The Shakespeare Deception Part 4
The Shakespeare canon was created by Edward de Vere. De Vere likely collaborated with other court poets, possibly including Christopher Marlowe. After de Vere’s death, literary insiders like Francis Bacon and Ben Jonson transformed his wor
We have tagged this article as propaganda as it imposes a serious spin on the topic.
If not more explanation provided, this article is included as propaganda because it shows clear manufacture from a government controlled dialectic,
where a topic is misdirected by some actors in order to mislead people during early stages of a narrative.
The Shakespeare canon was created by Edward de Vere. De Vere likely collaborated with other court poets, possibly including Christopher Marlowe.
After de Vere’s death, literary insiders like Francis Bacon and Ben Jonson transformed his works into timeless art, using William Shakespeare as a front man.
Over time, the Shakespeare myth evolved, becoming a cornerstone of British cultural identity, with each generation adding layers to the myth, and was promoted by groups like the Freemasons, making it a powerful tool for cultural and imperial influence.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
Stay Updated!
Stay connected with News updates by Email
The following is from an essay by Lies are Unbekoming titled ‘The Shakespeare Deception: Authorship, Empire and Manufactured Myths’. We have split the essay into 5 parts. Below is the fourth part. You can read Part 1 HERE, Part 2 HERE and Part 3 HERE. We will be publishing the final part tomorrow. If you would like to read the essay in one sitting, you can read it on Substack HERE.
The Shakespeare Deception: Authorship, Empire and Manufactured Myths Part 4
VI. The Synthesis: Multiple Actors, One Grand Deception
A. The Writing Phase (1590s-1604)
The creation of the Shakespeare canon began as Edward de Vere’s personal project – an aristocrat’s attempt to process his traumatic life through art while commenting on the political world he couldn’t openly criticise. Between 1590 and his death in 1604, de Vere poured his classical education, his Italian experiences, his court observations and his psychological insights into plays that were performed under the safely distant name of William Shakespeare.
This wasn’t solitary creation. De Vere likely collaborated with other court poets, possibly including Christopher Marlowe before his death in 1593. Some plays were adaptations of older works, others were group efforts among what might have been an informal writers’ guild. But de Vere was the driving force, the master intelligence shaping the canon’s themes and concerns. The plays from this period burn with personal intensity – Hamlet’s anguish, Othello’s jealousy, Lear’s madness all feel lived rather than imagined.
De Vere understood his works’ political dimensions. The history plays consciously served Tudor propaganda needs, while the comedies and tragedies encoded court gossip and criticism in ways that insiders would recognise but outsiders couldn’t prove. He was writing for multiple audiences simultaneously – entertaining the groundlings, flattering the Queen, amusing his fellow aristocrats and, perhaps, hoping future generations would decode his buried autobiography.
B. The Mythmaking Phase (1604-1623)
De Vere’s death in 1604 created both a problem and an opportunity. The problem: how to continue presenting plays by a dead man? The opportunity: to transform a court insider’s psychological dramas into timeless universal art. This transformation required careful management by those who understood both the plays’ value and their danger.
Francis Bacon, Ben Jonson and a circle of literary insiders likely orchestrated this transformation. They may have revised some plays, completed others from drafts, and carefully selected which works to preserve and which to let disappear. The seven-year gap between Shakespeare of Stratford’s death in 1616 and the First Folio‘s publication in 1623 gave them time to craft the perfect mythological framework.
The genius of their solution was using William Shakespeare – a real person with just enough connection to theatre to be plausible – as their front man. He couldn’t object (being dead), couldn’t contradict (having been illiterate) and left behind just enough documentation to seem real without leaving enough to disprove the attribution. The First Folio didn’t just publish the plays; it created Shakespeare as we know him, complete with portrait, testimonials and origin story.
C. The Imperial Phase (1623-1900s)
Once launched, the Shakespeare myth evolved beyond its creators’ intentions or control. What began as a necessary pseudonym, then calculated propaganda, became the cornerstone of British cultural identity. Each generation added layers to the myth, projecting their values onto the empty vessel of the Stratford man.
The 18th century emphasised Shakespeare’s “natural genius,” using him to prove English superiority over French neoclassical rules. The Romantics made him a prophet of imagination and feeling. The Victorians transformed him into the supreme expression of moral wisdom and imperial destiny. David Garrick’s 1769 Jubilee, the building of the memorial theatre in Stratford, the endless editions and adaptations – each iteration strengthened the myth while moving it further from any historical reality.
The Freemasons played a crucial but hidden role throughout this evolution. Recognising the Masonic symbolism in the plays and possibly knowing the true authorship through their secret traditions, they promoted Shakespeare as part of their broader project of Enlightenment transformation. Through Masonic networks, Shakespeare spread across the Empire and beyond, becoming not just England’s poet but humanity’s, the “myriad-minded” genius who contained all possibilities.
VII. Why This Matters Today
A. The Power of Manufactured Myths
The Shakespeare deception demonstrates that our most fundamental cultural assumptions may be elaborate fictions designed by power to serve power. If the greatest writer in the English language is essentially a fictional character, a propaganda tool transformed into a secular deity, what other “truths” might be equally manufactured? The question becomes urgent in our age of information warfare, when technology makes the creation and spread of false narratives easier than ever.
The success of the Shakespeare myth reveals the disturbing ease with which false history becomes accepted fact. Once established, these myths become almost impossible to dislodge. The economic interests (Stratford’s tourist industry), institutional interests (academic Shakespeare departments) and psychological interests (the need to believe in democratic genius) all align to defend the lie. Evidence becomes irrelevant when identity is at stake.
Understanding how the Shakespeare myth was created and maintained provides a template for recognising similar operations today. The same techniques – the appeal to national pride, the democratic fantasy, the institutional enforcement, the economic incentives – appear in modern propaganda campaigns. Whether it’s selling wars, political movements or social transformations, the Shakespeare playbook remains remarkably effective: create a compelling story, attach it to powerful emotions, institutionalise it through education and denounce sceptics as conspiracy theorists or, in the case of Shakespeare, “anti-Stratfordians.”
B. The Human Cost
The Shakespeare myth exacts a real human cost, particularly on young minds. Children are taught that the greatest literary achievement in human history sprang from nowhere, required no education, emerged from no experience. Genius, they learn, is magical and inexplicable – you either have it or you don’t. This pernicious lesson destroys ambition and mocks effort. Why study, why struggle, why learn from masters when Shakespeare supposedly needed none of that?
Contrast this with the truth of de Vere’s authorship. Here we see genius as it actually operates: built on intensive education, powered by lived experience, shaped by suffering and loss. De Vere’s plays demonstrate that great art comes from the intersection of talent, training and trauma. Understanding the plays through his biography makes them humanly accessible rather than divinely mysterious. Students could learn that literary greatness is achievable through dedication and education, not through waiting for miraculous inspiration.
The myth also divorces art from biography, meaning from maker. When we read Hamlet knowing de Vere’s father died when he was young, that his guardian was the model for Polonius, that his wife was Anne Cecil, the play transforms from abstract poetry into human testimony. The greatest art has always been biographical – not in crude one-to-one correspondence but in the deep sense that artists write what they know, fear, love and have lost. The Shakespeare myth denies this fundamental truth, making the plays seem more than human when they’re gloriously, specifically, painfully human.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, World News
Read the full article at the original website