Preview Mode Links will not work in preview mode

Jim Harold interviews experts on alternative archaeology, aliens in the ancient world, Atlantis, and other mysteries in this PLUS ONLY podcast. For Jim's other PLUS shows, go to

Mar 25, 2022

Katherine Chiljan joins us to talk about the question of the REAL Shakespeare. You can find the 2nd edition of her book on the subject at Amazon: Shakespeare Suppressed: the Uncensored Truth about Shakespeare and his Works - 2nd edition

We're joined by the host of Unpleasant Dreams, Cassandra Harold. Cassandra recently graduated with a major in English and a minor in drama so we wanted to bring in her perspective.

Thanks Katherine!

Jim Harold 0:05
Where we came from, where we've been. They're eternal questions that say a lot about where we're going as the human race. Welcome to Ancient Mysteries on the Air. Welcome to Ancient Mysteries on the Air. So glad to be with you once again. Now plus club members, if you go back in the archives of The Corner archive, you can find an interview we did quite a few years ago, eight years ago with Katherine Chiljan. And it was a fascinating discussion. We talked about Shakespeare, was Shakespeare, really Shakespeare, or was he somebody else? It's the Shakespeare authorship question. And there have been some new developments in that field. So we thought we would have Katherine back on to talk about the real identity of Shakespeare. And we have another wrinkle today. Actually joining me, many of you may be familiar with the Unpleasant Dreams podcast that we've been doing on the free side. And that is certainly something that has gotten a lot of traction. And I really enjoy working with their host, young lady who happens to also be my daughter, Cassandra Harold. Hey, Cassandra, how you doing?

Cassandra Harold 1:17
Doing wonderful. How are you?

Jim Harold 1:19
Doing well, and I like to have you here. But the thing is, is that I just didn't do this for any reason. Specifically, Cassandra was a triple major and one of her majors graduating from college, just this last summer was English and with a very keen interest in Shakespeare, and I thought she would be a great co host for this episode. So welcome aboard, and I hope you come up with some better questions than I did last time. So glad to have you here. So Katherine Chiljan, is our guest once again, and we're so glad to have her with us once again. She was so great. We just really listened to that first episode. Before we started this, and it was so great. Katherine has a BA of history at UCLA. She's an independent scholar, who has studied the Shakespeare authorship questions since 1985. She debated the subject with English professors at the Smithsonian Institution. She has won an award for her book, Shakespeare Suppressed, which is now I believe in its second edition. And that was for Distinguished Scholarship at Concordia University back in 2012. And she continues to work on this and there's some more recent developments we're going to talk about Katherine, welcome back to the program. Thank you for joining us.

Katherine Chiljan 2:43
Oh, my pleasure. It's an honor to be on again.

Jim Harold 2:46
Now, I think the thing that makes sense and with Cassandra's permission will go in this direction is again that that interview was eight years ago, so many people may have heard it, and it's been a little while, or they may not have heard it. Now, the question is here, you know, in our history books, and in what we learn, I mean, it's pretty cut and dried. Shakespeare is Shakespeare, it's like Abraham Lincoln is Abraham Lincoln. But all of a sudden, you know, you become aware that there is actually a real question about who Shakespeare really was. Can you talk to us about that a little bit? And tell us a little bit about this question of the actual authorship and who Shakespeare really was?

Katherine Chiljan 3:30
Right? It's a fascinating question. It's been going on since the mid 19th century. And the reason why is because the traditional attribution to the man who was born in Stratford upon Avon in 1564, and died in 1616. There is no lifetime evidence that he was educated or a writer. That's problematic when you have the education and the life, a literary life of many other authors of the period less than one no one's that you've never heard of. We don't have any evidence of schooling. We don't have any manuscripts in Shakespeare's handwriting. We don't have any authentic images. We don't have any payments to him as an actor, or a writer. We don't have any, like encounters with his contemporaries. Nobody seemed to have known him during his lifetime. And, most strangely of all, when the Stratford man died in 1616, no one said a word. And yet the Shakespeare works were extremely popular. And he, Shakespeare was praised by his contemporaries. So what is this disconnect? Why does it only apply to Shakespeare,who was the most proficient, and prolific, and educated writer of them all. There should be some paper trails here. And it doesn't exist. The only evidence that we do have pointing to the Stratford man is a book that was published in 1623. And it's called Mr. William Shakespeare's Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies. And in this book is 36 Shakespeare plays, 20 of which had never been in print before. So this was probably one of the greatest events in literature, was the publication of this book. So people for the first time would be able to read or learn about Anthony and Cleopatra, and as you like it, and a few other place that had never seen print before. So the opening pages were extremely important, you know, the preface pages, and you have tributes, to the great author, and some letters written to the people who probably sponsored the publication. So it's the 16 pages, where we can find if you want to call it eminence, or hints that the great author came from Stratford upon Avon, but that phrase Stratford on Avon is nowhere in those opening pages. So keep in mind that this book really started it. And there is a phrase in on one of the pages referring to the great author, referring to his Stratford monument. And in fact, in the town of Stratford on Avon, there is a monument to a Shakspere. And we can get into that later, but mostly it is, after the Stratford man died, that evidence pointed to him, but nothing, nothing, nothing during his lifetime.

Jim Harold 7:01
Why would something like this be suppressed? I mean, you would think that folks would want the right person credited. Why would there be a deception? I mean, a lot of times if it's a crime, you're looking for a motive, what would the motive be?

Katherine Chiljan 7:17
Yes, well, it was a hoax. And the motive, there's various theories. But in my research, what I'm coming up with is that well, the plays were greatly autobiographical. And the Shakespeare sonnets were greatly autobiographical. And he was somebody of high rank. And he knew, of course, many courtiers, and he knew the queen of the time Queen Elizabeth the first. So it appears that these plates were really initially written for the queen and her courtiers, and that they only much later came on the public stage. Of course, the Queen never went to a theater; she only had private plays produced at her palaces, basically. So one can read the plays with a point of view of a nobleman. Then you'll see portrayals of the Queen, you'll see portrayals of, in some cases, mocking portrayals of some of the courtiers.. Here's one great example would be in Hamlet there is the counselor. The King's counselor.

Cassandra Harold 8:37
Polonius, right?

Katherine Chiljan 8:38
Polonius, there you go. Yes, well, in the first edition of the first quarto of Hamlet when it came out in 1603. The character's name was Corambis. And that was a pun on Lord Burghley: his name, William Cecil; title, Lord Burghley. It was a pun on his family motto, which was one heart one way, and I believe Corambis means, like two hearts. Being a duplicitous person, in essence, so many, many historians have come to the conclusion that Corambis/Polonius was actually a portrayal and not a flattering one of Lord Burghley who was one of the highest, most powerful men in England. He was really ruling on behalf of Queen Elizabeth many, many people believe. In fact, they call it the Rule of Cecil, during Elizabeth's timeframe. So and then also there seems to be a portrayal of Richard the Third as Lord Burghley's son, Robert Cecil. Both were hunchbacks or people who had curvature of the spine. And he was very small, but very ambitious. So It seems people of this period associated Richard the Third with Robert Cecil. We have it in print. So you can see that we're seeing some satire here, and very important people that they would have preferred to keep covered up. How do you do that? Well, you try and put the authorship on somebody else. And it just so happens, there was a somebody else. Born with the name William Shakespeare actually Shakspur that's the way it's written in documents of the period when it relates to the Stratford man. And he was born with this name, and he was involved in the theater, it was perfect, and it worked. And so this hoax has been going on for 400 years. But people like me and others since the 19th century, have delved into the Stratford man and just are finding nothing, nothing. 200 years of intense research, and they're not finding any literary biography, they're not finding any evidence of education. You know, from the very beginning, his parents they were illiterate. I mean, he came from an illiterate household. And not only that, if he was a great author, why were were his children illiterate. He had two surviving daughters. So it just doesn't make sense.

Cassandra Harold 11:28
Yeah, no, I definitely had found that evidence surrounding Lord Burghley extremely compelling. You know, when you consider access to the courts, and access to that much higher lifestyle. One thing however, I found a lot of times because well, I'm not sure I'm an Oxfordian, and I definitely fall into that anti Stratfordian category. At the very least, it's something that I would, you know, frequently bring up to people and time and time again, they would come back with this argument that it's merely the whole authorship question is fueled by classism? That's, it's the idea that oh, you think a tradesman couldn't be Shakespeare, you think a tradesman couldn't write to those great works? And it's something that's often kind of just used to shut down the conversation entirely. And I was kind of wondering what your take on that would be?

Katherine Chiljan 12:19
Yeah. I mean, I can understand someone's point of view for that. But when it applies to the Shakespeare works, it's kind of like it doesn't qualify. It's not just a class thing. If you examine the works, they're extremely learned, you know, Shakespeare invented over 2000 words, some say maybe 3000 words for the English language. And they were based on Latin and Greek roots, a lot of these words. Some say that he had a vocabulary over over 30,000 unique words. And the the only person who comes close would be Christopher Marlowe with a 7000 word vocabulary. They're extremely learned. He knew about astronomy. He knew heraldry. He knew aristocratic sports. He knew Europe. He knew the French language. He knew Italian language. I mean, there, there's, you just take a long list of everything he knew. And it can't be that he was just somebody who had a grammar school education, which they're claiming for the Stratford man. Unfortunately, we don't have the educational records for the period when the Stratford man supposedly went to grammar school. He may have gone to grammar school, but that wouldn't have been enough. You weren't, you wouldn't learn French and Italian at your local grammar school back then. So it's really a you know, the knowledge that this man had, especially with aristocratic things. It's coming from the man who knew the aristocracy very well. And yet, if you say he was a servant of the aristocracy, where are those records? You know, if he was supported patronized by the aristocracy, where's the link? But we don't have any lifetime links between anyone in the aristocracy. We have the, the first time that the name William Shakespeare came into print was on the dedication to the poem, Venus and Adonis, and that was dedicated to the Earl of Southampton. Okay, fine. There's a woman. Her last name is Stokes, who did a, a biography if he Earl of Southampton with the idea of finding the connection between her and the great author, and she couldn't do it. There is no connection but if the name was a pen name, yes, it would make sense. And going back to Venus and Adonis, the first time the name William Shakespeare came into print. What about this book? Not only is it dedicated to the most glittering, aristocratic and favorites of Queen Elizabeth at the time, right? It had got into print through the auspices of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which is a very, very high position.

A commoner just couldn't say, hey, why don't you? Why don't you print this when printing was a was a thing? I mean, that was not accessible. You couldn't put it up on Kindle?

Cassandra Harold 15:45
Not getting an HP LaserJet.

Katherine Chiljan 15:47
Exactly. You know, and it had to be approved, that you just couldn't you-- theoretically, you could print stuff, but there was a regulatory agency called the stationers register. And you usually had to register a work and often they would, censors would look at it. But you know, that when you had the Archbishop of Canterbury approving this, that really means it's someone special. And yet, this was a very racy, somewhat racy, very erotic work and that's why it was extremely popular, went through many, many editions. So, and the Earl of Southampton, you know, he had no problem if he if he were the, if the great author was the Stratford man. And he evidently didn't even know him, why would he allow that dedication to remain on it to him? So there's a lot of implications here.

Jim Harold 16:47
No, very, very good. Very good points all around now. Yes. There's something we did not talk about before. And I know other researchers have looked into it. What is the Chiljan Portrait? What is that?

Katherine Chiljan 17:03
Oh, that's a portrait that I discovered in the 90s of the 17th Earl of Oxford, I believe it is. I have various reasons why. And, by the way, it is on the cover of our journal or scholarly journal called the Oxfordian. And there's many great articles in it. But it's on the cover of that, if anyone wants to get that, or see it, or you can just pop in Earl of Oxford, you can Google it, and you can, you'll see an image of it. And he's he's in his most incredible outfit, kind of eccentric looking person. And many, many people like it. What I discovered was that, beyond there being a connection to the Earl of Oxford's granddaughter, I mean, you can trace this picture to the granddaughter, besides that, so that's the provenance, the hat that he wears is very interesting, because in 1581, the Earl of Oxford was in the Tower of London, the queen Queen Elizabeth discovered that he had an affair with one of her ladies in waiting. And she had a child, she had a child in March of that year. And well, when the Queen found out she was furious, and she threw Oxford, the lady in waiting, her name was Anne Vavasourt. A dark lady, by the way, if you want to talk about later, and the child the baby in the tower, so after three months Oxford was released, I don't know about the other two. But the month after the Queen gave from her personal wardrobe, a hat of the same description that the sitter of this portrait is wearing. And the painting is dated circa 1580 by Christie's, so the timing fits perfectly. The provenance works. The hat is really an amazing thing. And I actually went and saw the document. You know, any time that a piece of clothing came in and out of the Queen's wardrobe, it was written down in a journal. And so it is a journal entry. And it was a black hat with pearl and gold. I think decorations is what they meant to me. So that's kind of exciting to actually own a picture of who I believe see the true Shakespeare.

Cassandra Harold 19:46
Oh, that's really incredible. Now, I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a moment kind of bring into the question that timeline. I know people who look really closely always like to point out that you know, de Vere died in 1604 and some of Shakespeare's plays were coming out after that, I think particularly they were like the Tempest is right, written sometime probably in like 1610 or 1611. And they cite current events as the time as a surfacing in some of those later plays. And I was wondering how that kind of fits into Oxfordian theory and how you kind of deal with that issue of the timeline.

Katherine Chiljan 20:22
Yeah, they've been you the ortho-- chicks for orthodoxy has used that line of argument for a long time. And I think primarily just to dispel the notion that he was the Earl of Oxford because Oxford died in 1604. And they think that Tempest was written circa 1610. But there's absolutely no evidence that it was written at that time. In fact, any Shakespeare play, they have no evidence when they were when they were written at all. You know, you they might say that Hamlet was written in 1600. But really what they mean is, circa 1600, they have no idea. In fact, that's one of the first things I noted even before I knew about the authorship question, that I read Hamlet, and I, they had a list of all the Shakespeare plays, and okay, so say Hamlet, 1600 with a question mark, you know, as you like, it 1600 with a question mark, you know, you name it, they all had question marks after the date. And I thought that was weird after, you know, after 400 years, or at least 200 years of scholarship, right? They still don't know when these plays were written. So that really, that really struck me and this is before I knew anything about it. But anyway, going back to the Tempest, they were many shipwrecks, they base that date on a shipwreck that it had occurred in 1609. And soon after, someone wrote a letter about a certain shipwreck, and in in Bermuda, but there were many other previous shipwrecks that were notable. So it doesn't have to be this one. But this one suits their, their aims, fathered the orthodoxy's aims. Rodger Streitmatter and Lynne Kositsky, wrote a work totally dispelling this argument. That, that this is one of the details is that this letter that his base knew they use for this dating, this letter was private, and it was not even known publicly for at least a decade after. So it's kind of, it just doesn't make sense that it was based on that. And actually, in my research, I have found that Philip Sydney made a reference of to the Tempest, in my opinion, in probably right around the early 1580s. And Philip Sydney was a poet of the time, he died in 1586. So, in my article, which appears in the ox-- this latest edition of the Oxfordian, volume 43, I, I give the citation that Sydney was actually talking about the Tempest. That, you know, we're talking what, three decades earlier than is believed it was written. And there's many other illusions like that. And actually, in my book shakes- the suppress, the appending, appendix gives 93 allusions to early Shakespeare allusions that orthodoxy just won't accept.

Jim Harold 23:41
Now, you know, these days, if somebody does a work of art, or maybe they write a computer program, they'll put in an Easter egg, a little hint of who the author is, if it's a mystery or something like that. Now, obviously, you can point to the use of language in the knowing the inner workings of the upper class and royalty and so forth to point to Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, but were there things that you think de Vere put in, little hints that hey, it's rally me? Was there anything like that?

Katherine Chiljan 24:19
Um, well, up the sonnets, it's certainly describe a you know, the, the Shakespeare sonnets work, poems, you know, the 14 line poems that were written in the first person, and of course, it and I break this down and Shakespeare Suppressed it was certainly a nobleman who was talking. Somebody with that experience. Hamlet again, going back to Hamlet, is extremely by autobiographical of the Earl of Oxford. The most salient point is that the Earl of Oxford, you know, he took a grand tour of Europe when he was 25. He was there for about a year and a half or so, when he returned back from, you know, crossing the Channel, his ship was attacked by pirates. And he, they stripped him down, you know, down to his undershirt. They took everything and they were they were almost going to kill him too. Well, what happened to Hamlet when he was coming back home from England, you know, going to Denmark what happened to him? Well, his ship was attacked by pirates, and he nearly lost his life. Hamlet loved the counselor, we mentioned before Corambis/Polonius, his daughter, well, the Earl of Oxford married the daughter of Lord Burghley, and this daughter Anne Cecil she died young and so did so did Ophelia who was the daughter of Polonius. So those are just a couple there's there's many more than I think it's really an autobiographical play. It just works, you know, and that's the great thing the Orthodox scholars claim it claim it's the most autobiographical and yet who is who is Hamlet? I mean, he's a prince of the realm, you know, somebody's highly ranked. He's somebody who went to university, somebody who you know went abroad. I mean, all these apply to the Earl of Oxford. Even, there's one sonnet let me see what sonet 76: why write I still all one, ever the same. Ever was a play on his word de Vere. Okay, so, Why write I still all one, ever the same/And keep invention in a noted weed. A noted weed. A weed is like clothing. So noted is well known. So like a well known pseudonym, is how I would interpret that. And then he goes on that That every word doth almost tell my name, Showing their birth, and where they did proceed? So every word, de Vere word does almost tell my name..So yeah, he punned on his name a lot.

Cassandra Harold 27:34
And I do think that question of class kind of comes back into it, and it would make more sense for him to be a noble, because when you see a lot of the low class characters in Shakespeare, they're frequently not depicted very well. They're frequently comedic characters, you have individuals like Bottom from A Midsummer Night's Dream,

Jim Harold 27:52
Who you played, by the way.

Cassandra Harold 27:53
Which I did get to play, yeah, and Falstaff from Merry Wives of Windsor. These are the common men and they're played off as jokes most of the time.

Katherine Chiljan 28:00
That's right. And all the heroes are, you know, kings queens, or, you know, nobles. Yeah, and, and who, during this period, who would need a pen name the most? It would be a nobleman. You know, somebody who had a great passion for writing, creative writing, who was a nobleman, who would he would need a pen name, because back then such activity was considered frivolous, even declasse.

Jim Harold 28:32
Yeah, it, was it, wasn't the theater considered kind of on par with prostitution?

Cassandra Harold 28:36
Right next to the bear baiting?

Katherine Chiljan 28:38
Yes. The Public Theater. Yes. But the most important thing was the Earl of Oxford, had one of the oldest names in England, the oldest titles in England. His ancestors were noblemen at the time of William the Conqueror. So we're talking, you know, the 11th century. And it's a long line ever since. So, you know, talking about he had 400 years of an illustrious family name. He didn't want to ruin it, by people knowing that he was focusing most of his activity on this, on writing, plays and poems. So he would be the one who would need a pen name certainly. In fact, there was a reference by a fellow writer during this period in 1578, referring to Oxford in a public oration to well, Queen Elizabeth was present the Earl of Oxford was present, many great courtiers were present. And he referring to Oxford in particular, he said, Thy will shakes spears. And now of course, it was written in Latin and you can interpret the different ways but that is definitely many people our movement, read it that way thy will shakes spears or thy countenance shakes spears, but Shakespeare's right in there. That's one reference. If you look at what contemporaries wrote about him, they said that he was. Of course, these references are not open. There's they're somewhat cryptic. But they said that he wrote anonymously or with a pen name. Another one said that, letting it be known that you're an author would stain in your name. He was a, they referred to him as somebody of high rank, these were contemporary authors. One of them referred to him as our English. Terrence. Terrence was a classical name from classical times in Roman, ancient Roman times, and he was a playwright. But it was long believed, especially during Shakespeare's time that Terence was really the front name for two aristocratic authors. So by calling him our English Terrence, in a way, he was referring to that saying that he was using a pen name. And this is collaborated by the fact that about half the time that the name Shakespeare appeared in print, it had a hyphen, between shake and spear. And that was a common indication of a made up name.

Jim Harold 31:29
Oh, that's, that's really interesting.

Katherine Chiljan 31:33
And just a real fascinating coincidence is that the Earl of Oxford was a champion at the joust. The instrument that he used, they called it a long spear. So I mean, he was a spear shaker for sure.

Cassandra Harold 31:51
Now, I know earlier, you had brought up the figure of the Dark Lady, you know, the one who's kind of traipsing through the sonnets. So I was wondering if you wanted to go a little bit more in depth about who you think the fair lady is? Or for that matter who the who the fine youth may be? Or fair youth may be.

Katherine Chiljan 32:07
Yes, yes. Yeah. The great author in several sonnets, explains talks about his obsession, his deep love, and someone call it obsession of the Dark Lady. And he describes her with dark hair and eyes. And he also in one of the sonnets, implies that their love is not treasonous, but adulterous, right? So it was somebody that he was having an affair with, that he was married or she was married, or they were both married. And I think it was sonnet 152. And the Earl of Oxford, was obsessed with a dark lady. And her name was Anne Vavasour. And she is the one that he he had child some say even, that he she got pregnant and then lost the child and then got pregnant again and had the child who who, you know, he lived to adulthood, of course, and he called him Edward. So his he was named Edward de Vere, he had no problem giving his name to this bastard child. And of course, that was the cause of the Queen throwing him into the tower. So it is reflective of Measure for Measure where a man is thrown into prison for getting someone impregnated, even though he intends to marry her. So you know that that's reflective right there. And it's, it just goes on and on and on. And the fair youth, I would say most people believe, was the Earl of Southampton, Henry Rosalie, the third Earl of Southampton, and he greatly greatly loves this, this man. He never mentions him by name in the sonnets. But he deeply loved him and it's not in a sexual way. It's really more in a fatherly way. You can read it that way. But he, he considered him his angel even uses that. And then the Dark Lady was kind of his devil. So yeah, about 75% of the sonnets were about the fair youth. And he was definitely an, a, he describes him as aristocratic, even regal in some cases, and it is believed by some of us, including me, that this was actually the Earl of Oxford Street. And there is some reference post possibility that it was his child by Queen Elizabeth. But, you know, that's speculative. Of course, you can't prove it, you know, these people's sex lives were. But the more you get into the role of Oxford's life and you know, then you can read the sonnets. And really, it fills in a lot of the blanks.

Jim Harold 35:26
Now, when we spoke in 2014, you had mentioned that you felt that that this kind of line of thought had been progressing. Internet was a big part of it, as the Internet has become more and more popular, and even more so since 2014. Believe it or not, where do you think we are in terms of turning around the narrative? And where do you think we're going? Do you think, eventually, the conventional wisdom will be turned on its head?

Katherine Chiljan 35:57
You know, I honestly, I can't I don't know. But yes, the internet is definitely helping. I think we're getting some more people interested in doing research. Keep in mind that like card carrying Oxfordians, there's not a lot of us. And even a smaller amount people doing research, but I think that the internet is making people question and kind of delve on their own. I think that, you know, it's hard to judge how how, how much we've penetrated. That's the reason why I do podcasts like yours, because I want to get the word out. Sure. You know, you know, the great author was a victim of a hoax. And you know, we need to tell the world about it. So they, those who love and admire the works, can understand him better when they have a biography to work with. Right now we have zero biography of the Stratford man. So that's literary. So yeah, I honestly, I can't tell you when, or how I think that it would all turn over if we found a play manuscript in Shakespeare's handwriting, we don't have anything, we don't even have a scrap of a play. If we found it. I think it would be game over. And then because we have the letters of the Earl of Oxford, I actually held one in my hands when I was at the Huntington Library.

Jim Harold 37:32
Do you think that do you think that manuscript is out there somewhere?

Katherine Chiljan 37:36
I do. I maybe I'm being overly optimistic. But the thing is the fact that all the place, and not one page of manuscript has survived, to me that tells me they weren't, you know, gathered up and put somewhere. And who knows where it is, but maybe one day it will be uncovered. Maybe it will.

Jim Harold 37:55
It'll be interesting. Yeah. Well, wouldn't it be interesting if the royal family knows the truth?

Cassandra Harold 38:02
well, I also know there's a problem, because the way that they were likely written was, you know, you just give each actor their part. So it wasn't, you know, like the entire thing put together as each person would have their lines.

Katherine Chiljan 38:15
Right. Right. And the role of Oxford employed many secretaries. So they may have, you know, written out parts. I don't know if he gave directly to the public theaters, I think that the acting companies had these copies, and they may have printed some of the plays while the great author was alive, but I don't think he wanted his works to be printed during his lifetime. You know, because for the reasons I mentioned before, it would have been, it would be like you're trying to make money. And nobility are not trying, supposed to make money. They're supposed to be above that, you know, they're not working class. But I think that after his death, I think he fully expected at some point that he's he would it would be revealed who he was, but that never happened, unfortunately.

Jim Harold 39:03
Well, maybe that maybe that will change it. Katherine, You've obviously done fascinating work here. And it's been a great pleasure to speak with you about this. Again, if folks want to find out more, whether it's your book or some of the things on YouTube, you've done or the Oxford fellowship, how can people connect to all of that?

Katherine Chiljan 39:27
Yeah, a couple good websites are the S Go there. And you can, you know, read about authorship 101. And there's also a great website called And you can read the declaration of reasonable doubt that was made up about 10 years ago or so. And you can sign a petition saying yes, there is reason to doubt. And you can see all the other people, some very prominent people who have signed petition. Those are two sites. My personal site is And you can read the introduction to my book. And you can purchase it through through,, you can contact me and you can purchase it privately or you can buy it on

Jim Harold 40:19
Well, it's been a privilege to speak with you again. Thank you for your time today, Katherine Chiljan and again, a great mystery. Who was Shakespeare? Thank you again, Katherine.

Katherine Chiljan 40:32
It was my pleasure. Thank you, Jim and Cassandra.

Jim Harold 40:35
And thank you for tuning into the show. Cassandra, thank you for adding in some insight that I would not have had on this subject. So thank you for being a part of it.

Cassandra Harold 40:43
Thanks for having me. It was so much fun

Jim Harold 40:45
And we thank you for listening and please keep exploring those mysteries. Have a great week, everybody. Bye bye.