Oxfraud

7/ And so, Oxfraudian Oxfordians, which flavor of Oxford are you?

6/ The complete lack of evidence supporting Oxford as the true author has created this vast and wayward set of road maps… even as Oxfordian of the Year, Justice Stevens knew, Oxfordians have nothing and nearly 40 years later, within the Oxfordian camp, madness continues to reign…

5/ The above cannot account for all possible Oxfordian proposals, including Oxford fathering Southampton with Southampton's mother, etc., but it is a framework.

4/ The baseline Oxford would appear to be A.a.1. But Ward seems to be an A.b.2 kind of guy. Waugh appeared to be an A.a.3 (in my limited knowledge).

3/ The Man:
A. Orthodox Oxford
B. Prince Tudor Oxford
C. Prince Tudor II Oxford
The Works:
a. Wrote Shakespeare only
b. Wrote Shakespeare + others
The Cover Up:
1. Deep State Conspiracy (nearly no one knew)
2. Semi-Secret Conspiracy (a loose secret) – “wink and a nudge”
3. Everyone Knew

2/ With more than 80 current, alternative candidates suggested as the true author, I would suggest that number be increased by at least 17 for Oxford alone, per the below tiers:

1/ The Oxfordian cause is in total disarray. In 1987, Justice John Paul Stevens admonished Oxfordians over the lack of a unified and logical framework for Oxford as the true author of Shakespeare's works.

"Take nothing on its looks; take everything on evidence. There's no better rule." Mr. Jaggers, Great Expectations.

The Prima Facie Case for Shakespeare 1. Identity Shakespeare's First Folio 3. Folio Links 2. Theatrical Ties How the Evidence Converges Central Conclusion: William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon is the Author of the First Folio Works...

A new, improved version of our prima facie case for Shakespeare's authorship is available!

prezi.com/view/AUiVej2...

IF you want to annoy an Oxfordian, pronounce the name of the man who invented the theory the way he pronounced it. Thomas Looney (LU-nee).

Shakespeare authorship doubts come home to New Haven A conference of doubters has descended on New Haven to share theories about Shakespeare’s authorship rooted in the work of a 19th-century New Havener.

Coverage of the recent Shakespeare authorship denial conference in New Haven. E. Winkler could learn a lot from this journalist!

yaledailynews.com/blog/2025/09...

9/ [Open to Rebuttal: Evidence of pseudonym/allonym or mistake/deception by Heminges & Condell would refute]

8/ [Narrowing Logic: Only William Shakespeare of Stratford fits both "Shakespeare" + "fellow"]
│
▼
[Best Explanation: William Shakespeare of Stratford authored the works]
│
▼

7/ [Contemporaneous Records Identify William Shakespeare of Stratford as Fellow]
│
▼

6/ Prima Facie Attribution Flowchart: Shakespeare of Stratford
[First Folio Names "Shakespeare" as Author]
│
▼
[Heminges & Condell call him their "fellow"]
│
▼

5/ Therefore, by cross-referencing the Folio’s testimony with contemporaneous records, the “Shakespeare” named as author is narrowed to a specific, historically identifiable individual: William Shakespeare of Stratford.

4/ Court records, Augustine Phillips’ will, and Shakespeare’s own will identify him as a fellow of Heminges, Condell, and Burbage.

3/ Independent documentary evidence establishes that William Shakespeare of Stratford was a sharer (“fellow”) in the King’s Men, the company to which Heminges and Condell also belonged.

2/ The compilers of the First Folio (Heminges and Condell) further describe this “Shakespeare” as their “friend and fellow.”

In early 17th-century usage, “fellow” in this context meant a business partner or colleague in the same company.

We asked ChatGPT to restate our PFC. Here's its response:

1/ Prima Facie Case for Shakespeare’s Authorship

The First Folio identifies the author as “William Shakespeare.”

Multiple paratexts (dedications, prefaces, title pages) consistently attribute the works to “Shakespeare.”

Hall's Croft www.instagram.com/reel/DM-ZC0M...

422 years ago, Hamlet was entered in the Stationers Register by printer James Roberts.

2/ Hackett's description:

"The fallacy of the negative proof is an attempt to sustain a factual proposition merely by negative evidence. It occurs whenever a historian declares that "there is no evidence that X is the case," and then proceeds to affirm or assume that not-X is the case."

Historians Fallacies Toward A Logic Of Historical Thought : David Hackett Fischer : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Historian's Fallacies : Toward A Logic of Historical Thought

1/ In his book, Historians' Fallacies, David Hackett Fischer describes a form of argument frequently used by Shakespeare authorship deniers as "the fallacy of the negative proof." Almost the entire case for Shakespeare authorship denial rests on this logical fallacy.

archive.org/details/Hist...

2/ . . . than that he hired a "glover's son" who they all imagine was illiterate (because no school records survive from Shakespeare's time or for centuries afterwards from the Stratford-upon-Avon Grammar school.)

There's no evidence that Oxford personally wrote even one play.

1/ It's common that people in high positions in society, politics, entertainment and business hire professional writers. Ghost-writers are plentiful. It's far more likely that the Earl of Oxford took credit for plays and poems written by his "secretaries" John Lyly and Anthony Munday . . .

Oxfordians have never given a plausible explanation for why Oxford wouldn't have taken credit for plays and poems he wrote. He had a number of published poems in the 1570s; why would he have concocted a pseudonym or allonym to publish Venus and Adonis, a poem of much greater merit than his others?

You have no evidence that Shakespeare was a "front." And for Marlowe, having a front would be a huge mistake. His works could be published anonymously without involving anyone else.

Our correspondent, newsmite, wondered if we had looked up the reference. We did and sent it off to a contact at Yale, who expressed surprise at the attribution to Marlowe.

Looks like the sad little Marlovian got mad and blocked 🚫 this thread. No surprise. He kept missing the point. Maybe he suddenly realized he was wrong.