tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7581099872724683650.post1339672803859349881..comments2024-01-20T05:36:17.500-06:00Comments on Bardfilm: Leslie Howard was not an Oxfordiankjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14863005904313974654noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7581099872724683650.post-77733649912503986182015-10-26T10:32:29.362-05:002015-10-26T10:32:29.362-05:00Oxfordians don't need Howard to show that many...Oxfordians don't need Howard to show that many worthy and brilliant men of every vocation have registered doubts about the Stratford story. From men of letters such as Walt Whitman, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Mark Twain and Henry James, to actors of note such as John Gielgud, Michael York and Derek Jacobi, to great thinkers such as Mortimer Adler, Harry Blackmun, and Sigmund Freud, all doubted the Stratford myth and there is ample evidence to prove it.<br /><br />To hear their reasoning in their own words, See:<br />https://doubtaboutwill.org/past_doubters<br /><br />The only reason for the existence of such a list is to counter the childish claims the only fools support the Oxfordian theory. If these people are fools, then I'm honored to be included alongside them.<br />TheatreDudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554082650309146339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7581099872724683650.post-67981997982494528922015-10-26T10:12:28.575-05:002015-10-26T10:12:28.575-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.TheatreDudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554082650309146339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7581099872724683650.post-11706044239575570842015-10-26T10:08:53.026-05:002015-10-26T10:08:53.026-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.TheatreDudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554082650309146339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7581099872724683650.post-53683399682644062742013-12-17T14:12:10.525-06:002013-12-17T14:12:10.525-06:00I just found this, way many years later than I wou...I just found this, way many years later than I would like. Bless you for posting it. Howard's dialogue with WS is a witty delight. I'm occasionally in the middle of eye rolling debates with Oxfordians that are comedies on their part and futility if some get dragged into the defense on the other side. I usually just say I'm not interested, for theirs is an eccentric crusade that was already lost over 400 years ago, but I had to share this bit today - the nonsense occasionally needs some brilliant relief, and this is an example of such. Well done... <br />Sandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16053733926418257816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7581099872724683650.post-50882066842256752652013-03-25T12:38:39.818-05:002013-03-25T12:38:39.818-05:00Thanks, Anonymous.
I've puzzled over your c...Thanks, Anonymous. <br /><br />I've puzzled over your comment for a while now. Perhaps this is a weak debunking, but I'm not sure the opposite case is any stronger. You're right that there's "no specific evidence to support the contention that Smith was voicing Howard's actual belief," and the implication is that there's no specific evidence to support the contrary. <br /><br />There is general evidence, however, that Leslie Howard considered Shakespeare to be the author of the plays attributed to Shakespeare. Does not Occam's Razor lead us to the conclusion that the character Smith is voicing beliefs that the actor Howard found ridiculous--particularly when the portrayal in the film involves the character shifting into idiotic dribble whenever the Nazis approach.<br /><br />Yes, I suppose Howard could have changed his mind between 1933 and 1941 (although I'm going to post some information from 1936 that brings the earlier date up some), but that seems to place an unnecessary burden of proof on those who would argue that Howard was a Stratfordian—especially when no evidence to the contrary exists. <br /><br />I would like to watch the film again to see what other claims the character Smith makes when the Nazis are present. If we ascribe Oxfordianism to Howard because of what Smith says, we must also ascribe other believes that Smith voices to Howard. <br /><br />kj kjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14863005904313974654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7581099872724683650.post-49623318663359162772013-02-03T20:19:35.000-06:002013-02-03T20:19:35.000-06:00A very weak attempt at a debunking. Agreed that th...A very weak attempt at a debunking. Agreed that there's no specific evidence to support the contention that Smith was voicing Howard's actual belief, but you singularly failed to demonstrate the opposite. Even given that appearing in This Side Idolatry has the signifance you suggest, what's to say that Howard couldn't have changed his mind between 1933 and 1941?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7581099872724683650.post-66831765091848338852011-11-08T06:38:37.680-06:002011-11-08T06:38:37.680-06:00Thanks for setting the record straight on Leslie H...Thanks for setting the record straight on Leslie Howard and Professor Horatio Smith, whose Oxfordian attributions are meant to tweak the Nazis and mock their ridiculous claims to cultural supremacy. It's satire, for heaven's sake! I'm surprised that Shapiro missed this. You'd think his "Shakespeare and the Jews" would have prepared him for a more careful treatment of Howard who was both Jewish and a English patriot. Here's hoping he links to Bardfilm as "Anonymous" takes center stage. "Contested Will" is the perfect antidote except for this not insignificant slip.Papa Pantaloonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03789513709412033326noreply@blogger.com