Comments on: Analysis of William Shakespeare’s Will & Testament

By: Mv

Mv — Mon, 30 Jan 2023 21:24:23 +0000

In reply to j lague. He was around 54 when he died, that's a long time during the Elizabethan era, considering that the black death or the bubonic plague was going around. It's not at all surprising that he died

By: Ruth White

Ruth White — Thu, 01 Oct 2020 05:00:34 +0000

Zounds!

By: a guest

a guest — Tue, 02 Jun 2020 08:24:01 +0000

In reply to Walter sandtner. There was no ownership or copyright law. Plus, if there was a library, it would probably have been considered as part of the house, so whoever owned the house, owned the library.

By: Peter Roberts

Peter Roberts — Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:06:45 +0000

Why was there no mention of his works, manuscripts, folios? Did people inherit copyright the same as they do today?

By: Browneyedgirl1522

Browneyedgirl1522 — Fri, 17 Nov 2017 21:45:56 +0000

Only a man could look at this and think Mrs Shakespeare wasn’t completely humiliated at the reading of this will. One line. One item. With her name not even mentioned. If she were to receive one third through Common Law, then he would not have specifically mentioned his daughter as receiving everything else. A complete burn to poor Mrs Shakespeare!

By: Walter sandtner

Walter sandtner — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 09:22:14 +0000

the testament of Shakespeare is the best prove that the Stratford-upon-Avon-Shakespeare (SuAS)is not the author of Shakespeare`s plays.The testament speaks in detailed manner of all kind of things, but no word of a library, of books and before all of the plays. If the SuAS would have been the author, there would at least some indication on who should own the manuscripts.
Kind regards
Walter Sandtner

By: John Patrick Keating

John Patrick Keating — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:27:19 +0000

As we are approaching the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death, perhaps a slander against his name might be at long last corrected. In so many articles, talks, books, documentaries, etc., mention is made of the bequest of his second best bed to his wife, thus stinting her. The implication denigrates Shakespeare’s character
and suggests an unhappy marriage.
Shakespeare had to leave his wife his second best bed: he kept his best bed, the grave, for himself. The testator of the will remained a poet even unto death.

John Patrick Keating

By: j lague

j lague — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:37:33 +0000

“Could Shakespeare have been bigger than Andrew Lloyd Webber?”

Could Shakespeare’s wealth have been amassed by blackmailing a person of high standing?
Could his mysterious death have been due to poisoning? Could the fact that Ben Jonson…who wrote the eulogy included in the first folio and who was named in an anecdote as one of those who was drinking with Shakespeare just prior to his death…was awarded a sizeable pension in the year of Shakespeare’s death be anything other than a coincidence?
Could this piece of speculation on my part be any more far-fetched than a good many theories about the elusive man from Stratford that have been generally accepted as sound?