The Clairvoyant & Enlightened Times

Issue 1  –   1st April 2017  –    rattuos


Two things hard wired into us are fairy tales where ‘they all lived happily ever after’ and murder or genocide. Even in the most ancient times many, if not most, skeletons that have been found show the tell tale signs that they were murdered, eaten or sacrificed. In a few Sumerian and Egyptian tombs the dead king was surrounded by his courtiers and concubines or wives, even his horses – all killed to serve him in the afterlife. The murdered include women and children, possibly whole tribes. Alexander killed all the inhabitants of towns that held out against him, so did Genghis Khan and if the Bible is correct so did Joshua and Moses. So in fact have many invaders in human history. As I say it is hard wired into us and although we make a fuss about it happening these days, if we get told about it, it is not new for the human. Stalin, Hitler and Mao killed over 100 million between them in the last century alone.

As for our habitat destruction and pollution – that has a long heritage too. The Romans sowed salt into the North African farmland to teach a lesson to those Carthaginians they spared. Wells have been poisoned since prehistory, wildlife hunted to extinction. The last dodo was seen in 1662. Trappers took most of the exotic wildlife in the north for fur long ago. There were only 541 bison left after their slaughter in the 1800’s. The last British wolf was killed in 1680 in Scotland. Oil exploration may be comparatively new but the planet has been plundered for its resources since prehistoric times. Britain was covered in forest at one time and most of its oaks were felled to build ships. Some nations have held onto their forests longer than others. But there is an end in sight and not a happily ever after one. No governments will be able to resist the lure of exploiting what is left, and no governments will be prepared to pay the cost of cleaning up the seas and our pollution. Those are simple economic lessons for this last age. There is not much difference between beheading all the men, women and children in a city (it is said with some confidence that Genghis Khan executed 1 million one morning) and exploding a nuclear bomb over their heads.

Is there any chance of redeeming humanity from its long bloody history and planetary destruction? Why should we even consider a change in our hard wiring a possibility?

Perhaps to the consternation of some I wish to record my support for total surveillance of everyone on the planet including our leaders. I also feel that the results or records should be kept safe forever. This is the most incredible feat of the human to date and represents a unique archive of humanity for the future, whatever it holds.

We are fortunate to have been able to find in our archaeological excavations so much that tells us about our ancestors but a huge amount is missing. The records left to us have made us what we are, for good or for bad. What we would be like without our scriptures is very hard to say.

What would most people think if for example the destruction of minutes from a high level company meeting were ordered immediately after it ended? In the days of cookies it is probably sensible to delete them, why should someone we order garden supplies from be informed of all the websites we visit? But it is equally sensible that a record of all the sites we visit be stored somewhere secure. And a record of our communications.

I found recently a short article I wrote about thirty years ago in my ‘Abou Hannes’ time travel reports, which was predictably rejected for publication by the Guardian but only ever intended to amuse the editor. Some were set in the past (‘Sumer Holiday’ for example) but this one was set in what was then the fairly distant future, now about to be upon us. It was from the time travel reporter who was writing about a conference in a flooded Oxford of all the world’s leaders. What had just been discovered was that one of the wires in all standard phones (we didn’t have mobiles at the time I wrote this although the principle is the same) ensured that the microphone in the mouthpiece was always live and picked up every conversation within 20 feet. As a result most of the secret conversations of all our leaders in their individual ascents to power had been recorded. The reporter was looking into the mysterious disappearance of the lot of them. It no longer sounds either fantastic or futuristic.

The point being made about worldwide surveillance is the potential for blackmail. It is certainly true that we may not want our employers, friends, neighbours or spouses to know our innermost secrets and in that sense we are vulnerable, if the person holding them is prepared to flout our laws and try to extort money or actions from us. However anyone after enlightenment knows full well that the truth will come out one day, and that day will be the most inconvenient time for us. This is the ‘revelation’ we must all endure.

I have always pinned my hopes for the salvation of this planet on our myriad intelligence services and will try to explain why. Part of it is due to my upbringing as it was rumoured that there were some in my family’s previous generation. But I was brought up eagerly awaiting the next Bond novel, then voraciously reading Le Carre’s newest books, Len Deighton and any other spy writers I could find. This introduced me to the fact that even if some of our agents appeared to have betrayed us, they were usually hand picked at school or university for their brilliance. It was not the most attractive life either and one full of danger. Moreover these men and women forfeited much. Their families and friends and the freedom to indulge many of their passions. George Smiley was a hero to me, quite different to Bond and far more appealing. An extremely intelligent man who despaired of so much in life and found his chief enjoyment in deciphering obscure baroque literature.

Well what would my hero have thought about universal surveillance? I am sure he would have seen the light at the end of the tunnel. Years of sitting in drab cars and café’s watching the comings and goings of people in and out of drab apartment blocks is not many peoples’ idea of meaningful or fulfilling employment. One would need the eye of a man like Georges Simenon who wrote the Maigret detective novels which inhabit such grey landscapes. Many of us do. But this is not the world of Bond and his casino.

Most of the results of worldwide surveillance will be equally grey, equally sordid. It is not of much interest to many but for those with their eyes open it is the most fascinating archive of all. We not only live in an illusory world but we present an illusion to the world. Piercing that veil is the work of the enlightened. It is work that shows hypocrisy in almost every hero, lies in some of our most sacred statements, cynicism in some of the most ardent thoughts. In short the truth!

Now the truth may not be pretty but it is very attractive to those who seek it and at some time in our future great interest will be shown in it. Over the last sixty years the human has developed the most extraordinary inventions and perhaps the most incredible is the computer. This is exactly what holds all the information on us and alone is able to process or analyse it all.

The intelligence services may be intended to advise governments but if we look back to some of the earliest incarnations we find something else entirely. They were and are far more than advisers and they know almost everything there is to know. In essence they are humanity’s brain. They are also ‘occult’ which literally means hidden. We should go back to the 1550’s when the first national spy service was created for a very special purpose.

This was the time when the English secret service was being set up by Lord Burghley and Sir Francis Walsingham, his chief spymaster. Burghley was the man who actually ran the country for Queen Elizabeth, a job taken over by his son Robert Cecil when he died. Burghley was also the Master of Wards who were young aristocratic orphans, He educated them in his home on the Strand in London. But according to his descendant David Cecil he actually ran a school for 20 young noblemen at any time, young men that he chose carefully, educated well and used in his new spy service when they were ready. They included the Earls of Essex, Oxford, Southampton and Rutland and also Francis Bacon who was a ward. We might note that all of them have been touted as possible candidates for the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays. But the most important member of his spy service, a man the same age as Bacon, is someone we never hear of at all, all the more mystifying because he was at one time the richest man in the country and as a youngster was adored by the Queen. He was the third son of the 6th Earl of Shrewsbury, who in addition to being extremely wealthy was chosen by Elizabeth and Burghley to keep Mary Queen of Scots under house arrest at vast expense to himself (she had her own court with her) for almost twenty years. George Talbot as the Earl was known sent his third son Edward to the Strand school and when the boy was 14 he asked Burghley if the boy might marry his daughter. Burghley was horrified but should not have been as she eventually married another of his students, the Earl of Oxford and had the most unhappy marriage. Through his wife Burghley was also the uncle of Francis Bacon. His wife taught in the school and was an expert in many subjects. Wikipedia tells only part of the tale:

She had charge of her children’s education, as well as that of the various royal wards for whom her husband was responsible, including the 17th Earl of Oxford, whom her daughter Anne eventually married, and Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex. The Burghley household was one in which learning was valued:

Unlike Dudley* [Cecil] was a scholar, a lover of books, and a man of great intellectual curiosity. He and his wife Mildred…had their children tutored to a high degree of erudition, and in their house Classical studies, philosophy and science, and at least certain kinds of poetry and music could seek refuge. Indeed, Cecil House was England’s nearest equivalent of a humanist salon since the days of More.” Wikipedia

(*Dudley was the Earl of Leicester beloved by the Queen)

The boys were also taught modern languages, economics, fencing, map reading and anything helpful in spy craft including cyphers. A friend of both Talbot and Burghley was Sir Thomas Gresham and he was very important as fasr as the eventual sopy service was concerned. Gresham was the British agent in Antwerp then the centre of world trade. A thousand ships might be anchored outside Antwerp waiting to be unloaded of their cargoes which included silks, spices and indeed gold looted from South America.

It was the centre of banking and one of Gresham’s jobs was to obtain loans for the Crown. He was brilliant at this job and just as well. Loans had practically bankrupted the country under Henry V111 but with Gresham’s help almost all were repaid under the reign of Henry’s son Edward. But Gresham went further and set up the Royal exchange in London which really became what we now see as the City. Within a few years most of Antwerp’s trade came to London as did the banking and the money. But it could never have happened without the spy service and one mission in particular undertaken by young Edward Talbot. Up to that time the Fugger family from Austria were the richest people in the world and the exclusive bankers for Europe’s monarchs. Gresham and Burghley were determined to break their monopoly. They also needed to enable Britain’s trade with Russia and the East Indies and among other things set about annoying the Spanish and Portuguese who were bringing gold and silver from South America. Britain set up its own navy at this time which earned a reputation for piracy but also rescued Britain from the Spanish Armada. But the Talbot family already had their own navy and warehousing on the Thames. The earls of Shrewsbury (Talbots) had lead mines, founded Sheffield’s steel business and with their many farmers in the North and West of England were major exporters of wool.

Although young Edward and his even younger brother Henry were the sons of the wealthiest aristocrat in the country and a very powerful man, they had two older brothers Francis and Gilbert so really had no hopes of inheriting the title. After they were sent by their father to study at Burghleys school in the Strand they were sent to Magdalen College in Oxford, and then taken to France and Italy by their father‘s servant Thomas Baldwin to complete their education and to meet the English ambassadors and some of the aristocrats in those countries. It is recorded that Queen Elizabeth liked the two boys and portraits of Edward, which have only recently emerged, reveal a handsome chap. The spy master Walsingham then arranged his marriage to a woman called Jane Ogle, herself the daughter of a very wealthy earl. This couple have the most beautiful of all tombs in Westminster Abbey. But almost nothing is known about Edward. When he unexpectedly became the 8th Earl of Shrewsbury he did not enter public life which was unheard of at that time. When he died there was no funeral although his father and older brother had the grandest funerals England had ever seen. Something about him meant that he lived an extremely low key existence. There are a few letters that have survived, a notable trial but compared to the other earls educated by Burghley – Southampton, Essex, Oxford and the Rutlands for example, almost nothing is known. If Edward was a spy and if that was why he was in Europe for twelve years this might be explained. We would certainly not know anything about this but for the discovery one day of a diary that had long been hidden in a false compartment of an old chest. This was the diary of the polymath John Dee who was a cousin of Burghley and astrologer for Queen Elizabeth. What it tells us is that a young man called Edward Talbot was brought to Dee and some months later changed his name to Edward Kelly. Edward Kelly (or Kelley) was considered one of the greatest alchemists of all time and although no one now thinks he was also the 8th Earl of Shrewsbury there is much to suggest that he was and that he did not die in Europe in 1595 as claimed. Edward Kelly was in fact his code name for a most extraordinary mission which changed England (and subsequently Britain) and also helped found the United States as an English (speaking) nation.

Now I am aware how indigestible this stuff on Talbot is and will not go much further into it. Its relevance here is that it showed me in real time what I needed to know. I will recap. I had never heard of the magician Edward Kelly not even John Dee. I knew nothing about the Earls of Shrewsbury let alone Edward Talbot. I did not realise that there was such a fuss about who William Shakespeare really was nor that he had any missing years. I learned all of this through my conversations with Edward and then looking for the records.

Examples are too many. Dees diary for example tells us that on the day that William Shakespeare married his pregnant girlfriend under considerable pressure from her family, Edward had ridden off in the direction of Stratford. He also absented himself when their baby Susanna was born. It is known that Anne Shakespeare hardly ever saw her husband after that but he did look after her. That does not make Edward into William but it does mean that he could be. It is a curious fact that many of the men who are claimed to be the real Shakespeare were schooled with Edward and perhaps they all had a hand in the plays.

Edward took pseudonyms. That is the norm for spies. He was carefully tutored in languages. But one area that seemed impossible to explain was that Kelly and Shakespeare both died before Talbot. However my investigations revealed that there is no evidence for Kelly really dying. No grave for him although his wife and family were grieving nearby in Prague at the time. The tale of him escaping, or trying to, from a tower is mirrored in the tale of his, and his fathers, faithful servant and lawyer who really did escape from the Tower of London and left graffiti there to prove it and a memorial in his local church recording it. It is claimed without any evidence that Kelly had cropped ears because he had been caught forging. In a famous case in 1594 at the Star Chamber Edwards brother, Gilbert, then the 7th Earl of Shrewsbury, accused him of poisoning his gloves. Edward was acquitted but his brothers doctor was convicted and had his ears cropped. You would think any man trying to poison the premier earl in the country would be executed at that time. While temporarily in prison he was cared for by Gilbert’s wife for whom he made remedies. Queen Elizabeth was furious with Gilbert and banned him from court forever more. Not a story that is well known but odd that is not.

When Shakespeare died some interesting things were happening. Firstly Edwards brother was seriously ill and about to die. He died a week later. That meant that Edward was about to become the wealthiest peer in the country. In fact he never entered public life but it meant that he could not go on playing the part of Shakespeare. It was said that he died after a heavy drinking session with his two friends and was buried in Stratford. How odd that:

Shakespeare died on 23 April 1616, at the age of 52. He died within a month of signing his will, a document which he begins by describing himself as being in “perfect health”. No extant contemporary source explains how or why he died. Half a century later, John Ward, the vicar of Stratford, wrote in his notebook: “Shakespeare, Drayton and Ben Jonson had a merry meeting and, it seems, drank too hard, for Shakespeare died of a fever there contracted,” not an impossible scenario, since Shakespeare knew Jonson and Drayton. Of the tributes from fellow authors, one refers to his relatively sudden death: “We wondered, Shakespeare, that thou went’st so soon/From the world’s stage to the grave’s tiring room

Shakespeare was buried in the chancel of the Holy Trinity Church two days after his death. The epitaph carved into the stone slab covering his grave includes a curse against moving his bones, which was carefully avoided during restoration of the church in 2008:

Shakespeare’s grave, next to those of Anne Shakespeare, his wife, and Thomas Nash, the husband of his granddaughter has this inscription:

Good frend for Iesvs sake forbeare,

Bleste be man spares thes stones,

And cvrst be he moves my bones Wikipedia

He did not want his coffin moved or looked in obviously:

We can surmise Hall did more than just visit Shakespeares grave, copy the epitaph, and leave. He mentions the kind of information one would expect of antiquarian who certainly has, as a professional goal, not only to collect as much as possible about his subject matter, but would persist in knowing everything available to him. Where or from whom did he get what he recounts in his letter to Halliwell-Phillipps? He appears to have taken for granted the gravestone as is, and comments on the depth of the grave (which was obviously an intended point he wished to make), but does not write or question this: . . . they laid him full seventeen foot deep . . . . I personally find it incredible he didnt say to himself: Something is rotten in the State of Denmarke. (Hamlet, I.iv.678). Graves any deeper than six or so feet might raise a questioning eyebrow or two, but a depth of seventeen feet is a detail I cannot imagine Hall not noticing or questioning this oddity of burial

Yes it is said that the grave is 17 feet deep. Edwards tomb in Westminster Abbey is unlikely to be opened either – it is very close to May Queen of Scots, Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth 1 and even Poets Corner. I wrote to the Abbey about it and was surprised to be told by them in an email that it was unheard of at that time but Edward was quickly buried on the day he died in London and no funeral was recorded. He had been the premier earl of the land, Lord High Steward of Ireland and yet vanished without a ripple. You can see it here:

Portraits of him are similar to those said to be of Shakespeare. When evading capture in Prague the warrant stated that he had a thin black beard, a limp and was heavy. His last portrait as Edward Talbot matches that. The limp was possibly staged. Certainly the famous woodcut of Edward Kelly made two hundred years later is nothing like that and shows a man with an enormous beard, very similar in fact to Lord Laski a Polish magician who accompanied Dee and Kelly to Europe. This is a portrait of Edward him as a young man:,_8th_Earl_of_Shrewsbury

And his tiny Wikipedia entry!

Another is here – he is the fifth person down the page:

And here he is in older age:

I have reams of coincidences about this man, far more than I needed to prove to me we were talking. I have sent it to some academics and experts on the period. Edward Talbot is one noble of that time not considered a candidate to be Shakespeare oddly enough but no one has heard of him although he was the richest man in England and had his house very close to the Mermaid frequented by WS and pals. No one takes seriously that he could be the Edward Talbot that Dee says came to him from Oxford. There is no Edward Kelly shown as a student there but certainly Edward Talbot had just graduated from Magdalen College, Oxford at that time. This lack of interest or refusal to look seriously at the facts is exactly what I expect for telling the truth – not to be believed, it is a safety mechanism against time being short circuited. One day it will be accepted but it is not important. I am not trying to make money out of this, nor to make a name for myself. It is what it is. What is important to me is how it fits in with clairvoyance and enlightenment. Kelly is perhaps an even more famous wizard than Merlin in some ways and the two have some things in common. Edward was clairvoyant but as a spy he was playing the part of an alchemist. His demonstrations and witnesses were carefully rigged. No modern magician wishes to know that. Of some interest is the known fact that Dee and Kelly swapped wives. Dee noted when he had sex in his diary and when their wives were swapped. Some of his children were clearly sired by Edward and it is clear to me from the many women in his life that he was highly charged sexually. It does not surprise me in the least. The one thing I cautioned him against constantly was not to kill. It seems that he never did, he was never in the army or navy and when challenged to a duel by his brother he refused. The Queen then intervened in fury at his brother. I will move on.

You are probably sceptical about Edward Talbot being Shakespeare. You could look at the portraits however there are no definite portraits of Shakespeare and certainly not from his life time. But I still see similarities. However what we do have are some signatures. Now bear in mind that if I am right a fairly well known man using an alias had to keep a low profile and although at first that was easy once you are famous it is almost impossible which would be why Edward did not enter public life as the 8th Earl.

By chance again we have some letters written by him and we also have a few signatures of Shakespeare. At first glance they look like those of an uneducated man:’s+different+signatures&biw=1366&bih=585&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirrMHfhqLJAhUKPRQKHf8UCe8QsAQIKA

Edward had most of his letters written by a secretary. This is one to his step mother Bess of Hardwick. You will need to use the tool to blow it up. If you look on line 27 you will see where Edward has written a name in his own hand. It is the name of William Cavendis, the son of Bess. Edward calls him Willum. You can see how similar the W and LLs are to the signatures of WS. Something not true of any other author thought to be WS..


I will add a bit more on this. When he was Edward Kelly in Europe a letter written to Lord Bughley about him for some reason calls him Sir William Kelly. The letter was written by Sir Sidney Lee.

As for ‘willum’ did Sir Sidney Lee call him Willum Shakespeare as suggested here?

You will have to search for ‘willum’ on this page to see this

Edward was the same age as Francis Bacon, another man thought to be WS. Bacon and Edward were both schooled by Lord Burghley in his home. They both have a connection to the legal chambers in Grays Inn too where there is a statue of Bacon and where the Shakespeare plays were first performed. Indeed when Edward became the 8th Earl of Shrewsbury on a very rare public occasion, albeit only attended by his friends, he welcomed the son of King James 1 to Grays Inn where they had a banquet and coronation. This son, later Charles 1 who was executed in 1649, had become Prince of Wales. At this ceremony Edward had the most important duty and carried the staff of the future king. It is about the only recorded incident of this 8th earl and in a place where all his trusted friends and other spies hung out.

The mystery of who WS really was has teased many great brains for centuries. They are perplexed as this William Shakespeare had no real education and seemed to come from an ordinary family. But that seems at odds with the facts which suggest the real WS was an aristocrat with connections to all the men who went to school with Edward. Even in his life time it was a mystery. It would seem that when he was a young man at Oxford he got Anne Hathaway ‘into trouble’ and was forced to marry her by their family. As a budding member of the new spy service it was easy to find a name for him to use and this name was one he had in his first assignment, spying on a Catholic family under the guise of a young actor called WS.

Anyway I put these autographs in as a small part of this. It is certainly not a connection that others have made. Yet. I did write to an academic some years ago but she ignored it and replied that Willum was a common name! Cassandra at work there beggaring belief.

I am going to add a couple of things about Talbot today for those interested. Edward Kelly is said to have been from a working class family and to be a convicted forger, conman and charlatan. How odd therefore that the most important man in Britain wrote to him and even asked him to return to England to make gold for the treasury. That letter was really to reinforce Edwards cover in Europe. William Cecil (Lord Burghley), then after his death in 1598, his son Robert Cecil, managed the whole country for the Queen throughout her 45 year reign. Look what he wrote:

I have cause to thank you, and so I do heartily for your good, kind letter, sent to me by our countryman, Mr Roydon, who maketh such good report to you, as doth every other man that hath had a conversation with you. (Letter from Burghley to Edward Kelly, May 1591; quoted in Nicholl, The Reckoning, p 259 and in MJ Trow, Who killed Kit Marlowe, p99)

Lord Burghley was no stranger to the real Edward of course not only having educated him and being a friend of his father who had tried to marry his young son to Burghleys daughter. He not only founded Britains Secret Service, he also founded an infamous and mysterious ‘school’. This school is mentioned by David Cecil in ‘The Cecils of Hatfield House’. He writes it became soon a very exclusive educational establishment indeed, never numbering more than twenty pupils at a time but including among these, at one time or another, some of the greatest fortunes and bluest blood in England; not only Lord Oxford but also the Earl of Surrey, two Earls of Rutland, Shakespeares Earl of Southampton, and he who was to become the tragic and famous Earl of Essex.’ ‘The Cecils of Hatfield House’ 1973 Constable London 0 09 456210 5

Walter Raleigh was a frequent visitor and Cecil mentions in his book a letter to him from Burghleys son begging his to come back from the countryside. The heroic Raleigh was implicated with what was called the School of Night and this got him into a lot of trouble, even a trial for heresy. He survived that. Christopher Marlowe was a young playwright and also got into trouble over the views it seems they held. This is what MJ Trow has to say about it:

Robert Parsons who was a Jesuit living in exile wrote about it in 1592 ‘..of Sir Walter Raleigh who keeps a school of atheism much frequented with a certain necromantic astronomer (rattuos: we think this is Dr John Dee) as schoolmaster where no small number of young men of noble birth learn to deride the Old Law of Moses and the New Law of our Saviour with ingenious quips and jests and the scholars taught among other things to spell ‘God’ backwards.’ Parsons also accused Burghley of similar behaviour. Clearly he seemed to think that Raleigh’s scholars were actually children or at least teenagers and that their lessons were pretty basic. The fact that Parsons was writing from France within a few months of Marlow’s death indicates how widespread knowledge of Raleigh’s activities was. (MJ Trow)

However a more common view of the school is neatly summarised in Wikipedia:

The School of Night” is a modern name. It derives from a passage in Act IV, scene III of William Shakespeare’s play Love’s Labours Lost, in which the King of Navarre says “Black is the badge of hell / The hue of dungeons and the school of night.” There are however at least two alternate renderings of the line, one reading “suit of night”[1] and the other reading “scowl of night.” It should be noted that the context of the lines has nothing to do with cabals: the King is simply sneering at the black hair of his friend Berowne’s lover. However, some writers have seen the line as an allusion to Raleigh’s ‘school of atheism’, and have used “The School of Night” as a name for the group. The group was controversially said to be satanists and pagans who worshipped pagan gods at night. They were also said to perform illegal operations and rituals in the 1600s.

It is alleged that each of these men studied science, philosophy, and religion, and all were suspected of atheism. Atheism at that time was a charge nearly the equivalent of treason, since the monarch was the head of the church and to be against the church was, ipso facto, to be against the monarch. However, it was also a name for anarchy, and was a charge frequently brought against the politically troublesome. Richard Chomley, an anti-Catholic spy for her Majesty’s Privy Council, charged in an affidavit Marlowe had “read the Atheist lecture to Sr. Walter Raleigh [and] others,” substantiating charges of atheism against The School of Night. Wikipedia

I cannot help noting that School of ‘Knights’ might be the link.

There is the marriage agreement for Edward Talbot making him extremely wealthy. For some reason Lord Ogle wrote to complain that the marriage had not taken place and this was when Edward had first arrived in Europe with Dee. A month or so later he wrote that ‘the business had been done‘. An odd remark about his daughters wedding except when we see spymaster Walsinghams name on this document. Just before going to Europe Edward Kelly married a woman who went with them

Kelley married a widow, Jane (or Joanna) Cooper of Chipping Norton (15631606). He helped educate her two children: the girl, future poet Westonia, later described him as a ‘kind stepfather’ and noted how he took her in after the deaths of her two grandmothers. Kelley had also hired a Latin tutor for her, named John Hammond (Johannes Hammonius in Latin). Wikpedia.

A coincidence perhaps that he married two Janes at the same time. This woman was almost certainly part of his cover and he used her to swap wives with Dees wife, yet another Jane who was at court at the same time that he and his brother had been there. She would certainly have recognised him when he first came to Dees house and there is much in Dees diary that is explained if this is the case.

Pl F3/1/1/1 27.9.1583 Agreement for marriage settlement of Edward Talbot and Jane Ogle; 27 Sept. 1583

(2 + 1 +1 membranes, parchment)

First Party: George, Earl of Shrewsbury, Earl Marshal of England, KG; and Edward Talbott, Esq., his second son.

Second Party: Cuthbert, Lord Ogle; and Jane Ogle his eldest daughter.

Third Party: Sir Francis Walsingham, knight,

Principal Secretary to Her Majesty;

Sir Francis Russell, knight;

Thomas Bawdewyn, gentleman;

And Nicholas Ridley, Clerk..

This is written in Westminster Abbey above his tomb:

The Latin inscription can be translated:

“Sacred to the memory of Edward of the noble family of Talbots, the eighth Earl of Shrewsbury, Wexford and Waterford, Lord Talbot, Earl of Bradenburgh, Valence, Montcheney, Strange de Blackmere, Gifford de Brimesfield, Clifford de Corsham, Furnival, Verdon and Lovetoft. A person every way equal to his titles, of such sincere, just and yet obliging disposition, that the greatness of his dignities took not from them the honour. He was no less remarkable for his descent and family, than for his piety and purity of life; nor was he tainted with any of those vices to which great men are too frequently addicted. He was honourable without pride, potent without ostentation, religious without superstition, munificent, both in his mind, and with his hand, warded always against fortune. His whole life was a path of justice; and his innocence escaping envy, continued through the whole course of his life. Lastly, certain of future fame by a good conscience, while he lived, he now enjoys it, and with it an unsullied character, and rest, after the troubles of life. Of which that she might be the sharer, is the desire of his afflicted wife, Jane Cuthbert, eldest daughter of the Baron Ogle, who being drowned in tears, hath out of pious regard, erected this monument. He died 8 February 1617, in the 57th year of his age. Here lieth likewise the Lady Jane Countess of Shrewsbury, widow of the before-mentioned Earl of Shrewsbury, interred near the same monument”.

This raises a question. Above the inscription states that Edward was Earl of Bradenburg (Brandenburg in Germany). This is not a title held by any of his ancestors and so was not inherited nor was it passed to his distant cousin who became 9th earl of Shrewsbury. I enquired about this to the College of Arms and was kindly informed by a senior herald that they had no records of this title at all. It interested me because Edward Kelly was knighted by the Emperor Rudolph and it is said that he claimed to be descended from Irish royalty

Much of Kelleys early life is obscure. He claimed descent from the family of Ui Maine in Ireland. He was born at Worcester on 1 August 1555, at 4 P.M. according to a horoscope that John Dee drew up (based on notes Dee kept in his almanac/diary). His sister Elizabeth was born in 1558, and he had a brother Thomas who later joined him in Dee’s household. However, much of Kelley’s life before meeting John Dee is not known. He may have studied at Oxford under the name of Talbot; whether or not he attended university, Kelly was educated and knew Latin and possibly some Greek by the time he met Dee Wikipedia

Uí Maine, often Anglicised as Hy Many, was one of the oldest and largest kingdoms located in Connacht, Ireland……….The Uí Maine are among the ancient Irish dynasties still represented today among the recognised Irish nobility and Chiefs of the Name, by the O’Kelly of Gallagh and Tycooly, Prince of Uí Maine and Count of the Holy Roman Empire Wikipedia

Edward Talbot certainly did have roots in Irish nobility as his inscription shows. Wexford and Waterford are in Ireland. It would seem that he was given a German peerage at some time perhaps for some service rendered. His wife Jane would not lie about this on their tomb. The effigy on his tomb looks remarkably like some images of Shakespeare (as you can see on the Westminster Abbey website above).

I may later discuss what Edwards mission was in Europe but leave that until I get to politics and their relationship with the occult, a word which like esoteric means hidden. Much about Edward Talbot, Kelly and Shakespeare is occult. The magician Aleister Crowley claimed to be the incarnation of Kelly. The man therefore has been extremely influential on magic, trade and politics even today. By contrast to ‘occult’ the word Apocalypse means uncovering, as does Revelation, and in my view refer to enlightenment.

Dee went to great lengths to hide his diaries. He hid one up his chimney. Edward somehow found it and very early in their relationship started writing comments of his own in it and crossing out passages about himself that he disagreed with, which infuriated Dee who also noted his unhappiness with these intrusive passages. When the two men were later in Europe a group of men entered Dees London house and ransacked his library. They did not find what he had buried however. I would say these were secret service men looking for that diary. There is only one link to Edward Kelly being Edward Talbot and that is in the diary in which Edward wrote in his own hand that he had never lied. The few things that he wrote in it are now almost impossible to see, they have faded so are not visible on the facsimilies available on line, but they were carefully noted down by some scholars who can or could just see them. We have therefore diary editions like Fentons which have put together many of the various diaries which survived and added their own comments. Dee kept a domestic diary and also a spirit diary. It is extraordinary really how these two or three sentences have survived and that we can all access them.

Dee went to even more trouble after his library was destroyed and he left some of these writings in the trunk with a false bottom but even then they were only just rescued from burning. The Egyptians went to great lengths to leave things for us, even very small personal things. Granite is a very hard stone and for them took years of labour to carve and polish. But granite lasts a very long time. Papyrus lasted well under some conditions often copied from older papyri which perished but writing in the hardest stones lets us see exactly what they wrote for us. In the Diary we really have just a name but it unlocks the whole vision. It all starts together as Talbot is brought to Dees house by a Grays Inn barrister probably in the spy service. Mr Clarkson seems to provide Dee with young magicians. But there is a woman in this young mans life and one that his father would not approve of. Well he might, in a way, as George Talbot famously kept a mistress and may have had many, however he only married into important families. But young Will had to get married, or thought it the right thing to do albeit using an alias. This is the woman.

Hathaway was 26 years old; Shakespeare was only 18. This age difference, added to Hathaway’s antenuptial pregnancy, has been employed by some historians as evidences that it was a “shotgun wedding”, forced on a reluctant Shakespeare by the Hathaway family. There is, however, no evidence for this inference.

For a time it was believed that this view could be supported by documents from the Episcopal Register at Worcester, which records in Latin the issuing of a wedding licence to “Wm Shaxpere” and one “Annam Whateley” of Temple Grafton. The day afterwards, Fulk Sandells and John Richardson, friends of the Hathaway family from Stratford, signed a surety of £40 as a financial guarantee for the wedding of “William Shagspere and Anne Hathwey”. Frank Harris, in The Man Shakespeare (1909), argued that these documents are evidence that Shakespeare was involved with two women. He had chosen to marry one, Anne Whateley, but when this became known he was immediately forced by Hathaway’s family to marry their pregnant relative. Harris believed that “Shakespeare’s loathing for his wife was measureless” because of his entrapment by her and that this was the spur to his decision to leave Stratford and pursue a career in the theatre Wikipedia

This is from one online source for Dees diary. WS had to marry Ann Hathaway in Worcester on 27 November 1582. Dee wrote in his 1582 diary:

22November EK went to London…Blakley…10 days to return.

(Blockley, as it is now known is 27 miles from Worcester where they married and it is 15 miles from Stratford upon Avon where she lived).

When WS’s beloved daughter Susanna was born on 26 May 1583. Dee writes:

7 May EK went homeward for 10 -12 days (Dies Quadragesimus A Die Veneris Ante Pascham)

(It is curious that on Edward and Janes tomb there is a girl kneeling by them because Jane had no children and after Edward died the title passed to a distant relative also without children)

If he was the father he must have met Ann Hathaway around August/September 1582. These are the extracts in Dees diary that relate to Edward Talbot at this time, and who is the same man that told Dee he was named now named Kelly:


March 9th, Fryday at dynner tyme Mr. Clerkson and (Edwards first meeting with Dee).

March 15 Mr. Talbot declared a great deale of Barnabas nowghty dealing toward me, as in telling Mr. Clerkson ill things of me that I should mak his frend, as that he was wery of me, that I wold so flatter his frende the lerned man that I wold borrow him of him. But his frend told me, before my wife and Mr. Clerkson, that a spirituall creature told him that Barnabas had censured both Mr. Clerkson and me. The injuries which this Barnabas had done me diverse wayes were very great.

March 22nd, Mr. Talbot went to London, to take his jornay.

May 4th, Mr. Talbot went.

July 13th, Mr. Talbot cam abowt 3 of the clok afternone, with whom I had some wordes of unkendnes: we parted frendely: he sayd that the Lord Morley had the Lord Mountegle his bokes. He promised me some of Doctor Mynivers bokes.

Here we can see that Edward has stormed off. He would not like being told off by Dee. It is in the next two months while he is away that Anne Hathaway conceives his and her daughter. If you are interested there is a free transcription of the diary here

Here is a bit more on the Baldwins who served the Talbots. Thomas was very important to Edward as we have letters which tell us that he took Edward to court the first time, to Europe, lived in the same ‘Coldharbour House’, their warehouse on the Thames, and was a lawyer who ran the Talbots vast business enterprise and trade with Europe. It may have little to do with anything but is of the greatest interest to me. Was Thomas for example really incarcerated in the Tower of London or was he in Europe with chief spy Edward? In Europe it appears from the diary that Thomas Kelly was Edwards minder and messenger.

William Bawdewyn, who during the reign of Queen Mary, enjoyed the confi- dential office of cupbearer to her majesty, and was still living in 1576, when Sir Henry Compton, knt. Lord Compton, granted to him, by the name of William Baldwyne, of Diddlebury, gentleman, the manor and ad- vovvson of Kyre Wyard, in Worcestershire. He d. without issue, and was s. in estate by his brother, Richard Baldwyn, who married at Ship- ton, in the county of Salop, on the 7th No- vember, 1545, Margery, daughter of Law- rence Ludlow, of Moore House, in Corve- dale, and was s. by his eldest son, Thomas Baldwyn, b. iu 1546, who, like his grandfather and uncle, spent many of his years within the circuit of a court, as agent to the Earl of Shrewsbury, then en- gaged in the dangerous office of guarding the Scottish queen. In Lodge’s Illus- trations, vol. ii. p. 234, is a letter signed ” T. Bawdewyn,” and directed to the earl of Shrewsbury, 1st July, 1580. It informs his lordship that Elizabeth is resolute against his going to Chatsworth with Qneeti Mary, A letter of the earl’s to Mr. Bald- wyn (ib. 257) proves the great confidence that nobleman placed in him, and expresses’ an anxiety to be permitted to resign his burdensome charge of guarding the queen, adding, ” I have too many spyes in my house already, and mind to make choice of others I may trust.” Hunter’s History of Hallamshire contains a letter directed to Mr. Baldwyn, by the name of ” my loving- friend Mr. Thomas Bawdewine, at Could Harbar in London,” dated April, 1581, and proving that he was not unknown to the ministers of Elizabeth ; and in the same work ” one Baldwin ” is mentioned as a confidential agent of the earl of Shrews- bury. In a room in Beauoharap’s Tower, in the Tower of London, anciently the place of confinement for state prisoners, were dis- covered, some years ago, a number of in- scriptions, chiefly made with nails, and all of them the autographs of the unfortunate individuals %vho thus endeavoured to beguile for a time the tedious hours of confinement. They have been published in the thirteenth volume of the Archseologia, and since, in Mr. Brayley’s history of that fortress. Among them is one which runs thus : 158,5. Thomas Bawrewix. Jui.i. as veutuf. makf.tii life so sin cawseth death. I CHILDK, O!’ K INLET. 197 To vvliich is added a representation of a pair of scales, evidently iiitimatinj; the wri- ter’s confidence in liis own iiit(‘<;ritv, and desire to obtain justice. Mr. IJrand, who has written an ehiborate dissertation on these inscriptions, not finding, as he says, either in ” tlie State Papers, Uynier’s Fce- dera, Strype, Dod, nor Howe, ” any men- tion of this person, ” suspects he had been imprisoned here for counterfeiting tlie queen’s coin.” But there is not a sliadow of doubt that lie was the Tiiomas Bahlwyn al)ove-mentioned, and the suspicion of tlie learned commentator is, consequently, un- just to his memory. His epitaph, still re- maining at Diddlebury, records his escape from the sea, the sword, and the cruel tower. ” (Jui mare, qui ferrum, durae qui vincula turris Quondam transivit;” which, of course, it would not have done if the allusion had been calculated to awaken so disgraceful a recollection : but his im- prisonment had a higher and more honour- able origin. The trembling anxiety of Elizabeth and her ministers, respecting the safe custody of their most important captive, the queen of Scots, and the un- grateful and harassing task imposed upon the earl of Shrewsbury, as her keeper, are alike matter of history. Perhaps, when Elizabeth’s illegitimacy in the eyes of the other sovereigns of Europe, and Mary’s pertinacious claim to her crown, supported, as it was ready to be, by every state and almost every individual of the Catholic faith, be taken into fair consideration, tlie vexatious treatment of that illustrious pri- soner will lose somewhat of tlie character of tyranny and cruelty ascribed to it ; but, in the mean time, it is notorious that every avenue of escape, possible or im- possible, was guarded ,with the narrowest scrutiny, and every precaution adopted which the most experienced gaoler could suggest. It has been shewn that Thomas Bawdewin was connected with the earl of Shrewsbury, and in the State Papers of Sir Ralph Sadlier is a letter from Curie, the Scotti’^h queen’s secretary, to the same gen- tleman ; much cannot be collected from it, for it is written in a kind of cypher ; but this, under the circumstances, would make it more alarming and of greater apparent importance ; it evidently relates to some business of the royal captive, and, from the repository in which it was found, it must have reached the hands of government. All this was quite sufficient in those days to warrant the apprehension of any one to whom so suspicious a paper was addressed ; it bears date September, 1584, the year preceding the inscription tliat has been quoted, and must inspire a wish to learn the issue of its author’s confinement ; and this is supplied by a passage in the pedigree ain’ady mentioned; but whether Mr. Baw- dewin was re-ajipointed, after his release, to liis former oliicial station, and thus ob- tained an entire vindication of his character, or whether the appointment preceded his iniprisoniiient, is not stated in this docu- ineiit, the passage from uliich is as follows : ” Thomas Bawdewin,* esq. of Diddle- bury, by the privie counsell of Queen Eli- zabeth, appoynted as . . . . (here is a blank) for the allayres of Mary, (jueen of Scots, and George, earl of Salop, after tliree years imprisonment in the Tower, married Bertran, (this should be Gertrude), daugli- ter of Robert Corbett, esq. of Stanwardiiie.” After this liberation, he adopted a motto from the iisalinist, piously ascribing the event to a merciful Providence : Per Deum memu transilio murum. He had reason, indeed, to congratulate himself upon his escape ; for it was seldom, in those (/olden days, that any one could do so, who had once attracted the sinister notice of the state. Upon the whole it seems most pro- bable, tiiat, when released, he quitted the dangerous vortex of a court, and retired to his paternal estate in Corvedale, where he died at a good old age, in October, 1614, and where his posterity continued, for five generations, until Richard Bawdewin sold the Diddlebury estate to Frederick Corne- wall, esq. captain R.N. father of the late Bishop Worcester, whose son is the present proprietor. William Baldwin, second brother of Thomas Bawdewin, the prisoner, was of Elsich, in the chapelry of Cerfton and parish of Diddlebury. The family name had been hitherto written indiscriminately ; but from this point of divergence, the two branches chose to distinguish themselves by a different mode of spelling. William’s son, Charles Baldwyn, esq. was born in * John Bawdewin, second son of this 1’homas, was servant, in 1616, to Edward ‘I’albot, soon af- terwards Earl of Shrewsbury, and son to Earl George, in whose service Mr. Bawdewin, the father, was so long continued. In those days, a gentleman’s son was not considered as submitting to any degradation by serving a nobleman, or even a knight, in a menial capacity. Mr. Talbot, in a letter published in the Strafford Letters, (page 3), uses the phrase ” John Bawdewin, my man ;” and so in some curious depositions pre- served in the History of \\ lialley, p. ‘223, touch- ing a right of pews in the parish church. Sir John 1’owneley is represented as saying (it was in the reign of IIknhy Ylll.) ” my man, Shuttleworth, made this form, and here will I sit when 1 come.” The gentleman whom the knight blufHy calls ” my man,” was, however, (says Dr. Whitaker,) a person of property, and was probably his prin- cipal agent, or perhaps one of his esquires.


The family claimed descent from King Baldwin of Jerusalem. However Edward claimed descent from Charlemagne!

We are lucky to have the Talbot Papers too. These include a few letters to and from or about Edward and make up the little we know about him.

Talbot Papers (MS 3192-3206) Fifteen volumes of papers of the Earls of Shrewsbury, which complement the Shrewsbury Papers (MS 694-710), were purchased from the College of Arms by Lambeth Palace Library in 1983.

Further information is available in:

Batho, G.R. A Calendar of the Shrewsbury and Talbot Papers in Lambeth Palace Library and the College of Arms. Volume II: Talbot Papers in the College of Arms, (H.M.C. JP7, 1971).

Shrewsbury Papers (MS 694-710) Papers of the Earls of Shrewsbury from the 15th century to the death of Gilbert Talbot, 7th earl, in 1616, though they do not survive in any quantity before Francis Talbot who succeeded to the earldom in 1538.

The earls, whose principal family seat was at Sheffield, with large estates radiating into Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Shropshire and Herefordshire, were influential figures, both locally and nationally, as lord lieutenants and privy councillors. Francis, 5th earl, was also president of the Council of the North, and Gilbert, 6th earl, was custodian of Mary Queen of Scots. See also the Talbot Papers (MS 3192-3206).

Actually they mean George 6th Earl and he was indeed the host of Mary Queen Of Scots and her retinue or court at his expense for many years from Edwards childhood. She was transferred from his care shortly before her execution and George was said to have fathered a child by her. Certainly his wife Bess accused him of having an affair with MQoS. Gilbert became the 7th earl a few years after the execution and was the older brother of Edward. The provenance of the Talbot papers is like that of the Dee diaries, a mystery that they survived at all:

Archival history: The papers of the Earls of Shrewsbury passed, on the death of Gilbert Talbot, seventh Earl of Shrewsbury, in 1616, to the Howard family by the marriage of Alethea Talbot, daughter and eventually sole heiress of the seventh Earl, to Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, later (1644) Earl of Norfolk. In 1671, the Yorkshire antiquarian Nathaniel Johnston was given access to them at Sheffield manor, and used them extensively for his unpublished lives of the Earls of Shrewsbury completed between 1692 and 1694, now in Sheffield Central Library (Mss. 3-6). Under Johnston’s direction, some 15 volumes were bound and presented to the College of Arms by the Duke of Norfolk

(JS College of Arms is the bastion of our Templars – the heralds)

Earl Marshal, in about 1677, and a considerable portion of these was printed by Edmund Lodge in Illustrations of British History, 1791, and many more summarised in the appendix to the second edition published in 1838. After the gift to the College of Arms, the remainder of the papers remained in the hands of Nathaniel Johnston, and it is probable that he brought them with him when he came to live in London in 1685. At some date after this event, a large part of the Shrewsbury Papers remaining in Johnston’s possession was acquired by Lambeth Palace Library, where it is Mss. 694-710. Other papers of the Earls of Shrewsbury together with Johnston’s own antiquarian collections continued in the hands of his descendants and were eventually sold to Richard Frank, Recorder of Pontefract, in 1755. The whole collection was finally dispersed is the Bacon Franks sale at Sotheby’s in August 1942. Many Shrewsbury Papers were bought by dealers, and others are in the Bodleian Library and Sheffield Central Library.(I am indebted for this and other information about Nathaniel Johnston to Mrs. Janet Martin’s unpublished thesis entitled, ‘The Antiquarian Collections of Nathaniel Johnston’ (B. Litt., Oxford). Neither the date nor the circumstances in which so large a part of the Shrewsbury Papers was acquired by Lambeth are precisely known. In the account of Johnston’s manuscripts in Bernard’s Catalogus Manuscriptorum Angliae, 1697, there is no mention of the Shrewsbury Papers, but it is evident that those now at Lambeth were at that time in his possession, for three items listed by Bernard are in fact now bound with the collection (Ms. 703, ff. 1-63). The chronology of the accession of manuscripts in the Library at this time is obscure, but it is certain that the Shrewsbury Papers had been acquired at or before the death of Archbishop Tenison in 1715, for they are noted in a catalogue of manuscripts made by David Wilkins in 1720 (Library Records F.40), and are there stated to be ‘Codices Mss. Tenisoniani.’ Edmund Gibson, later Bishop of London, who was appointed Librarian in 1696, may well have taken some part in their acquisition, for he knew Johnston well and it was at his instigation that Johnston contributed to Bernard’s Catalogus, and Johnston assisted Gibson with the latter’s edition of Camden’s Britannia in 1695. The Shrewsbury Papers do not, however, appear in Gibson’s own catalogue of the Lambeth manuscripts (Library Records F.39), apparently made soon after his appointment. The known facts of Johnston’s life do little to define the date between 1697, when he is known to have had the Mss. in his possession, and 1715 when they were certainly at Lambeth. The probability is that Johnston, who died in 1705, did not part with the Mss. himself. Their omission from Bernard suggests that he did not regard them as his own property, and there is no evidence to show that he parted with any of his own collections, which appear to have remained intact to the time of his death. He died heavily in debt, though not, as has been suggested, bankrupt, and the London Gazette for 24-7 March 1707/8 recorded that a decree of Chancery had ordered the sale of his estate. His manuscript collections were not disposed of at this time. Mrs. Janet Martin has concluded that there was a sale of part of his collections at some date before 1755, and if the Lambeth Mss. were acquired at this sale it would appear to have taken place at some time between 1705 and 1715. The manner in which Johnston treated the papers while they were in his possession can only be deplored. His habit of scribbling on them in a barely decipherable hand is the least of his sins. They were either found or collected by him into bundles without any order of chronology or subject, and indeed it would have required considerable ingenuity to have arranged them in any greater disorder. To each bundle he assigned a letter of the alphabet, but in many cases the same letter was used for more than one bundle. Within the bundles the documents were numbered separately, but again there is much duplication and omission. Some of the bundles contain cheek by jowl with the Shrewsbury Papers, family papers of Johnston himself, including letters from his son Cudworth and material relating to his medical practice, and also documents pertaining to his Yorkshire collections. A good example of this is to be found in Ms.706. Similar confusion is to be found in some of the Johnston Mss. in the Bodleian Library. It is perhaps possible to regard the inclusion of family and professional papers as some slight evidence that the collection was not acquired by Tenison during Johnston’s lifetime, since it may be supposed that Johnston would not have wished to offer such papers to Tenison and that Tenison would not have wished to acquire them, but it seems more reasonable to suppose that the inclusion of material of this kind reflects nothing more than Johnston’s unsystematic method of working. It is greatly to be regretted that when the papers arrived at Lambeth some effort was not made to arrange them in coherent order, but it is evident that by the time Wilkins composed his catalogue in 1720 the present shelfmarks in use at Lambeth had been allocated, and that the bundles, though perhaps not yet bound into volumes, were distributed under these shelfmarks in their present order without alteration to Johnston’s arrangement. In making the present calendar it has not been possible to re-arrange the documents without destroying the volumes in which they are bound, which the Library could not afford to do, but many have been refoliated in order to clarify reference. The Talbot Papers have been known to historians for many years through Lodge’s Illustrations, but the Shrewsbury Papers at Lambeth, although known to the editors of the Calendars of State Papers Foreign and Domestic, have received less attention. They were briefly catalogued in H. J. Todd’s Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Archiepiscopal Library, 1812.

I doubt that any of this is of much interest but I am putting it here as these small and mundane matters were the scraps left for me and justified what I was doing. Edward was leaving enough for me to know we really were on speaking terms. But was he listening and what was his real mission?

A reference I made above was wrong. I could delete it but will correct it here instead. The William used in reference to Sir Edward Kelly was in a letter to Gilbert Talbot, not Lord Burghley as I wrote and thought, and written by Sir Henry Lee not Sir Sidney Lee. This is a letter describing the fact that the English diplomat Sir Edward Dyer had been imprisoned in Europe. He had been sent to Germany to check on Edward who was also at the time imprisoned, a fact which possibly pleased Gilbert. Not for very long however in either case.

21st June 1591 Sir Henry Lee to Gilbert Talbot

How the state of Sir William Kelly now stands in Bohemia cannot be unknown to you; he is fast and forthcoming and not like to fly with golden wings as to be fettered in chains of worse substance. Mr Dyer is likewise stayed, by commandment keepeth his chamber without any indignity. The Emperor lately spoke with him with the greatest allowance of his wisdom, temper and discretion. Her Majesty has sent one Webb into those parts truly to know how those causes stand and to procure Mr Dyers delivery.

In our next edition we will look at what they were all doing in Europe and how it is particularly relevant today.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s