by John Hamer
So, on the 30th May 1593, Marlowe and his three friends spent eight hours together at Dame Eleanor’s house. The subjects under discussion may only be guessed at but it is certainly a rather unusual way to spend the day, alone with your three murderers-to-be. In the evening they were having supper together when (as the story goes) an argument erupted regarding the bill, ‘ye reckonynge’ and in the ensuing contretemps which continued, we are led to believe, back to the doorstep of their host, Marlowe was fatally stabbed by Frizer ‘above the right eye’, allegedly in self-defence. Of course this is a common occurrence is it not? Groups of friends often get into fatal arguments over something as trivial as a bill, especially affluent men such as these, to whom a bill of at most a few pennies would have been absolutely insignificant. It all seems more than a little suspicious to me, but anyway this was the story they recounted after the fatal event and indeed the one that has gone down in history as the reason for the untimely demise of Marlowe. Frizer himself received a small nick to his head – just serious enough to prove the alibi of ‘self-defence’ but not serious enough to cause any lasting damage.
Marlowe, by contrast, suffered a most strange wound. Forensic science would have us believe that it is impossible to push a knife through the skull just above the eye socket without using absolutely inordinate force. If a wound occurred in this region it would have to have been made by an axe or a pick or another heavy implement, to try and force a mere dagger through the skull bone at that point would have required immense strength. It would also be almost impossible to create a wound of that nature in what was in effect a short, hand-to-hand tussle. It seems more likely that the wound was designed to create a gory mess of the face and thus hinder identification rather than anything else.
In any event, two days later the inquest took place, presided over solely by Danby; the Queen’s coroner who it turns out had no jurisdiction whatsoever to act alone but was legally bound to perform his duties alongside the local coroner, which of course was not the case. This act in effect, nullifies any decision made by this illegal inquest. The decision of the coroner based solely on the testimonies of the three ‘stooges’, Poley, Skeres and Frizer was that Frizer had acted in self-defence and was therefore not guilty of murder. The corpse was immediately and hastily buried in an unmarked grave in Deptford churchyard – a strange event in itself for the body of a very wealthy and famous young man.
In the immediate aftermath, two remarkable incidents took place. Firstly, Frizer was immediately pardoned by the Queen. Usually those involved in suspicious deaths had to wait many months, often languishing in jail before being officially pardoned by the monarch – even those deemed to be innocent and / or acting in self-defence. Secondly, the following day, Frizer and Skeres are on record as being involved in a business transaction with Walsingham. In fact Frizer continued in his role as Walsingham’s servant without a break. This would in itself have been a highly unlikely turn of events had Frizer really been involved in the death of one of Walsingham’s closest friends in a street brawl, whether or not he was considered to be acting in self-defence. I am in little doubt personally that Walsingham engineered the whole event in order to save the life of his esteemed friend, Kit Marlowe.
Perhaps a little more background to the relationship between Walsingham, Marlowe and his three protagonists may be of interest at this juncture. As stated earlier, Walsingham was a prominent member of the Elizabethan secret security services, overseen originally by John Dee, who incidentally was well known to be a practitioner of the dark arts of magick and Satanism and was suspected of being an adept exponent of early attempts at mind control. Indeed many researchers strongly believe that the writing of Shakespeare’s works was in fact a form of mind control in itself and if so, this adds further credence to the case for Marlowe being the author of said works as it is beyond doubt that he was involved with the intelligence services in a major way.
In this same period, Francis Bacon, incidentally also one of the main suspects in the debate about the authorship of Shakespeare’s work, wrote his treatise 'The New Atlantis' whilst hundreds of privateers, amongst whom the most prominent was Sir Francis Drake, were in the process of plundering the seas of all the loot they could obtain in order to swell the coffers of the Crown. In the meantime, Sir Walter Raleigh and his like were already preparing the colonies in Virginia for the mass immigration to come, thirty or so years later and through the pernicious methods of The British East India Company, corporatism and later, consumerism was beginning to establish a foothold in Britain and was soon to be emulated by the rest of the ‘civilised’ world.
So, these men, stalwarts of the Elizabethan establishment, were also the standard-bearers of Rosicrucianism, the mystery-teachings of Babylon, passed down through the bloodline families and soon to become what we today know as freemasonry. All of these men most certainly knew their ‘real’ history and were deeply ensconced in such subjects as ritual magick and esoteric ancient knowledge.
This group of people, this brotherhood, are the ancestors and architects of The New World Order we see developing today. They were instrumental in the establishing of London as the ‘New Jerusalem’ and also as the banking capital of the world for their masters, the ancient bloodlines whose origins as previously described can be traced back through all the preceding ancient civilisations into the mists of time.
However, back to the main thrust of the plot. Another interesting twist to this convoluted tale was that in 1601, the Queen seemed to be well aware of who was the real author of ‘Shakespeare’s’ work. Prior to the Essex rebellion in that same year, the conspirators commissioned a performance of Richard III in the belief that this would incite the audience to support or at least condone a coup against Elizabeth I as had been the case in the play in question. This absolutely enraged her, not surprisingly and she was said to have exclaimed “I am Richard III, know ye not that?” She also directed the following tirade at the play’s author… “He that will forget God will also forget his benefactors. This tragedy was played forty times in open streets and houses.”
This comment could surely only have referred to Marlowe. ‘He that would forget God’? Marlowe… the known atheist? ‘…would forget his benefactors’? The Queen, who helped expedite the plot and the subsequent cover-up, was the benefactor indeed! If she had believed that Richard III had been written by Shakespeare, he would at the very least have been arrested and warned, if not much worse.
Next we will examine the evidence presented to us, yet hidden in plain sight by Marlowe in the form of Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets.
The sonnets in particular, paint a vivid picture of their author and this picture is most definitely not one of a struggling Stratfordian actor. They do however describe Christopher Marlowe, his life and alleged death, almost perfectly.
In sonnet no. 74 we discover the following lines…
“…my body being dead, the coward conquest of a wretches knife.”
And also…
“But be contented when that fell arest,
With out all bayle shall carry me away,
My life hath in this line some interest.”
Here ‘Shakespeare’ refers to his own arrest and bail! There is no record of Shakespeare ever having been arrested and bailed, but this is obviously not the case with Marlowe.
And in sonnet 72…
“My name be buried where my body is,
And live no more to shame, nor me nor you.”
In sonnet 50 (below) we possibly have a vivid description of the author’s journey into exile. Again how closely this would fit Marlowe’s life and yet bear no resemblance to that of Shakespeare…
“How heavie doe I journey on the way,
When what I seeke (my wearie travels end)
Doth teach that ease and that repose to say
Thus farre the miles are measurde from thy friend.
The beast that beares me, tired with my woe,
Plods duly on, to beare that waight in
me,
As if by some instinct the wretch did know
His rider lov’d not speed being made from thee:
The bloody spurre cannot provoke him on,
That some-times anger thrusts into his hide,
Which heavily he answers with a grone,
More sharpe to me then spurring to his side,
For that same grone doth put this in my mind,
My greefe lies onward and my joy behind.”
Sonnets 25, 33, 34 and 36 also extensively refer to the author’s name having fallen into great disgrace and strongly bemoan this fate. If Shakespeare’s name had ever become embroiled in any kind of scandal or infamy then it would almost certainly have become public knowledge and have been recorded somewhere by someone. The fact that it was not would speak volumes on this subject.
On the other hand, Marlowe’s life was blighted by infamy and disgrace and his contemporary rivals wasted no opportunity to express their schadenfreude at his expense. For example, the Welsh poet, William Vaughan would appear to take delight in Marlowe’s death and the fact that he detected more than a little of the hand of God working behind the scenes…
“…he stabd this Marlowe into the eye, in such sort, that his brains
Coming out at the dagger’s point, hee shortlie after dyed. Thus did
God, the true executioner of divine justice, worke the ende of
impious Atheists.”
Nice man. He was however, far from alone in this. According to Marlowe’s biographer, Charles Norman…
“The outburst of Puritan wrath against Marlowe is without parallel in literature. No vile epithet was too vile for his detractors to use, yet most of them wrote only from hearsay, or merely embroidered one another’s accounts, hardly one able to contain his gloating.”
This attitude is also fairly common today. Many present-day scholars regard Marlowe with contempt for his views and his rather colourful life as an occasional brawler and ‘roaring boy’ as well as being a homosexual predator.
In ‘As You Like It’, the character ‘Touchstone’ says…
“When a man’s verses cannot be understood, nor a man’s good wit seconded by the forward child understanding, it strikes a man more dead than a great reckoning in a little room. Truly I wish the gods had made thee poetical.”
This is surely referring to Marlowe’s alleged demise over the bill (‘the reckoning’ as it was called in Elizabethan times) and says that it was nothing compared to the continual agony of having to write in disguise and having someone else take all the credit for it.
I believe that this scenario is more than credible but the space available in a book such as this cannot do justice to the scores of examples of Shakespeare’s texts where oblique references are made to Marlowe including anagrams of his name, and vain protestations of his suffering in exile and his innocence. It is clear that Marlowe was desperate to take credit for his own genius (who among us would not be?) and left as many obvious clues as he dare in his great works.
The Shakespeare story is a classical example of the distortion of history in terms of its background reasons. It is indeed just another small piece of the jigsaw puzzle that makes up the ongoing grand conspiracy against humanity. However, perhaps importantly it provides an example of how four or five prominent people working together in complicity can completely fool not just the literary establishment, but almost the whole of humanity for more than four centuries. It provides us with another case in point (should one be necessary) of how unbelievably ‘simple’ it is to falsify events to benefit the few.
The ‘Gunpowder Plot’
Some of the 5th November ‘gunpowder plotters’
The so-called ‘Guy Fawkes plotters’, Catesby, Percy and Tresham were in reality working for the English government and it was in fact King James I's spymaster, Robert Cecil, who blackmailed Robert Catesby into organising a plot to discredit Catholics.
Robert Cecil
As with the debunking of any of mainstream history’s ‘givens’, we always need to ask the question ‘why’ and this can usually be answered by investigating as to who would most benefit from the deception, ‘cui bono’ in Latin. In this particular instance, the purpose was t0 expedite the smooth transition of King James VI of Scotland onto the throne of England as James I.
The previous reigns of James’ 2nd cousins, Elizabeth and Mary had been greatly characterised by religious genocide, firstly by Mary against the Protestants and then by Elizabeth against the Catholics and these ongoing sectarian schisms of the previous half-century had created deep divisions and torn families and communities apart. So, placing a Catholic on the throne of a now thoroughly protestant nation required a large degree of what we would now refer to as political ‘spin’, in order to prevent insurrection!
James was thus engineered via the expedient of the gunpowder plot, to be seen as clamping-down hard on any Catholics who could have been perceived to be taking advantage of their presumed newly-found freedoms under a Catholic monarch.
So the scene was set for the deception. In 1604, Robert Catesby, in actuality an agent of the English government, was involved in the planning of the Gunpowder plot along with Sir Robert Cecil, ostensibly a scheme to blow-up the English parliament on the 5th November 1605 and kill King James and as many members of Parliament as possible.
On his death-bed, there were statements by Robert Catesby's servant that Robert Cecil and Catesby met on three separate occasions in the period leading up to the events of the night of 5th November 1605. At a meeting at the Duck and Drake Inn, Catesby explained the plan to Guy Fawkes, Thomas Percy who was another agent of the English government, John Wright and Thomas Winter and all of them agreed to join the plot.
In the following months Francis Tresham, another undercover government agent, Everard Digby, Robert Winter, Thomas Bates, and Christopher Wright also agreed to join the conspiracy. Immediately prior to the event, Thomas Percy was seen exiting the house of Robert Cecil and after the plot was 'discovered', Catesby, Percy, Christopher Wright and John Wright headed to Holbeche House in Staffordshire in the English midlands and on the 8th November 1605, government troops arrived at the house and shot dead the conspirators Robert Catesby, Thomas Percy, Christopher Wright and John Wright whilst Digby, Robert and Thomas Winter, Bates and Fawkes were executed by being hanged, drawn and quartered in January 1606 after suffering extreme torture in order to extract confessions.
It was also widely rumoured that Francis Tresham was poisoned while being held captive in the Tower of London.
In his book ‘The Gunpowder Plot: The Narrative of Oswald Tessimond’, Francis Edwards claimed that Francis Tresham escaped from the Tower of London, probably with the help of the Government, went abroad and changed his name to Matthew Bruninge.
"If Guy Fawkes case came up before the Court of Appeal today, the... judges would surely... acquit him... …no-one has ever seen the attempted tunnel. Builders excavating the area in 1823 found neither a tunnel nor any rubble. Secondly, the gunpowder… In 1605, the Government had a monopoly on its manufacture... The Government did not display the gunpowder and nobody saw it in the cellars. Thirdly, these cellars were rented by the government to a known Catholic agitator... Fourthly, the Tresham letter… Graphologists [handwriting experts] agree that it was not written by Francis Tresham.…Guy Fawkes was at a wedding of Cecil's niece, along with Cecil AND King James. ...Why didn't Fawkes kill the King there, and isn't it mysterious that all figures in the plot went to a wedding together?" R. Crampton, ‘The Gunpowder Plot’, 1990
So, the plot was just a charade, albeit one with a very serious purpose. It was all part of the Elite’s ongoing grand conspiracy and this chapter of that conspiracy was the unification of England and Scotland to create a United Kingdom and thus the foundations of the future British Empire to-be. It was, at its roots, yet another False Flag operation this time using the protestant-catholic dialectic and it was this first stage of the unification of two hitherto completely distinct
countries that was designed to facilitate the next ‘Crown Empire’ and the thrust towards globalisation.
I am also of the view that the King James Version of the bible, written in 1611 was another work of social engineering and is the script which, the hidden Elite and their not so hidden bloodlines are following as we approach the end of the age. The Pope declared some time ago that were are now in the time of Revelations, a point in our history that is also recognised in Freemasonry and of course ‘apocalypse’ is from the Greek, meaning the ‘unveiling’ – the ‘reveal’.
When people talk about a conspiracy so large that it defies all belief and imagination, they really are not exaggerating.
The English Revolution and the Execution of King Charles I
There is of course no dispute that King Charles I of England was executed by being beheaded at the scaffold erected outside the Guildhall in the City of London in January 1649. However the events that led to his execution, as is often the case with many historical events have been twisted to fit the sanitised version of history that is always presented to the masses by our ruling Elite, in order to conceal the real truth.