It seems this is wide open to debate: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32782267

This is going to be a real difficult one to bottom out.

This is an interesting line, but I do wish we could be told just what this 'code' is meant to reveal.
The other thing is , I don't like the way that the Stratfordians (and I count myself one) immediately jump on Country Life, and say they have ruined their reputation which is complete nonsense and I don't like that they don't point out a hugely important fact which is that Shakespeare's son-in-law, Dr. Hall was in fact a botanical and herbal doctor. That might possibly be relevant .

The other thing I'd like to mention is that Shakespeare at the age of 33 as suggested was didn't really come into his own that early on, so why would the drawing be portrayed as Shakespeare with a Laurel wreath on his head, which was a symbol of victory in ancient Rome.

So my feeling is that though the drawing is interesting but it isn't of Shakespeare. I remain sceptical anyway.

Most people wouldn't know about the Bard's son-in-law being a doctor, and is one of these cases where the Stratfordians at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust go over the top in not telling people what we know and what we don't know.

A few more of my random thoughts.


Shakepeare's earliest play is a Henry VI and Richard III, about 1588. Which mean Shakespeare as around 24 years old. So going by that he was 9 years into his career. A bit early for portraying him as Poet Laureate I would have thought.
He wrote Venus & Adonis in 1593, which is an epic poem.