Numerous fast proofs by various methods that show the bard was a woman (and that I was her).


Proof by sonnet that the bard was a woman:

First one-

Sonnet # 20 states the following.

A woman's face with Nature's own hand painted
Hast thou, the master-mistress of my passion,
A woman's gentle heart, but not acquainted
With shifting change, as is false woman's fashion,
An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling,
Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth,
A man in hue, all hues in his controlling,
Which steals men's eyes and women's souls amazeth.
And for a woman wert thou first created,
Till Nature, as she wrought thee, fell a-doting,
And by addition me of thee defeated
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
But since she prick'd thee out for women's pleasure,
Mine be thy love, and thy love's use their treasure.

If this business about wanting to get 'prick'd' by a man is for real then what it reveals is that the bard was either a gay man or a straight woman. Which one do you think it was?

You are right. The bard was 100% woman. Let me prove it using the bards own words. Now we all know that the bard was very wise so if the bard was a man then he would never tell another man that his 'prick' was for women if he wanted to use it himself, would he? It would be sinking his own ship before it ever got launched. Do you tell someone you like that they should be interested in someone of the opposite sex?

Let's manhandle this. If your son has a choice of playing basketball or football in school and he is only 5' 8" and weighs a muscular 240 pounds then you probably shouldn't advise him to join the basketball team and for the exact same following reasons.-'That member probably wouldn't fit in as well nor feel nearly as comfortable as elsewhere.'  (a double entendre)

However, if the bard was a woman then she would be selling her own sex as well as herself.

Yes, it is very forward for a woman to have written this sonnet even today. Four hundred years ago not even men talked this openly about their sexual desires.

Nothing as risque as it had ever been published in a popular book before this sonnet was and nothing as openly sexual would again be published in a mass distributed work until Playboy in 1953. However the girls were innocent and uttered such openness about their sexual desires until much later in the breakthrough in the sex content of the late 1960's films.

The women of today are almost caught up to the liberation I lived over 400 years ago.

It's been brought to my attention that the last two sonnets indicate the bard was a man. There are a few others. I only wrote 128 of the sonnets I think, so the rest were added later. I appears there are about four different people that wrote the sonnets. There are probably computer programs that can analyze this (Or should). I think Claremont College in California did some analysis of Shakespeare authorship. They should compare the bards writing with mine.)

The details of why we said William Shakespeare was the author of my plays is here.

The sonnets were written because Queen Elizabeth asked me to. It was when all the theaters where closed due to the plague outbreak about 1593. Each day we put up a new sonnet in several hundred locations so that Londoners would have something good to look forward to the next day. That way people could still read the bards work even if they could not see the plays.

They were also a way I figured that we could keep Londoners interested in our theater group so that we would not have to get them reinterested in coming to our theater again. They were posted on bullitin boards and walls around London. It worked very well until I ran out of ideas. Then I went through my old things and pulled out all the old sonnets I had written and they made a small stack. Then each day I just gave one of those to the printer's helpers until I ran out of them too.  Someone else wrote the rest of the sonnets.



Here I'll prove to you that only the first
128 sonnets were mine.

It ended rather dramatically. I was at Sonnet #128 although it's order was changed in the book to number 20.*


Proof I was the bard using my knowledge of the hidden meanings of the Plays (From the main page about Romeo and Juliet)

Juliet was really Mary Queen of Scots, a Catholic who secretly married her Romeo, the Earl of Bothwell, a protestant.

I needed a name for Mary Queen of Scots first husband who was the Dauphine of France so I came up with 'County Paris' which was as plain and obvious a give-away as anything could possibly be. Here is Juliet's mother advising her to marry him in Act 3, Scene 5:

Marry, my child, early next Thursday morn,
The gallant, young and noble gentleman,
The County Paris, at Saint Peter's Church,
Shall happily make thee there a joyful bride.

Not a single person caught on, so I'll explain it.

If you understand that Paris was a substitute for France read on otherwise please go watch cartoons.

The word Dauphine meant two things in the 16th century. It meant a section of France sort of like a special county. It was kind of like Alsace only it faced Italy instead of Germany and was disputed territory.

It was also the name of the person in charge of that area just like a 'Count' would be the person in charge of a 'County'. This relationship of using the same or similar for both a region and the ruler of that region is duplicated elsewhere with such words as 'Kingdom' and 'King' or 'Barony' and 'Baron'.

Dauphine=County and Dauphine=Count

For the play I had to change it so that County equals Dauphine in both cases so you end up with County Paris instead of the expected Count Paris.

It's such a total give away that this entire incident was about Mary Queen of Scots that it is remarkable that nobody has realized this since the 1600's. On the main page about Romeo and Juliet there are about twenty other matches on that page and there are many others that I will find when the time permits.

The feuding families who went by the names of were in actuality the The feuding and fighting Catholics and Protestants were given the names Capulets and Montagues who also were feuding and fighting a lot.

Mary, Queen of Scots (a Catholic) and the Earl of Bothwell (a Protestant) where married in secret just like Romeo and Juliet were.

A capulet or capalet is a swelling of usually a horses ankle which is most often caused by bruising when a horse hits his leg. It is not usually at all serious. However sometimes it's caused by an infection which can kill if not treated right away.

King Henry VIII was diagnosed as having a capulet and it was thought of as a bruise and so it was not treated seriously. It was an infection which spread sit was not treated seriously. It was caused by an infection. Then the infection spread and it got worse and that is what killed him.

How do you tell the difference between the two identical swellings? The infection causes a bunch of symptoms that bruising doesn't such as fever, sweating and sometimes shaking. These symptoms are collectively called by the English word 'ague'.

The Catholics treated the protestant religion like a bruise on a horse and ignored their own corruption. However the protestants were really the symptoms of a deeply infected Catholic Church that was threatening to destroy it. So Romeo's family, the Montagues, took on the mantle of the protestants and hence they were given the name Mount=very large and ague=symptoms of a bad infection.

What else could I have done to make it easier to understand what the play was really about? I thought it was too simple at the time and was nervous thinking that I would get in lots of trouble as it would be too brazingly clear what Romeo and Juliet was really about.

There are a hundred parallels between the drama that went on with Mary Queen of Scots and the characters in the play 'Romeo and Juliet' but I have only finished about one third of the play. I have 30 so far here.


Proof by my knowledge of the Characters-(From the main page about Falstaff)

How can my knowing the characters convince you that I was the bard? Let's take Falstaff for example. This is what was stated about him:

"He cares not what mischief he does, if his weapon be out. He will foin [thrust] like any devil, he will spare neither man, woman, nor child."
[ King Henry IV Part II Act II Scene I ]

You don't think that the bard was promoting a bisexual man who also raped women and molested children, did you? Those acts were illegal and to put a man like in a play would have been the death of the bard. Falstaff was obviously an overly friendly male dog. And that should completely explain his 'criminal' lack of morality.

Irish Wolf Hound

Haven't you ever attended a play at a Renaissance Fair or in an open air theater and right in the middle of the play a dog walks on stage and barks?

Well to keep it upbeat and fun we just changed the barks to words and had somebody read the dog lines when a dog come on stage. People adored it! So when no dog showed Falstaff which was my pet dog stood in and then he got even more popular so I wrote him into some of the plays. Most of these lines got removed when the stage got gates and the dogs could not get on the stage anymore.

 


Proof I was the bard by even correcting unauthorized changes in the plays-

There is a line in 'A Midsummer's Night Dream' in Act 3 Scene 2, 'I go, I go, looke how I goe, Swifter then arrow from the Tartars bowe'. It doesn't make sense as a sentence and it was completely untrue. 

It was the rate of fire, not the speed of the arrow that was specific to Tartar archers. The English long bow shot the fastest arrow by almost twice the speed of the typical short tarter's bow. The arrrows were so fast and hence so hard hitting that only the English long bow could penetrate armor. 

However the tarter's were trained to fire quickly, without aiming and in large groups at about 20 a minute while an English archer was trained to fire at the most about 6 a minute with highly accurate fire.

Thirty amateur Tarter's could fire 600 arrows a minute which is the speed of a machine gun. They mimicked the speed and the tactics of a machine gun by blanketing an area or should I say it was the other way around and machine gunners copied tarter archery tactics?

So the sentence described when I wrote it the rate of fire and not the speed of the individual arrows. The words in the play should read: 'I go, I go, looke how I goe, Swifter than arrow(s) from Tartars bowes.' Now the sentence is logical and makes sense.

Actually there are dozens similar to this one but I will stop here. Let's just approach one aspect of this and not go on about me. Let me show you proof that the Bard was a woman.


Proof the Bard was a woman.

First proof.

The writer was not known at the time and the plays were more popular then than today.

If the bard was a man he not only would have been the darling of Europe but as an Englishman it would have been his obligation to have accepted the honors of having written the plays.

Women had the opposite predicament. Since they were being killed as witches for writing it was impossible to divulge that I was a woman.

Even King Henry VIII's wife was killed after he died by the church for her 'heresy' of promoting women's education and that included mine and Elizabeth's. During a short period of about one hundred and fifty years one and a half million women in Europe were burned at the stake as witches for doing such things as writing.

So there is the simple reason the writer of the plays was not known.

There was also the down to earth reason that there was not a man alive then who would have ever attended a play if it was known it was written by a woman. They still all get upset, out of proportion, when they find out the bard was female.

(It's really strange because I thought men would happy to learn they were not getting turned on by a guy but then maybe all those male Shakespearean experts are gay. Doesn't it seem that guys should like it better that a woman took them on a 'Romeo and Juliet' Roller coaster ride of their emotions than a man?

I think it would also help men to learn the bard was a great looking woman. My bust is somewhere on the 'Hatfield House' and pictures of her are all over this web site. For the women who are stuck on bald headed men I don't know what to say.


I guess I need to also disprove that William Shakespeare actually wrote the plays.

However, many others have done this better than I could and their arguments are found on the internet such as at this 'Shakespeare Authorship Website'.

I can only add that William Shakespeare worked hard to get his family a crest of arms based on his grandfather having fought for the king as a soldier. If he had written the plays he would never had bothered since on his own merit he would have been quickly made a knight or even a lord as the author Tennyson was made with far less skills than the bard had.

I have this proof in greater detail and lots of other proofs here that the bard was not William Shakespeare.


Proof by my knowledge of the history of that period from the 'uncommon' view point of royalty and the queen who I was privileged to have known.

The history books were written by commoners so you never learned that Queen Elizabeth placed a triple entendre in her second most famous speech, her 'petticoat speech'. It took three was perfectly worded to not be understood by the commoners. However, the Lords understood one of the alternate meanings and their wives, the Ladies understood it and explained it to the lords...before a few got divorced.

'I am your anointed Queen. I will never be by violence constrained to do anything. I thank God I am endowed with such qualities that if I were turned out of the Realm in my petticoat I were able to live in any place in Christendom.' [Queen of England . Speech , Oct. 1566, Deputation of Lords and Commons.]

One meaning is simple, and on the face of it the sentence implies simply that if the Lords are not happy with her they can just send her away from England and find another ruler.

The three additional meanings that went over the heads of the commoners were these other meanings and they were all intentional as she rewrote and sent it out three times to get the wording right.

One was a passionate threat to abdicate the throne and sell her cloths including her petticoats, in Europe (Christendom). The queen had designed and made completely revolutionary clothing including her special petticoat which was based on a earlier 1545 English design that she could have made a fortune with. The ladies of Europe even paid maids to steal them from her rooms but the average English commoner knew nothing of the petticoats.

Another entendre was that she would model her petticoats which no royal had ever done. By implication she meant she would create a 'hell of a scene' and do whatever it took to make the Lords in England look bad.

The other entendre was a direct threat to the lives of the Lords. A queen selling her clothes is seen as having been driven to a destitute state by the Lords of England. A woman in her petticoat was slang for a prostitute and royalty selling their clothes was considered the same as prostitution by the aristocracy of Europe. They would have quickly invaded England and imprisoned the Lords since men were always the reason a woman went into prostitution.

I write many other things about Queen Elizabeth that were previously unknown.

Who else but someone who remembers this time period as a woman could come up with these unknown meanings to this most famous of Elizabeth's speeches? (I am an straight American guy and six months ago I knew nothing of petticoats or England's history of that period.) This unique first person view point of that time period is right in your face, far more accurate and plays emotionally with far greater personal passions than any history book ever written does.

If you read this web site you will be in England with me.

This is all from my memories and they seem like they all happened only five years ago. Yes, it kind of seems like the ~60 years that I lived in that lifetime were all compacted within a weeks time about five years ago. When I first started remembering this life I couldn't even figure out who was the Virgin Queen (I was surprised to find it was not Victoria but Elizabeth) and who the Queens named Mary were. At first I did not remember there was even a Mary Tudor or a Mary Queen of Scots and since they were not of my era I was confused and thought they were the same person for months.


Proof I was there because of my knowledge of the state secrets of England which only a few people knew.

Many things that I write about I do in spite of history books stating a completely opposite information as being facts and then later proving it right.

I wrote several pages about the 'fire ships' that defeated the Spanish Armada being floating bombs and not 'fire ships'. These were made with 1000 pounds of gunpowder and bottles of flammable linseed oil/turpentine mixture). They were not unlike the boat which blew a hole in the side of the USN Cole.

bombIt took some 'huevos' on my part to write page after page about the fire ships being loaded with explosives when all the pictures just showed eight little boats in flames and none of the accounts in the history books said a single thing about explosives. However I knew it was a fact in spite of everything that was taught in the schools.

It was kept a secret to make the Spanish look like wimps that ran away from simple fires and were easily defeated.

fire shipIt was ten days before I located the first evidence. It was an engraving which had escaped the English censorship by hiding in a Paris Museum for 400 years. It even shows one of the fire ships exploding and killing the Englishmen on board. Part of the picture is here.

 

fire shipsThen I found entry's in the Spanish accounts and that fully confirmed that they were bombs and that the same Italian who made the exploding fire ships for England made them for the Dutch ten years earlier. One of his ships at that time, shown at left, killed about one thousand Spanish soldiers and sailors when it exploded.

They were erroneously named ‘fire ships' and should have been called ‘floating bombs'. The rest of it and the reasons for the other secrets was the biggest scandal in England for 100 years is on this one of four pages about destruction of the Spanish Armada which was the basis of the play 'The Tempest'.

There were so many secrets from that desperate time that I expose on these pages. They are in the section about the play 'The Tempest' and they include the English spiking of the Spanish cannons the year before and blackmailing Spain with the prisoners England took captive.


Proof by my writing skills in this life.

This also proves that I am not trancing the spirit of anyone. If you talk with any spiritualist they will explain that a spirit that is being tranced is only able to come from the point of view of the time period in which they lived and their skills would be the same as then. They would never be able to write a play and include today's events or increase their skills as I have here. The play they would write would by necessity be about that time period.

My abilities are very similar and my style is like the bards. I'm a 52 year old male ex-aerospace technician who took one English comp class in his freshman year and that was all I knew of writing. For twenty years the longest thing I wrote was a two page report on a laser problem that I solved which had cost the company I worked for about $20 million. It was about two pages long.

Got the idea of how limited my skill of writing used to be?

Now I can write with sex entendres. (No I don't mean a sexual entendres) Sexentendres are sentences with six meanings and that is double the triple entendre that the bard established a world record with in the Merry Wives of Windsor.

I can utilize a series of double entendres in such a way so that it describes two different characters at one time.

I don't see it as special for me. It's just picking up where I left off 400 years ago. Even that life as the bard was just a continuation made by picking up from an earlier life in Chaucer time but I am not going there...yet.

 

*I was surprised one day when the men came back after putting hem on the walls and said that the sonnet they had just put up was so popular with the men that they were stolen immediately and the men were even fighting over them. They wondered if I had written any more like it. I then excused myself and for the first time in four years I read it. It was sonnet 20 (above) and I was horrified since now all of London knew that the bard was a woman.

That sonnet was a booty call before a Russian woman dominated his soul but it was too late and they left for France together so I had just stored it. When I found it I of course threw it on the floor. That is where we put our trash and my roommate who I was teaching to read and write English picked it up. She saw it ryhmed (the same letters at the end of the sentences) and knew it was a sonnet so she placed it on top of the stack.

Until then I was known as the bards lover and I told everyone that he wanted to keep anynomous because of his position in the government. Until then I had pretended that I only distributed his plays and sonnets.

I did not know what to do and I realized that could get me killed. Do you know how it got resolved? My friend Queen Elizabeth found out and rescued me using a simple tactic that had never been seen since the Greek warriors were said to be gay lovers. She sent out her guards and about 5000 soldiers to get all the copies. Of course they got hardly any of them but that was not the idea. Then the people who had the sonnets immediately thought that maybe she and I were lesbian lovers and that she was the bard. Then they realized that since I mentioned prick it meant that maybe the queen was secretly a man which explained why she never got married or that maybe we had some kind of love triangle going on with a man. For about two weeks I did not know what would happen. Then finally most people decided that Queen Elizabeth had sent out the soldiers on behalf of one of her high officials who was probably both of our lovers and they just left it at that. She loved the drama that it generated.

Then the queen called me in and said that 'what did I do that was wrong.'

She asked me (in the proper English of the time) 'Are you so hard up to get laid that you have to beg men in sonnets for sex?'

I answered with great embarassment 'Yes, your magesty.'

'And do you realize that you are wasting your creativity on words (for one man) when they could be directing your love making with a man?'

'Yes, but I have to get the man first for that.' I blurted out which was more my style.

'There are quite a few young women who are without men staying at the theater, I hear. Is that correct?'

'Yes your majesty there are about forty single women, many whose husbands or parents were killed by the plague and needed a place to stay.'

'Very well I'l take care of it. You're dismissed and please pick up your damn muddy dress from my Persian rug.'

I had heard that ships had recently come back from the orient with 2,500 of the most beautiful rugs that anyone had ever seen but such things of great beauty can never be described as they are seen by another. So I looked down and saw my chair was on the most incredibly colorful rug that I had ever seen. It had pattern not like our squared and angled one but ones that swirled with the most vibrant colors and went right into other patterns and I was just drawn into this wonderful work of art that had never come to the shores of England before and I somehow ended up on my hands and knees just expressing my complete fascination at this colorful celebration on the floor.

Then I realize where I was and crawled off, climbed up on my legs somehow, bowed and backed out of the room. The queen had asked me to write the sonnets in the first place I felt that I was done an injustice not only for be left hanging on the authorship beside I considered everything having to do with sex her fault. This is why.

There was an edict issued that stated 'It has come to the attention of a member of the royal family that there has been rumors having to deal with a sonnet that was written by royal command. Let the truth be known that it was written by Sir Francis Drake for a young woman to give to one of the hand maidens of Anne of the Chamberlains theater group.

That did it. The next day there were a dozen eligible men hanging around at the theater making these sad ladies laugh for the first time in months. Several days later that very rug was sent as a gift to me by the queen.

Queen Elizabeth got it quickly straightened out and took all the heat and as a result of her action my life was saved from an early death by Spanish assassins. We had just written the Tempest together and Spanish assassins were looking for the man that wrote the play.

The sonnets first got printed in a book in 1594. Then about three years later they started adding a few of other people sonnets and did so every few years.

Those last two sonnets are horrible. A nasty limmerick writer without any sympathy for women obviously wrote those two. Just look at them. Imbecilic and not even rhyming some of the time. Compare the last two sonnets to the first hundred and twenty and neither will come close to measuring up to a single one of them. (I hope they put the new sonnet in the last pages and did not shuffle them in with mine or it will take me months to figure out which ones are mine.)

Previous Page

All rights reserved. © J Pinil, Inc. 2004