditary responsibilities handed down to the Earls of Oxford from the year 1133 when first instituted as “Lord Great Chamberlains of England”. In later times these duties were carried out by Edward de Vere who through the skulduggery and self-serving help of Sir William Cecil managed to claim the title ‘17th Earl of Oxford’ when in terms of DNA (being Royal) he was completely unrelated to the de Vere family. Oxford who wrote about “changeling children” was one himself!

In the year before his death at the coronation in London of Scottish King James 1st on the 25th July 1603 Oxford’s responsibilities included dressing the King, supplying him with water for drink, and water for ablutions – duties which including washing the monarchs hands before and after feasting.

In Oxford’s Tudor heart he considered his 29 year old son ‘Henry VVriothesley’ “first heire” to the throne of England and not his namesake the ‘9’ year old Scottish prince ‘Henry Frederick Stuart’ – precisely why at ‘King James’ coronation described at the conclusion of (S.114) perhaps in a moment of impish jocularity – he contemplated poisoning the new King of England!!!

And to his palate doth prepare the cup
If it be poisoned, tis the lesser sin
That mine eye loves it and doth ‘first’ begin.

The Coequal qualities of ‘S’ & ‘18’ rank somewhere along with the gematrical reality Rose = 54, while acknowledging poem ‘18’ of the Passionate Pilgrim has a ‘rosy’ complexion deliberately constructed of ‘54’ lines, before the Palmer’s final offering which bears a brazen allusion to Southampton’s TRUE day-of-creation, May 20th 1574, as “Poem 20” begins:

As it fell upon a day
In the merry month of May.

In Elizabethan speak verse & sonnets & numbers were the same thing, while Oxford saw the number (S.114) in a bipartite way as ‘One’ and ‘14’, numbers that could be alternatively seen as ‘S’ & ‘O’ because Oxford whose TRUE day-of-creation was July ‘14’ 1548 saw his Royal son ‘One’ in a Heavenly light.

Details found in (S.33) numbers relating to both Elizabeth’s birth and Christ’s age at death – comprehensively illustrate what I say, where we find the “Faire-youth” Southampton illustriously described as a golden deity:

With Sovereign eye, gilding pale stream with heavenly alchemy, with celestial and golden face kissing the meadows green.

An important part of Oxford’s syllabus between the ages of five & fourteen under the tutorship of Sir Thomas Smith were the classical languages, Greek, Latin & Hebrew, the last of these giving us gematria, while equally gracious was its definition of God, as ‘One’.

In line eight of (S.91) Oxford says:

All these I better in ‘One’ general best.

Here the word ‘One’ references his Godly son. Then looking again at (S.33) line ‘IX’ he is again identified – this time by the homophone “sunne” as found in the phrase “my sunne One” a profundity because of strong links to ‘Jesus Christ’ whose initials in Greek (iota & chi) when seen in Roman numerals are ‘IX’ and (33) his age at death – while remembering 3 x 3 = ‘IX’.

A Proliferation of Number ‘14’.

We have already quickly glanced at the relevance of the numbers ‘One’, ‘17’, ‘40’ & ’76’ which in this particular narrative would be irrelevant without ‘14’ Oxford’s TRUE day-of-creation – July ‘14’ 1548.

What should also be remembered was the sudden death in 1562 of Oxford’s nominal father ‘Earl John’ 16th Earl of Oxford who died (possibly murdered) when ‘Edward’ had only just reached the tender age of ‘14’. At this juncture of his life he became a ward to her Majesty who ‘14’ years earlier when still a princess (approximately eight weeks before her fifteenth birthday) at gestation week ‘26’ gave birth to this tiny illegitimate infant (shortly to become a “changling child”) who would ultimately become known to the world as ‘Edward de Vere’ the “shadow” of ‘Edward Tudor’ (his biological title).

This narrative provides us with the absolutely extraordinary fact he was no ordinary mortal – as in the middle of the 16th century he was delivered (and survived) a ‘14’ week premature birth – a miraculous fact found recorded in “King John” ‘Q’  line ‘114’, faire numbers our author liked to see in a bipartite manner as ‘One’ & ‘14’.

Quite understandably then – making perfect sense – we see why he took forward the format of what has become established as the ‘14’ lined Shakespearean sonnet, and having written analysis of (S.14) which you may like to peruse? Using very simple mathematics Oxford notifies us about his very own day-of-creation ‘his birthday’ (a word he strongly disliked) instructing us through mathematics & gematria – ‘17’s day of birth was ‘14’ – with confirmation of this fact found in (S.14) a sonnet quite appropriately starting with an astrological allusion:

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

‘14’ of Shakespeare’s plays have Italian ‘settings’ including the ancient story of  “Romeo & Juliet” where in our playwright’s version our star-crossed lovers meet on Oxford’s TRUE day-of-creation July ‘14’, where somewhat pathetically (to prove the point) at the beginning of Scene III we discover the word ‘fourteen’ inserted into the text five times (alluding to Elizabeth).

Juliet’s nurse specifically identifies the day our lovers meet saying: “I know her age unto an hour”, before adding: “how long is it now to Lammas-tide?”

To which Lady Capulet replies: “A fortnight and odd days” which significantly are ‘17’ days, and as ‘Lammas-Eve’ is the 31st July we have arrived at Oxford’s TRUE day-of-creation – July ‘14’. What perhaps should also be mentioned is the bloodthirsty “Titus Andronicus” in which there could have been any number of deaths, but there just happens to be ‘14’, tragedy born out of the persistent psychological stigma of illegitimacy from which Oxford eagerly greeted his prophesised death taking this bringer of darkness in his arms like he might a bride and hugging her.

Though there has been great debate about who exactly wrote what in “The Passionate Pilgrim” let me tell you how I know poem ‘14’ was undeniably written by a melancholic Edward de Vere.

Poem ‘14’ covers three pages and is the last item before “Sonnets to Sundry Notes of Music” in the 1599 edition published by ‘William Jaggard’, where in the second verse our pilgrim remarks:

To make me wander thither “Wander”
(A word) for ‘shadows’ like myself,
As take the pain, but cannot pluck the pelf.

The word “Wander” as perceived gematrically by our author had the following numerical meaning:

W * A * N * D * E * R

W = ‘40’, A + N = ‘14’, D + E = ‘IX’, R = ‘17’.

Quite wondrously the word  “Wander” duplicates what is found in the brand name “William Shakespeare” which begins with ‘40’ and finishes with ’17’, as ‘W’ for William gematrically = ‘40’ which is succeeded by a rosy set of ‘17’ letters. This reversal of ‘1740’ also found in the word “Wander” happily bookends the close proximity of Oxford ‘14’ to Jesus Christ ‘IX’, highlighting our author’s divinity.

Now, sounding slightly pretentious – I would still say it is impossible to begin to understand ‘Shakespeare’ comprehensively without knowing how very important gematria was to him, stressing again, how he consistently saw all letters and words this way. Consequently, words beginning with the prefix “Sh” may relate to his noteworthy gestation week ‘26’ premature birth – as S = 18 & H = 8 which added together make ‘26’. This reality is surreptitiously borne out by the word “show”(appertaining to infant delivery) which Oxford inserted into (S.26) four times. These nascent numbers are also found in Lear in the phrase: “Twelve or 14 moonshines” (numbers representing Oxford’s official birthday “twelve” plus “14” his TRUE day-of-creation) together making ‘26’ a Royal nativity illuminated by “moonshine” emanating from Oxford’s biological mother as Queen Elizabeth was associated with the ancient mythological goddesses of the moon.

Now, as we know Oxford to be the ‘Ghost-writer’ of “Hamlet” by adding the letters A + D (gematrically equalling five) to the middle of the word “Show”, his worst nightmare ensued, as having done a deal with the devil in the year 1586 becoming a “shadow-writer” this prince of Royal blood who had previously cherished his (assumed) aristocratic “name”, became subdued as begrudgingly he was transformed into a “brand”.

“Thence comes it that my name receives a brand
And almost thence my nature is subdued”.

As I have said Oxford’s favourite allusion for Elizabeth was “Beauty”, his second was “Nature”, therefore when he says “my nature” he may also be alluding to his mother Elizabeth – whom he had “subdued” by agreeing not to write in hundreds of different pseudonyms. Having said that – becoming a “Shadow” was not entirely negative as in this Faustian deal he reluctantly agreed to with the authorities, his injured (artistic) soul was recompensed with a £1000.00 annuity that continued to be paid even by ‘King James’, who referred to him venerably as “Great Oxford”. Now, although not quite as significant as the word “Wander” I would like you for a second time to reflect on the misty merits of the following gematrical equation – this time with only a single letter “d”.        

S * H * A * D * O* W

S + H = ‘26’, A + D = ‘5’, O = ‘14’, W = ‘40’.

This new hiding place was conversely productive by illuminating the following:

(1) Oxford’s nativity ‘26’, (2) His mother ‘5’, (3) His TRUE day-of-creation ‘14’ and (4) His identity ‘40’ or (‘4T’).

William Shakespeare’s – sonnet ‘67’ is his only sonnet describing a painting – a work by John de Critz portraying Henry VVriothesley and his Gematrical cat “TRIXIE” imprisoned in the shadowy tower of London in 1603. The principal sitter shown in the painting ‘Southampton’ was incestuously sired by Edward de Vere the Queen’s first son, which may also be why (S.67) was selected to describe the portrait as the word I*N*C*E*S*T equates gematrically to ‘67’.

In the portrait (alluding to Oxford’s TRUE day-of-creation) Southampton wears a doublet with ‘14’ buttons showing, while remarkably one can count the same amount of buttons on the absolutely hideous mask we are constantly tormented by engraved by ‘Martin Droeshout’, which is the front-piece image found in the First Folio supposedly representing Shakespeare. This image is such an aberration even Ben Johnson who wrote the foreword was embarrassed by it – instructing us not to look at it – just read the book! In actual fact the maquette (as it were) for this abomination was an oil painting of the 17th Earl of Oxford Edward de Vere held from the 16th century by the De L’Isle family at the glorious manor of Penshurst-Place – once a Tudor palace owned by Oxford’s grandfather King Henry XIII. The original picture shows Oxford more sensibly dressed – wearing a white miniver-cape around his neck (representing a Lord) and a doublet (the correct way round – not reversed) which in essence appears extraordinarily similar to the ghastly garment detected in the Droeshout example – which seemingly is worn back to front.

Exodus 3, Verse ‘14’.

“And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you”.

Oxford was much taken with the phrase “I AM THAT I AM” using it three times across the lifetime of his work, and found in postscript to a letter written to Sir Willam Cecil (in the Cecil archives) dated 30th October 1584.

My Lord, I mean not to be your ward nor your child – I ‘serve’ her Majesty and
‘I AM THAT I AM’.

It also appears in bipartite form in Edmund’s 2nd soliloquy in Lear, while more importantly it is found in line ‘IX’ of sonnet 121 a ‘one to one’ Oxford had with God, where he uses the phrase in mitigation for incestuous sins committed by him, identifiable by the words “abuses”, “vile”, and “deeds”, the sonnet begins:

Tis better to be vile than vile esteemed,
When not to be, receives reproach of being.

Oxford was admonished by the Queen when he didn’t come up with the Goods! Then by deciphering the gematrical consequence of the word “vile” we understand the numbers ‘40’ & ‘5’ identify the two princes possessed with “sportive blood”. Adding substance to this claim (made clear through allusion) we see Elizabeth (the Virgin) is one of these two protagonists, as in using the word “salutation” a word Mary anxiously sort when visited by the Angel Gabriel – Oxford cleverly references ‘The Annunciation’.

Here’s the thing! And again its gematrical “I AM THAT I AM” equates to ‘91’ therefore Oxford’s ‘one to one’ with God illuminated in the incestuous (S.121) ultimately acts as a manicule pointing humanity in the direction of (S.91) a sonnet delineating the triangular love represented by ‘The Tudor Trinity’.

Why there can be no variations in the ‘brand’ name:
“William Shakespeare”.

The name “William Shakespeare” cannot have various spellings as numerically speaking it specifically tells us two things about our great author, poet and playwright – he is a Christian and he is a Tudor, therefore anyone deviating from this rigid ‘symbol’ of excellence, would naturally exclude themselves from being the TRUE author. The letter ‘W’ converts gematrically to number ‘40’ which the TRUE creator of the name “William Shakespeare” alternatively saw as ‘4T’, a homophone for ‘40’ which is Christian, as ‘T’ = ‘Tau’ letter ‘XIX’ of the Greek alphabet (a symbol of the crucified Christ) knowledge providing us with the ‘4T’ sum: 4 x 19 = 76, giving us ‘the number of Oxford’s name’ which transcribes gematrically the following way:

O = 14, X = 21, F = 6, O = 14, R = 17, D = 4 Total 76.

Having explained away the meaning of the “W” we are then left with the remaining ‘17’ letters of our author’s pen-name revealing he was a ‘Tudor prince’ because letter ‘17’ of the Elizabethan alphabet was ‘R’ for Rose.

The Very Heart of Shakespeare’s Sonnets.

Having a 100 sonnet centre and centring on (S.76) Shakespeare’s sonnets are constructed mathematically with wings on either side of ‘26’ sonnets a piece (relating to his TRUE nativity) as he was born at gestation week 26 something he rightfully considered marking him out from other men. The 100 sonnet centre is therefore represented by sonnet’s 27 – 126 with the “Dark Lady” series beginning at (S.127) and concluding at (S.152) before the cycle finishes with a pair of epigrams known as the “Bath Sonnets” (S.153 & 154). Interestingly, the principal corpus of the 152 sonnets are divisible eight times by ‘XIX’ the number “The Essex/Christ Allusion” was founded upon – as Essex was convicted of high-treason on February ‘XIX’ 1601.

Therefore, by multiplying 19 x 4 we arrive at (S.76) where line ‘7’ is easily identifiable as the dead-centre of the sonnet sequence. This central line appears in the central quatrain which effectively is the heart of the work – consequently, I will give it due care and attention – analysing it line by line:

5 … Why write I still ‘all one’, ever the same
6 … And keep invention in a noted weed,
7 … That ‘every word’ doth almost tell my name
8 … Showing their birth, and where they did proceed?

Southampton & Elizabeth are easily recognisable here as the words “all one” are a contraction of VVriothesley’s motto “One for all, all for one”, immediately followed (in line five) by the Queen’s motto “ever the same” (Semper Eadem) while the third member of ‘The Tudor Trinity’ is also visible as it’s not difficult to detect the name ‘Vere’ in the word “every” while already being familiar with its historical meaning.

To some degree ‘John Gerard’ author of “The Herbal” first published in 1597 (with its front-piece engraving of Oxford dressed as Adonis) was the man responsible for William Cecil’s garden on the Strand in London where Oxford studied at ‘Ceci House’ following the death of his nominal father ‘Earl John’ in 1562. The botanical wisdom shown by Oxford in his writing was fundamentally a gift resulting from his friendship with Gerard. Oxford had learned in particular (regarding roses) that ‘weeds’ are determined by location, not by species.

A wild-rose can spread rapidly (becoming a nuisance) dominating a particular area, a key characteristic of a “weed”, and naturally why Oxford uses the cultivated word “noted”, because a botanist (a doctor of plants) dates and ‘notes’ new species as discovered, while the more modern multiflora rose (for example) can produce thousands of seeds with stems that can easily root giving it the ability to spread quickly into dense thickets of weeds.

Therefore, through Oxford’s hybrid language of allusion his “invention“ he informs us about the Tudor Rose through the words “noted weed”. Furthermore we become botanically and gematrically educated as the words  R*O*S*E and W*E*E*D both amount to the number “54”, and we know (S.54) identifies one particular glorious Royal flower the ‘Tudor Rose’ who our author profoundly anticipated Southampton would be eternally associated with:

“That thereby beauties Rose might never die”.

Interestingly “every” equates gematrically to ‘69’ Elizabeth’s age at death, the place she “proceeds” to, while her birth is illuminated as “every word” (expressing our author’s TRUE identity) appears in line ‘7’ alluding to her 7th September day-of-creation. This line is exclusive – revealing “every word doth almost tell my name” where line ‘8’ is not, line ‘8’ is plural thereby determining these three individuals Royal by “showing their birth” beneath the “noted weed” more familiarly known to us as the “Tudor Rose”.

Gematrically speaking as ‘every word doth show their birth’, their birth must be displayed somewhere! Letters D & O = ‘18’ allude to Southampton and are followed by T & H = ‘27’ representing Southampton’s 20th day birth and his mother’s ‘7th day birth.

When the first Stuart Acknowledged “the first” Tudor.

As we have already seen in understanding numbers as depositories for biographical detail – Oxford enjoyed (S.114) in a bipartite way, with ‘One’ representing his Godly son and ‘14’ himself. We then see in the wider context of Tudor history (S.114) disclosing further juicy biographical information – as in line ‘IX’ the newly crowned ‘King James 1st of England’ (secure in the fact the Stuarts now reigned) let slip he knew Southampton to be “first heire” to the Tudor throne – as when greeting him (in an act of flattery) he announced:

Oh ‘tis the first.

Reiterating my beginning of this analysis, the first quatrain of (S.91) has ‘7’ iterations of William Shakespeare’s S*O*M*E acronym starting with a capital ‘S’ for Southampton followed by a capital ‘O’ for Oxford, nobles so vaulted and Royal they took “glory in their birth” while wallowing in various aristocratic pursuits of “Hawkes, Hounds and Horse” – the “humor” of it all highlighted by our author’s great success at the joust – becoming his mother’s champion at Westminster in May 1571 – gaining first prize for best lance amongst tilters.

In the subsequent couple of years following Southampton’s TRUE day-of-creation 20th May 1574 Oxford travelled extensively in Europe – basing himself in Venice – while his return to Blighty wasn’t all Joust and jocularity as in the English channel his ship was boarded by pirates and he was robbed and dumped on the English shore ‘naked & alone’, just as portrayed in the play Hamlet, who when dumped on the Danish shore was heard to say:

You shall know I am set naked on your kingdom.

This humiliation continued as Oxford had sent ahead from Italy a fashionable wardrobe – the cause of him being cattily referred to by courtiers as the “Italianate Earl”.

‘Some’ in their garments though new-fangled ill.

The Entitlement of Earls.

Having already revealed Oxford’s predilection for seeing sonnet numbers in a bipartite way, you will not be surprised to know he also saw (S.91) as ‘IX’ & ‘One’ giving us a total of ‘10’, then by adding this to the ‘7’ iterations of William Shakespeare’s S*O*M*E acronym we arrive at ‘17’, before returning to text where we have already familiarised ourselves with content representing the aristocratic pastimes of earls Highlighted in Capitals (the only words in the main-corpus of the sonnet capitalised).

“Hawkes, Hounds & Horse” (line four) “Hawks & Horses” (line eleven).

Sporting pursuits gematrically primed to total ‘40’, which taken together with ‘17’ give us the consecration date ‘1740’ of Shakespeare’s memorial tomb in Westminster abbey.

Shakespeare’s shrine in Westminster Abby was unveiled 136 years after Oxford’s death in 1604 an event prophesised by his friend by Dr John Dee (with details disclosed in my article) “With the Breath thou Giv’st and Tak’st”. These maths make lines VIII & ‘IX’ of (S.136) most salient – Oxford becrying the fact he found his Godly son ‘One’ removed from the reckoning in respect of the line of succession. Therefore, knowing what numbers are we find (S.136) represents the amount of years passed (the years elapsed) without Oxford’s TRUE story being told – simple mathematics recalling his year of death plus 136 years:                                        

1604 + 136 = 1740.

Amongst a number ‘One’ is reckon’d none
Then in the ‘number’ let me pass untold.

The sonnet “number”(S.136) is the amount of years Oxford’s ‘story’ survived untold in death – giving monumental credence to my theory, because looking at Shakespeare’s sculpted tomb in Westminster Abbey, his marble effigy points to a scroll bearing a well-known “Prospero” quotation taken from his play “The Tempest” a work originally entitled “The Tragedie of the Spanish Maze” which was played at court before our Scottish King on Shrove Monday 1605.

The following line readers will easily recognise beginning: “Our revels now are ended”, words which continue the following way in the First Folio:

The Clowd-capt towers,
The gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples,
The great globe itself.

The date ‘1740’ carved in Roman numerals MDCCXL (on the front of the plinth of Shakespeare’s tomb in Westminster Abbey) indicates the presence of the 17th Earl of Oxford Edward de Vere who is buried there and not his illiterate tormentor the ‘Stratford’ man.

In April 1604 Oxford gladly left his arch enemy’s behind and in the afterlife was guided by arch friends – a secret society of followers – some of whom were the designer of his memorial William Kent accompanied by Lord Burlington, Alexander Pope and Richard Mead who between them instructed the sculptor ‘Peter Scheemakers’ to inscribe the scroll with the following subtle but significant alterations from the original text to the statute altered text:

The Cloud cupt tow’rs,  (17 letters).
The Gorgeous Palaces,
The Solemn Temples,
The Great Globe itself.

The amended inscription Shakespeare points to on the scroll is mathematical, with the first line reduced to ‘17’ letters supplemented by a totemic line of ‘four’ vertical capital ‘T’s – which can be seen collectively as ‘4T’ or ‘40’.

Somewhat simplistically put – as Edward de Vere was 17th Earl of Oxford ‘the number of his name’ is found by multiplying ‘T’ for ‘Tau’ (XIX) by four = ‘76’. Therefore the inscription found on the scroll that Shakespeare points to identifies the place of Edward de Vere’s internment in Westminster Abbey.

William Shakespeare’s S*O*M*E acronym is supported by the complex (S.136) as we see in line twelve ‘Q’ it importantly begins with a fourth ‘T’, as the previous lines 4, 9 & 10 also begin with a ‘T’, while ‘twelve’ is possibly significant representing Oxford’s loathed ‘official’ April ’12’ 1550 ‘birthday’ as the following self-deprecating description arrives in that line:

That nothing me, a ‘some-thing’ sweet to thee.

Significantly in ’Q’ the word “some-thing” is hyphenated, one of only two uses of this hyphenated word in the sonnets, the other beginning in line ‘IX’ (S.85).

Hearing you praised, I say, ‘tis so ‘tis true,
And to the most of praise add ‘some-thing’ more.

Our author had a stratospheric vision of the words “So” & “True” seeing “tis so” as a ‘princely’ adverb representing “Southampton” & “Oxford” and “tis true” relating to his motto “Vero Nihil Verius” (Nothing Truer than Truth) before ultimately gilding the lily by adding “some-thing more” – Royalty!  Because (The Tudor Trinity) Southampton, Elizabeth & Oxford (Faire, kind and true) were in fact a family of incestuously related princes. To these two uses of the word “some-thing” we must then add five uses of the hyphenated words “some-time”, which we find scattered across the sonnets in (S.18), (S.41), (S.50), (S.75) & (S.102) again giving us a total of ‘7’ renditions of the hyphenated word “some”, naturally reflecting Elizabeth’s day of creation – September ‘7’ 1533.

Godliness acting as Mitigation.

Oxford confessed his sins to God in (S.121) ‘one to one’, seeking no pretence by confessing his dark “deeds”, a word describing the web of incest he was drawn into by his mother with whom he sired his beloved son Southampton.

Sonnets 91, 92 & 93 are a group – something quite obvious as (S.91) seamlessly morphs into (S.92), beginning the following way:

But do thy worst to steal thyself away,
For term of life thou art assured mine.

Biologically speaking “for term of life” references Southampton who cannot escape his DNA, with their true father/son relationship already alluded to in line ‘IX’ of (S.33) by the words “my sunne ‘One’.

Towards the conclusion of (S.92) using of the word “revolt” Oxford implicates himself an associate of the ‘Essex/Southampton rebellion’ by identifying himself one third of the “Essex faction”. This fact is confirmed in line ‘17’ of his ‘18’ lined poem: “To the worthy honor’d knight Sir John Salisburie” found on Pg. 168 ‘Q’ of “Loves Martyr” where he covertly identifies the principle protagonists of ‘The Essex Faction’ Southampton, himself & Essex using the capitalised words “Kind, Learned, Envious”. Significantly this is use ‘XIX’ of either the word ‘Envy’ or “Envious” found in “Love’s Martyr” two words equally alluding to Essex – while I must add in ‘Q’ these words “Kind, Learned, Envious” stick out like a sore thumb as every other word in the poem is italicised.

Our author’s favourite true life story took place just outside “Rochester”(at Gads Hill) when his men robbed William Cecil’s men, becoming the very reason he penned what was partially a memorial to his half-brother ‘Essex’ using the witty pseudonym “Ro. Chester” (the dedication in “Love’s Martyr” is signed exactly this way). Having said that, the principal motivation for his labours was through mythology to justify a claim to the throne for his son the “first heire”.

Simplistically put – when the Phoenix (Elizabeth) expired through immolation a new Phoenix would be born from the ashes of the old and claim the crown. That prince would of course be Oxford’s son ‘Henry VVriothesley 3rd Earl of Southampton’ their lineage outlined in “Love’s Martyr” Pg. ‘One 26’ where we find two (The Phoenix and the Turtle) morph into ‘One’:

Accept into your ever hallowed flame
Two bodies, from the which may spring ‘One’ name.
‘O’ sweet perfumed flame, made of those trees
Under the which the Muses nine have sung
The praise of virtuous maids in mysteries
To whom the faire faced Nymphes did often throng
Accept my body as a Sacrifice
Into your flame, of whom ‘One’ name may rise.

Oxford’s (often told) favourite tale – recalls events of the 21st May 1573 when his men (after earlier attempts) finally managed to rob his father-in-law William Cecil’s men at the foot of ‘Gads Hill’ just outside “Rochester” in the county of Kent. This story was so cherished by him it resurfaces several times in his works including “Famous Victories” but more notably in “King Henry IV pt 1” when Prince Hal & Poins mirthfully set up Falstaff and friends to perpetrate the robbery, a charade ending with much amusement and hilarity for Hal and pal.

Happy & Revolting Royals.

As already mentioned Oxford’s association with the ‘Essex-rebellion’ is alluded to in line ten (S.92) by the word “revolt”.

Since that my life on thy ‘revolt’ doth lie,
Oh what a happy title do I find
Happy to have thy love – happy to die!

Oxford considered his life chances threatened by events relating to the ‘Essex-Rebellion’ making him “Happy to die”, while the “Happy title” mentioned was a ‘Royal Appellation’ of considerable importance to him representing ‘Sacred 3’  acknowledging the fact the word “happy” appears three times.

In ‘Shakespeare-speak’ a “happy person” was a ‘Royal person’ (a prince) as seen in “Loves Martyr” (describing the Phoenix’ tongue) a monarch sits in a “Happie chaire” (familiarly known to us as a throne) while in “King Richard II” the usurping Bolingbroke is found in perfect accord with this thought:

You have misled a prince, a Royal King
A happy gentleman in blood and lineaments.

‘King Richard II’  3-i-9.

This Royal milieu endured as princes such as Southampton didn’t have such mortal beginnings as defined by the word ‘birthday’, because legal or illegal, legitimate or illegitimate (to a prince) they all considered themselves divinely ordained in Heaven, and like Gods were “created”. In VVriothesley’s case this Royal event was commemorated in verse – as his TRUE day-of-creation 20th May 1574 is alluded to beginning line ‘IX’ (S.20) before continuing in line ‘IX’ (S.93), the first of these incorporating Oxford’s second favourite allusion for Elizabeth “Nature”.

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

But Heaven in thy ‘creation’ did decree
That in thy face sweet love should ever dwell.

Gematria in William Shakespeare’s S*O*M*E acronym.

As already seen the S*O*M*E acronym translates gematrically like this:

S = 18, O = 14, M = 12, E = 5.

The “SOME” total therefore is ‘49’ and with Oxford being so very Godly, again he liked to see these figures in a bipartite way as ‘40’ & ‘IX’ (not averse to being linked to Jesus Christ) whose name when seen in Roman numerals ‘IX’ are also his initials in Greek – his name in Greek: Iησούς Xριστός.

In the (S.92) couplet the phrase “So blessed faire” can be understood as the princely union of Southampton and Oxford who by ‘higher authority’ were both “blessed” and “faire”, while being aware our author had an augmented understanding of the princely word “faire” perceiving it (regarding his immediate family) as biologically blessed: F & A = 7, I = ‘IX’, R = 17, E = 5.   Princes he regarded as “fairest creatures” número-uno of course being Southampton and his lovely gaze, who in an “unfaire” world his father insisted “fairly doth excel” (S.5 – L 4). While we find this princely understanding of what’s faire and what’s not faire perfectly illustrated in terms of mother and son in sonnet 18, with Oxford alluding to Elizabeth’s notoriously inconstant nature – where importantly we also see the word “some-times” hyphenated:

And every faire from faire ‘some-times’ declines
By chance or ‘natures’ changing course untrimmed.

Then by using the homophone “Sunne” for ‘son’ and “Moone” for ‘mother’ in (S.21 – L6) these spherical princes are given a further outing – preceded by the following:

Who Heaven itself for ornament doth use
And every faire with his faire doth rehearse.

The meaning of this ‘doubly faire’ language found in both sonnets 18 & 21 is ‘princely offspring’ just as we have seen in (S.1)“fairest creatures” are princes, while you will notice in both cases this royal progeny is described as “every faire” thereby adding a sense of paternity in an historical context. Having this knowledge makes perfect sense of Sonnets 1 – 17 the procreation sonnets where our author bleats on for ‘17’ sonnets pleading with the “faire youth” Southampton to multiply – but now we know why he cares so much! Because if the “faire youth” reproduces – that child would become heire to the throne.

Those of you of a spiritual persuasion will immediately have noticed “Om” in the centre of the acronym S*O*M*E, therefore for those of you who chant “Om” you unwittingly invoke the spirit of Oxford represented by ‘O’ which translates gematrically to ‘14’ followed by ‘M’ for Mother which translates to ‘twelve’, with this second figure composed of ‘E’ for Elizabeth = ‘5’ plus her day of creation ‘7’. Interestingly “Om” often described as the sound of the universe translates phonetically (and is usually described so) as “A – U – M” a sound equating gematrically to “1 + 20 + 12” again amounting to the Godly number ‘33’ a number carefully selected by Oxford to impart the pride felt for his Royal son – found in (S.33) line ‘IX’.

My son ‘One’.

A mathematical summation of “Om” is ‘26’ because O = 14 & M = 12, figures we can make better sense of by looking at the beginning of Lear where on the very first page “Gloucester” (allegorising Oxford’s TRUE father) speaking of his illegitimate prematurely born son says:

Though this knave came ‘some-thing saucily’ to the world before he was sent for, yet was his mother faire, there was good sport at his making, and the whoreson must be acknowledged.  

Oxford’s biological father ‘Lord Admiral Sir Thomas Seymour’ was saucy (as in very saucy) thus we are provided with the alliteration ‘Saucy-Seymour’ the very reason his son came “some-thing saucily” to this world at gestation week ‘26’.

Full ‘14’ weeks before the course of time.

‘Highly importantly’ this quotation from King John (First-Folio) arrives in line ‘114’ which cannot possibly be a coincidence as we know how very important these bipartite numbers ‘One’ & ‘14’ were to Oxford. Then identifying himself numerically – while displaying the great wit he was known for – we see in “Edmund’s” second soliloquy in Lear, he makes light of what may have been the dark deed of his own conception – portraying it in celestial light by using the ‘17’ lettered phrase “divine thrusting on”, before immediately identifying his ‘C’ worthy father by use of the word “Admirable” a word in which the marsupial “Admiral” is assuredly found.

I am fully aware how I write the same message over and over again – but there may still be some of you unaware how Oxford’s Royal nativity was so skilfully bought into focus in Lear by the nascent phrase “twelve or ‘14’ moonshines” (numbers amounting to ‘26’) relating to a nativity deliberately highlighted in (S.26) appertaining to the joyous Tudor occasion that unfolded on the 14th July 1548 at ‘Cheshunt’ Hertfordshire, where in the greatest possible secrecy our petite prince of poetry was created prematurely.

Host & Hostess.

Now, if ever there was a hostess of poetry? That would have been Elizabeth (who wrote verse) while naturally our court-poet Oxford who held a secure “office” at court would have been the “host”, a reality creating envy in many other word-smiths at court. This security Oxford enjoyed was not just down to the fact he was royal, but being one of five male princes what elevated him making him ‘immovable’ from his post, was the fact he was his mother’s ‘first’ born son, who possibly only survived his uncertain nativity due to his divinity?

This primacy meant all things were not equal amongst princes and the indispensable Oxford marked the disposing 25th February 1601 by inserting some biographical content into (S.25), and while contemplating his own good fortune duly described his half-brother the famous warrior (Essex) who following a thousand victories was described by Oxford:

Is from the book of honour razèd quite,
And all the rest forgot for which he toiled.
Then ‘happy’ I, that love and am beloved
Where I may not remove, nor be removed.

Reflecting happily on his close proximity to Jesus Christ, contrarily I wonder if the word “host” may have been used as a jibe against Oxford, something he didn’t care for. The reason I say this – in the very first scene of “Henry V” in which the Hostess (formerly Mistress Quickly) has any dialogue – she hits us with an obvious allusion to Oxford’s nativity when responding to a slight her husband the irascible ‘Ancient Pistol’ received when goaded by Corporal Nym who called him “host”, something he responded to volubly:

Pistol: “Base tike, call’st me host? Now by this hand I swear I scorn the term; Nor shall my Nell keep lodgers.”

Hostess Quickly: “No, by my troth, not long; for we cannot lodge and board a dozen or fourteen gentlewomen that live honestly by the prick – of their needles – but it will be thought we keep a bawdy-house straight.”

The sum of a dozen or fourteen ‘26’ represents Oxford’s miraculous nativity – something definitively important to him that he covertly weaved into the warp and weft of his work – while it wouldn’t have been lost on him ‘O’ for Oxford and ‘S’ for Southampton were central to the word “host” which becomes significant in conjunction with its Latin etymology informing us about Christ as the sacrificial victim.

Gematrically speaking the word “host” can be seen the following way:

H = 8, O = 14, S = 18, making ‘40’ before T for Tau = ‘XIX’, while it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch (to my mind) to translate the word “host” to ‘4T’.

Even Oxford who imagined dipping his feet into the inspirational waters of the Castilian Spring was at times awoken by the cold comfort of earth from his privileged life of education, love, travel and courtly achievement. Inevitably anguish, loss and grief, sauntered along to spoil these glorious accomplishments, while more negatively (pointing his finger indirectly) it was determined that some of these deprivations resulted from the “curiosity of Nations”. Significantly the sacrificial victim in Oxford’s own life was his Royal half-brother ‘Essex’, a fact proven by the gematrical word “Lag” found in Edmund’s first soliloquy in Lear, while the character “Edmund” acts as a mouthpiece for the polyglot ‘Edward’ as the German word “mund” means ‘mouth’, therefore when “Edmund” speaks what is heard is ‘Edward’.

Taken from “Edmund’s”(Sol.1) succeeding the crepuscular light of day, as moonbeams begin to appear, we become beguiled by the following – its copious yet familia information exhibiting our author’s genius:

“For that I am some twelve or ‘14’ moonshines lag of a brother.”

Importantly “LAG” translates gematrically to ‘Tau’ the Christian number ‘XIX’ a symbol of the Royal Arch Freemasons and Knights Templar both orders our author and son Southampton were closely associated with, a list which probably also included Essex. In the painting by John de Critz of Southampton and his black and white gematrical cat “TRIXIE” imprisoned in the tower of London described by Shakespeare’s (S.67) we see VVriothesley has Maltese Crosses embroidered in black and white (the Queen’s colours) on his cuffs – symbols of ‘The Knights Templar’ which should more correctly be embroidered red and white, while we empathise with the fact his DNA took priority.

Across the lifetime of his work there arose in Oxford’s omniscient mind three iterations of “The Essex/Christ Allusion” observations relating to simple parallels existing in these two martyr’s lives – inspirations given further life in the following profound statement – beliefs verifiable by meaning exhumed from line ‘XIX’ of “The Phoenix and the Turtle”.

 

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

 

An Honourable Military Death for Our Great Author

Once indoctrinated by the language of gematria one sees it everywhere, and when a Rose ‘shoots’ the beauty of gematria fills the perfumed air.

A Rose arises in the second line of the sonnets – also at the denouement of ‘Hamlet’ where our author receives a military send-off as his unofficial autobiography concludes with the significant word shoot.

Of all Elizabeth’s issue only one prince was specifically denied the honour of military service “the first” Oxford – but thank God for it! While (S.25) begins by referencing those two naughty princes VVriothesley and his half-brother Essex and although a contentious state of affairs it was Essex alone executed on the 25th Feb.1601.

Let those who are in favour with their stars
Of public honour and proud titles boast,
Whist I, whom fortune of such triumph bars
Unlooked for joy in that I honour most.

Oxford sulked because he didn’t want to become the world’s best-selling writer, he wanted to be seen on the battlefield a noble and heroic King Henry V:

If it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.

Consequently he wrote himself a military exit:

Fortinbras: “Let four captains bear Hamlet like a soldier to the stage, for he was likely, had been put on, ‘To have proved most Royal’. And for his passage, the soldiers’ music, and the rite of war speak loudly for him. Take up the bodies. Such a sight as this becomes the field – but here shows much amiss. Go, bid the soldiers shoot”.

The word S*H*O*O*T equates gematrical the following way:

‘S’ & ‘H’ = 26, obviously alluding to Oxford’s nativity which is followed twice by his TRUE day-of-creation ’14’ before ‘Tau’ expresses his close proximity to Jesus Christ the son of God, gematria showing how extraordinarily perceptive ‘Sir Lawrence Olivier’ was when describing Shakespeare:

“As the nearest thing in incarnation to the eye of God”.

The narrative of Oxford’s extraordinary life is elaborated upon in a ‘26’ lined poem found in “Love’s Martyr” appropriately entitled “A Narration …”

Hugely significant, the poem immediately follows his metaphysical masterpiece “The Phoenix and the Turtle” on Pg. 173, where critically and importantly it identifies our TRUE author as line ‘14’ begins with a fourth ‘T’, explaining Oxford was one of five male princes delivered to the ‘Virgin Queen’.

The following is a duplicate of this incredibly important line which articulates the pride and guardianship Oxford felt for his family of brothers – where describing himself as:

The soule of Heaven’s labour’d Quintessence.

“Quinte” is five, while the word “Queene” as he spells it is a marsupial of the word “Quintessence” as we recall all princes considered themselves divinely ordained in Heaven, thus Oxford was the soul of five princes laboured on Earth by the Queen, who in chronological order were most probably: Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, Robert Devereux, Arthur Dudley & Henry VVriothesley.

Our polymath author was aware this history anciently qualifying as spiritual essence or “quintessence” had earlier been more widely defined by Aristotle and Hermes:

“The truth without lies – the most sure of all things certain – the secret of all secrets.”

As one understands secrets – speaking of a virgin Queen, if we say she had five children – the first of these born to her when only a ‘14’ year old princess. Then, as an adult she took this first son as her incestuous lover – conceiving her last son who became an idol of love for our great author his father. Then, this TRUE narration – a taboo to modern ears – (which as commoners we will never be able to completely comprehend) contradicts everything we have ever been told. Call-me-naïve, if you must, but I would say as secrets go – this was a substantial one – which in the very highest echelons of society and beyond, needed to be respected, a secret (unlike her Majesty) hitherto kept in tacked. While I must say, unfortunately for the Tudor succession the vagaries of “fevers end” (Elizabeth’s decline to death) had stolen her faculties away. (P&T – L7).

Shakespeare Making a Great “Show” of Nativity.

Illustrating how very important the word “show” was to Oxford it arrives four times in (S.26) and like the words “Faire” & “Store” has a ‘familia’ gematrical meaning as S + H = ‘26’ & O + W = ‘54’, therefore ‘numerically identified’ we understand the greatest Englishman ever born was father to a Rose.

In (S.26) the word “bare” appears once.

In (S.26) the words “all naked” are found in line eight.

Finally in (S.26) line ‘14’ as if straight out of the midwifes almanack we are blessed by accouchement of creation – issued by the words “show my head.”

But, before I rest mine – drawing to a conclusion (with a happy ending) in summarizing (S.91) I would say it was an outright declaration of the Royal prerogative, where we find our author’s Royal family (The Tudor Trinity) “Faire, Kind & True” immortally defined by William Shakespeare’s S*O*M*E acronym. A truth so unacceptable to the English psyche it has be buried deep in the annals of history for 500 years – along with the witty meaning of why:

Every H*U*M*O*R hath his adjunct pleasure.

Noticeably, following the word “Every” we are gematrically amused by the first three letters of the word “Humor” which “HUM” and (although noxious to some) equate to ‘40’, followed by the concluding and more fragrant “O” for Oxford and “R” for “Rose” or VVriothesley or Tudor Rose – letters gematrically transposing to: ‘40’, ‘14’, & ‘17’, numbers supplementary to some, but in every other sense relating to the 17th Earl of Oxford Edward de Vere, marking his Christian faith, his TRUE day-of-creation, and his Tudor heritage.

Philip Cooper fecit © 4th December 2025.