Kit Knightly – Off-Guardian Oct 20, 2024
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is having the portrait of William Shakespeare removed from No. 10, according to various reports across the legacy media.
This has “sparked a backlash”according to the Evening Standard.
People on social media are asking “What does this mean?”
The Telegraph quoted former-Culture Secretary Sir Oliver Dowden:
The Prime Minister spent the election loudly proclaiming his patriotism, but now the election is over he’s succumbing to the usual Left-wing cringing embarrassment about our past […] Not content with removing Thatcher, Gladstone, Raleigh and Elizabeth I, he’s now consigning Shakespeare to the dustbin.
If you want my opinion – well, here it is…
The portrait was removed (or is said to have been removed) simply to create more fuel for the “Labour hates Britain” fire.
The “controversy” is a psy-op designed to outrage those people who probably don’t read Shakespeare but do read Tommy Robinson’s twitter account. It’s another irrelevant non-issue designed to get people screaming at each other in impotent rage.
Just garbage.
Of much much more interest is the portrait itself.
Firstly, it’s not exactly a painting of “William Shakespeare” the playwright.
It’s at absolute best a copy of a painting of Shakespeare, but in fact is quite unlikely to even be that.
It was painted circa 1758, around a hundred and fifty years after the author’s death, and is a (bad) copy of the famous “Chandos Portrait” seen here:
‘Chandos portrait’ allegedly depicting William Shakespeare.Click to enlarge
…but the Chandos portrait probably isn’t of Shakespeare either.
Or at least it has zero provenance before 1719, and nobody knows exactly who painted it, when they painted it or who it’s intended to portray.
A note in the margin of a book owned by antiquary George Vertue, dated 1719, purports to give a brief history of the painting. It reads as follows (idiosyncratic spelling and random punctuation is in the original):
The picture of Shakespear one Original in Possession of Mr Keyck of The Temple. he bought for forty guuineas of Mr Baterton who bought it of Sr W. Davenant. to whom it was left by will of John Taylor. who had it of Shakespear. it was painted by one Taylor a player and painter contemp: with Shakes and his intimate friend.
Mr Betterton told Mr Keck several times that the Picture of Shakespeare he had, was painted by one John Taylor a Player, who acted for Shakespear and this John Taylor in his will left it to Sr Willm. Davenant. at the death of Sir Will Davenant – Mr Betterton bought it, at his death Mr. Keck bought it in whose poss. it now is.
This note, written 103 years after Shakespeare is said to have died, is the ONLY provenance linking the portrait to him. The rest is “hearsay and assumption”, according to art historian Tarnya Cooper’s book on the subject:
The early history of the painting relies upon hearsay, half-remembered facts and assumptions”
Tarnya Cooper – Searching for Shakespeare, Yale University Press, 2006 (p 54)
And from Wikipedia, emphasis added:
It has not been possible to determine with certainty who painted the portrait, or whether it really depicts Shakespeare.
None of its claims have been independently verified at this time. There is no evidence the painter John Taylor painted this picture. His will is extant and does not include any mention of a portrait of Shakespeare being left to sir William Davenant or anyone else (Cooper, ibid).
There is no hard evidence it was passed on from Davenant to a man called Baterton (or Betterton), no hard evidence it went from him to a man called Keyck (or Keck).
But even if we take this completely unsupported “provenance” as true it only leads us back to William Davenant. To describe this man as a somewhat unreliable narrator would be a profund understatement. He was in fact a “Shakespeare fantasist”, who claimed on different occasions, and on the basis of no evidence, to be William Shakespeare’s godson and/or his illegitimate child.
Again, from Cooper’s “Searching for Shakespeare” (p.55, emphasis added):
There are a number of unanswered questions that make us want to challenge the chain of events recorded by Vertue. For example, who decided this particular picture was a portrait of Shakespeare, and not another fashionable Jacobean urban dweller? William Davenant [who] was known to embroider upon his association with Shakespeare.
So even if “Sir Will. Davenent” did once own this picture and claim it was a portrait of his “godfather/dear old dad”, that does little to nothing to validate it as a genuine artefact.
In a rational world that really should be the end of it shouldn’t it?
Very bad picture of unidentified man with no provenance is worth nothing evidentially and must be dismissed out of hand unless or until some further provenance emerges.
Oh but hold on there. You’re forgetting something way more important than facts and reason.
You’re forgetting the urgent and irresistible need to believe…
You know that lovely warm cozy feeling you get when you decide those pesky facts don’t matter any more, because you just don’t want them to.
The National Portrait Gallery know that feeling well. They think it’s “certainly fairly likely” that completely anonymous, unsourced uncorroborated picture does depict the Bard.
Why? Well, the subject is about the “right age” (though how you determine that without knowing when the portrait was painted is hard to ascertain), might resemble other paintings alleged to be the Bard and…
In 2006, art historian Tarnya Cooper of the National Portrait Gallery completed a three-and-a-half-year study of portraits purported to be of Shakespeare and concluded that the Chandos portrait was most likely a representation of Shakespeare. Cooper points to the earring and the loose shirt-ties of the sitter, which were emblematic of poets
Forget the total absence of any evidence whatsoever. Wipe that from your mind. The sitter’s totally subjective age, his earring and those loose shirt-ties are all we need to tell us it’s “most likely” Shakespeare after all!
Because how many non-poets aged somewhere in their 30s or 40s EVER wore earrings or loose shirt-ties? I would guess NONE!
And if he must be a poet – well then he’s probably THE poet – Shakespeare
Deductive reasoning at its finest.
Most curious and telling might be that the Tarnya Cooper who makes these strained claims for the authenticity of this picture is the same Tarnya Cooper we quote above, making the eloquent point that it is entirely unauthenticated!
She points out the “hearsay and assumptions”, the “unanswered questions” and that a key witness has a history of “embroidering his association with Shakespeare” and then concludes the painting is “certainly fairly likely” authentic…because of the earring.
Welcome to the world of Shakespearian history, where a little fact goes a very long way and “allegedly”, “may have”, “probably”, and “could be” do serious power-lifting as a matter of course.
The final level of strangeness is the same thing that overlays all discussion of Shakespeare – the meta-weirdness of “the authorship question”.
There is good evidence to suggest “William Shaksper, the man from Stratford” and “Shakespeare the playwright” were not the same person, and the name “Shakespeare” was a pen-name for someone else (or multiple people).
So, when analysts discuss the sitter “appearing to be the right age” because Shakespeare was 36-46 when this painting was supposedly painted, they could well be talking about entirely the wrong person anyway.
In summary, for those keeping score at home, the painting everyone is so upset about:
Is a later copy of an earlier work…
…that has no reliable provenance…
…and was painted by an unknown artist…
…at an unproven time…
…for an unknown patron…
…of an unnamed subject.
We’re so many layers deep in speculation and doubt and articles of belief that the truth has long vanished over the horizon.
And to top it all off, the whole story about Starmer having the painting taken down might just have been made up to annoy people.
To return to an earlier question: What does this mean?
Absolutely nothing.
That kind of thing is just interesting to me.
—
Support Off-Guardian:
“And to top it all off, the whole story about Starmer having the painting taken down might just have been made up to annoy people.”
Or it might be because of The Merchant of Venice. Starmer being a kike….
Shakespeare was indeed the pen name (decoy) for the real author of those inspired works — Francis Bacon
“What does this mean? Absolutely nothing.”
Au contraire!!!
Regardless of the authenticity of the painting – or even of “Shakespeare” himself – the petty, puerile, pissant act of having it removed is just another step in “The Great Deconstruction”..
a calculated kick-in-the-teeth to that ever diminishing band desperately clinging to what used to be taken for granted as “British Heritage”.. even while these same (((authorities))) put some Negro land-whale of a woman on a plinth in Trafalgar Square!
Methinks “Kit Knightly” might be kosher-certified…
“…. where a little fact goes a very long way and “allegedly”, “may have”, “probably”, and “could be” do serious power-lifting as a matter of course.”
Sounds more like the BBC!!!
Well no playwright ever lived in Stratford upon Avon. Mr Will Shaxpere who lived there could not read or write. Truth is emerging on this 400th anniversary, and the primary genius has to be Edward de Vere. (my book: the Bard and the gunpowder Plot)
“The portrait was removed (or is said to have been removed) simply to create more fuel for the “Labour hates Britain” fire.
The “controversy” is a psy-op designed to outrage those people who probably don’t read Shakespeare but do read Tommy Robinson’s twitter account. It’s another irrelevant non-issue designed to get people screaming at each other in impotent rage.”
Yes. I agree.
***
The Shakespeare “Authorship Question” relates to the notion that “William Shakesper” (note the spelling) of Stratford-Upon-Avon was not William Shakespeare (the pen name for Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford.)
This might not be the most important historical mystery to solve, but it is fascinating, and from the perspective of education and teaching, it shows any rich person may not be especially talented — I have a severe distaste for the English aristocracy — but the wherewithal to provide education for some WITH TALENT means that there has forever been a short falling of the potential talent pool for lack of opportunity. Interestingly, around the same time, Lorenzo The Magnificent, often regarded as one of the finest poets in Italy, was part of the Medici banking family. This is of course all arguable from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
In any case, the “Authorship Question” is judged sufficiently innocuous that YouTube allows its content:
https://www.youtube.com/@shakespeareoxfordfellowship
Back in the “Internet Golden Era” ~2000, I remember “Birdman Byrant” championing Oxford as Shakespeare. Curiously, the USA dominates this research, maybe belying the British idée fixe with the “working class hero” from Stratford Upon Avon. The epistemological cold water to be poured on any contention of babies being born in stables with a world changing missions, is that talent without considerable material support and teaching is even rarer than one may think. (I have witness this within the particular area of chess. It is virtually impossible to become a top player if not trained from a young age.)
It is fascinating and I leave those sufficiently interested to research it for themselves…
Minus aptus acutis naribus horum hominum. ( Horace )
Manebant vestigia morientis libertatis!
Too weak to bear the sneers of such men as these – there remained the traces of dying liberty!
“It is a strange coincidence that one small county should have given England her two greatest poets — for one must not forget Shakespeare.” –Aleister Crowley
Of greater interest than the portrait is: who was the man writing under the pen name of William Shakespeare? It almost certainly is Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who had all the education, and background insider knowledge to publish such compromising material on the elite of his time. The best book on this topic is author Mark Anderson’s, “Shakespeare By Another Name”, published in 2005.
does anyone know if kit knightly is a roman catholic?
nico x is the only one exposing the jew-catholic clique controlling everything–including the alternative news/conspiracy arena.
That is not as bad as it seems, more like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic,
not a real good painting anyway. THIS is bad:
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/harris-labour-party/2024/10/19/id/1184728/
Trade, the painting for Kackula?!
Cue the “they’re-lying-to-us-about-Shakespeare” crowd!
On three, two, one …
As if it makes the slightest difference if “they” are concealing the “fact” that the “real” Shakespeare was indeed Johnny Woo, or Jaggy Singh, or Sir Evelyn Williams. So what? Why would “they” do that?
Besides, what difference does it make if someone used a pen name to write under? Ever hear of George Orwell or Voltaire? What about Mark Twain? Yes, those were all pen names. Yet 1984 is still 1984.
No one knows who is the real Shakespeare and no one knows who really authored the New Testament when both are the most influential works.
You should find that very strange – and wonder if we are being manipulated by Grey Aliens.
‘Conscience is but a word that cowards use,
Devis’d at first to keep the strong in awe:
Our strong arms be our conscience, swords our law.’ –Richard III
A.A.
Not only do we not know what the Bard actually looked like, but even the few who have read his works these days have the faintest idea what he was talking about. Hamlet written in 1623 is the classic example of most modernist critics having to see everything through their seamy libido spectacles, ignoring all of the obvious parallels of Prince Hamlet with Jesus and the false King Claudius who has murdered Hamlet’s father and usurped his position over the kingdom. It is a play with many religious connotations during a time when if you expressed the “wrong views” openly regarding the Protestant-Catholic split, you would be in a great deal of trouble.
Just perhaps Christianity is the play within the play to catch the conscience of the “false” king ruling and ruining our lives.
“O, reform it altogether! And let those that play your clowns speak no more than is set down for them, for there be of them that will themselves laugh to set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh too, though in the meantime some necessary question of the play be then to be considered. That’s villainous, and shows a most pitiful ambition in the fool that uses it. Go, make you ready.”
What did Shakespeare look like? He looked like what he said, of if that is not good enough for you, then he must have been the spitting image of Russell Brand who appears to have a similar command of the language.
Kit Knightly’s article begins promisingly but recedes into hackneyed irrelevance.
A reproduction of the Chandos portrait of William Shakespeare was prominently displayed in the assembly hall of my grammar school.
I can remember several teachers, (from differing academic disciplines,) advising the class that the depiction of the Bard, familiar to us all, was unlikely to be an authentic rendering of the likeness of William of Stratford.
That was during the late 1970’s/ early 1980’s.
There is no controversy. It has long been recognized that the provenance of the Chandos portrait is historically suspect.
The notion that Keir Starmer has removed Shakespeare’s portrait from Number 10 Downing St, in order to antagonize Tommy Robinson supporters, is silly beyond reckoning.
Starmer is a philistine – a man suffering from an impoverishment of high culture. His posturings bring no distresses to the wise.
I’ve heard tell that Starmer’s favourite bed time read is a nice and juicy Jackie Collins.
Shakespeare=breakspear? The Breakspear family are an English Illuminati clan that originated in Italy taking their name from the Lancellotti family. Lance means spear and rotti means to break. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6pam3w/house_of_the_magician/?rdt=63931.
othello,venice.hamlet,denmark.adrianIV???
The Chandos portrait…LoL..
That’s a swizzler if ever there was one (take an afternoon in the national portrait gallery).. and probably an in joke to boot, because of course they ‘put out the eye’ of the real ‘Author’.. and killed him dead… in true secret society fashion..
Chris Marlowe… who gave away too many ‘secrets’…
the Assassin was probably Bacon hisen, the old ham… in between servicing the virgin Queen..and being the polymath he was…eventually ruined by Bill Coke and imprisoned in the Tower by the demented James the first (and last)..
The Breadth of the Ouvre was all Bacons …but he lacked the literary verve..
Nico X is not exposing a damn thing. He is promoting the Big Lie. He hides the truth behind the screen of Satanism and racism . He misleads those who honestly seek the truth. His so-called truths are lies. Keeping people distracted from reality. The reality is the Jews and Freemasons are tools of the real powers, the powers whose faces you rarely or never see. Ask yourself who was made King of Jerusalem. Ask yourself who is the Anti-Christ and who are his servants and allies. Ask yourself, when the next great War is fought, who will be left in control, because there will no longer be an Israel and Arab powers. Ask yourself who is the ruling family of Europe. Ask yourself.
“To be or not to be”
to live or to die
In the opening lines of the soliloquy, Hamlet asks whether it is better to ‘be or not to be’, meaning to live or to die. On its face, this might sound like a simple question: most people would say that it is better, or ‘nobler in the mind’ to live.
_______________________________________________
This understanding is probably also false.
We all gotta ‘be’ something…
Starmer might accidentally have done a good thing: I remember being pleased to learn that the portrait was not of the real poet, as the real one would not have such a dull physiognomy
So whart are Sir Kike Starmer replace it with? A portrait of Gorilla Floyd perhaps? At least the woke mob would like it.
around 5 years back a group of academics ran the works of shakespeare through bank of computers in order to establish who the author was
The computer programme had established its as highly accurate
after some considerable time the answer ca me out that
shakespeare wrote evenything attributed to him
not bacon not earl watsit not martin carter
but shakespeare
this got a lot of news at the time i am surprised how ignorant some are of this fact
TheyRlying–I also wonder if Romeo and Juliet are Rome and Jerusalem, possibly meaning NT and OT, Catholic and Protestant
Did Shakespeare Really Write His Own Plays?
https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=272246
“To be or not to be that is the question …” To live or to die, what is the answer? Humankind has all the questions but that which it calls God has all the answers!😉👌
Simon Smith–Starmer showed that he does hate the British when he found prison places for those who protested the Rwandan’s killing of girls in England but never condemned the killings (or at least I never heard him)