W.F. Buckley fan here for the past 51 years. Read about Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, (not 18th) during a college literature course. It was before I learned about Buckley. I leaned toward Oxford as the actual author. But I was diverted into philosophy and left Oxford behind. Liberals do not weigh arguments or evidence. They simply repeat propaganda, without any evidence or arguments.
When "William Shakespeare" (born William Shakspere of Stratford) died on April 23, 1616, there was virtually no notice taken in Britain, nor anywhere else, for that matter – a fact among many others that has led a small but not inconsiderable nu
[. . .]
Firing Line, the late William Buckley's talk show, which was in the middle of its long run.
Like most graduate students then and now, I was complacently liberal, having been so raised and reinforced at school and via the media. Still, I liked Buckley – not so much for his views, but for his manner. I was fascinated by his patrician nonchalance, the way he reclined easily in his chair as he spoke, and his East Coast blue-blood dress and demeanor – all characteristics that did not describe me in the least, nor anybody else that I knew. And I liked the way he talked, too, with a vaguely semi-British accent and his deceptively confused "uh, uh, uhs" preceding some probing question or incisive assertion.
The guest that day was someone I'd never heard of, Charlton Ogburn. The topic of discussion was Ogburn's book, The Mysterious William Shakespeare, which claimed that the author of the plays and poems was not some litigious grain dealer from Stratford-on-Avon, but rather Edward de Vere, the 18th (sic) earl of Oxford.
[. . .]
My point here is not to write a brief on Oxford's behalf, though it is perhaps worth noting that a disproportionate number of lawyers appear to accept the Oxfordian case, including the late Antonin Scalia. Probably something to do with evaluating evidence and all that. But my real revelation was to see Buckley seemingly change his own mind about the matter as the discussion progressed, while the professor remained wedded to his dogmatic view, regardless of whether it was defensible or not.
[. . .]
It was obvious to me, at least on that afternoon, that as Buckley warmed to Oxford's case, it was not because he favored the aristocrat, but because Ogburn made a much better case for his man than the supercilious and obtuse professor.
April 26, 2016
Finding Shakespeare and Conservatism
By Jonathan F. Keiler