The Falsification of History: Our Distorted Reality (33 page)

Even the location of the ‘murder’ seems to have been carefully chosen also.
 
It was in Deptford, Kent in the house and grounds of Dame Eleanor Bull who was a well-respected lady, a widow and the cousin of the queen’s nanny, Blanche Parry.
 
These very secluded grounds with no unwanted onlookers and just three plotters plus Marlowe, created a perfect environment for a ‘set-up’ of this kind.
 
The only witnesses being the aforementioned threesome and these were almost certainly acting under the orders of Walsingham himself.

Deptford was also seemingly a well-chosen venue for the deception.
 
Firstly it was a port with regular sailings to the European mainland which would have been perfect to facilitate Marlowe’s swift getaway.
 
Secondly, Marlowe was unknown there and so any inquest jury would not have been easily able to identify the corpse in those pre-photographic days and thirdly the most well-known and prominent inhabitant of the town was the Lord Admiral, who was the patron of Marlowe’s own theatre company.
 

A.D. Wraight herself postulates that there may have been strong reasons for believing that the Queen herself may have been complicit in the plot.
 
Walsingham was well known to her and importantly, highly regarded and trusted implicitly as a loyal subject to her.
 
He also knew that her pet hate was being deceived and he may well have felt uneasy had he not confided in her.
 
He also knew that she enjoyed a little subterfuge and intrigue herself.
 
Indeed would the Queen have been happy to see England’s foremost literary figure, tortured and executed, given her well-known love of literature and the theatre and the fact that she most certainly had no time for religious fanaticism in any form?
 

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…