for many years that William Shakespeare didn't really write the stuff that his name is attached to. About every generation this comes up, and in the end, it really was that guy from Stratford-upon-Avon, William Shakespeare, who wrote that stuff.

There have doubts about the actual author of The Works of Shakespeare from the beginning.

The story of the Man from Stratford doesn't seem to begin before 1623.

The development of the field of Literary Biography gave impetus to learning more about the writer - and found nothing in the life of Stratford to match with The Works.

While it has been heresy in England to challenge Stratford, the United States did not have the same problem; the authorship controversy has been growing in fertile American soil since at least the 1820's.

The were 60 candidates proposed before the Earl of Oxford was proposed. Now only Oxford and Stratford remain (except for that half-dozen people who still press Bacon and Marlowe)

Although the Academic Community stands by their candidate, independent and usually unfunded research has continued to expand the case for Edward de Vere, without coming up with any evidence to preclude him (the only "evidence" presented on behalf of Stratford is challengeable, most of it based on legend)

So yes the academic community continues with Stratford, but they are people who have staked their names and reputations on Shakspere of Stratford; they are as likely to change their opinion as the church was likely to accept Gallileo (which they didn't too until recently - centuries after everyone else did).

tends to come back to the conclusion that William Shakespeare (various spellings) really is the author of the works attributed to him. Those who conclude otherwise tend to be really cherry-picking. Books have been written on this, I know and I don't feel like reviewing the evidence, but I'm going to go with William Shakespeare really wrote the stuff.

are the ones who are cherry-picking the evidence. What little there is.

Nearly 400 years after his death, and despite billions of dollars and man-hours of research, no one has yet to put a pen into the hands of Shakspere of Stratford, except to sign his will and 3 other court documents.

Stratfordian researchers DO INDEED jump through some serious hoops to conclude without evidence that indeed Stratford must be the man.

But they never try to explain this:

In 1597 William Shakspere of Stratford was in court in Stratford pursuing a debt of 6 pounds in court. How is it that this man was making a four day ride between London and Stratford without leaving any trace? There are no communications between him and his wife ever (nor any other business associate who must be watching his thriving Stratford business). There are no receipts or lodging records from inns along the way. And why did he sue a man for such a small sum if he was busy making money hand over fist acting and writing plays? Why are there no receipts for payment of any plays or poems? Why does no one in London even mention his name during his lifetime? Why does he not acknowledge the death of Elizabeth? Why does his own death go unacknowledged? How is it that fully half of the plays were published after Stratford's death (by De Vere's son-in-law BTW (I'm sure Stratfordians ignore that) yet no provision for their publishing is made?

The stories that are told about a famous William Shakespeare drinking with Marlow and Jonson at some Tavern are all historical fantasy. Except for a few documents, none of them literary in any way, the person of William Shakespeare seems to have not been a real person at all.

I reiterate for you:

The Academic Community has concluded long ago and without evidence that William Shakspere of Stratford wrote the plays. It is not a surprise that people who have made a career on this study would not acknowledge anything other than what they need to believe (although this is changing; Oxfordian studies are starting to appear in Universities in this country, notably Concordia in Portland Or).

So Sheila T, you must either believe that mysterious William Shakspere of Stratford went to London, changed his name to Shake-speare, churned out an average of 2 plays per year which he also acted in AND found time for some lyric poetry, without ever leaving a scrap of paper with his handwriting on it, without ever sending or receiving a letter, without being mentioned in anyone's journal. You believe that although he sued for small sums of money he allowed his works to be pirated. You believe that it is not strange that William of Stratford was never questioned by the Star Chamber despite having some pretty nasty things to say about the Queen and other powerful persons, things that really should have cost him his thumbs. And after all this he returns to Stratford, changes his name BACK to Shakspere, and lives the reminder of his life as grain dealer, not staging as much as one play for his beloved Stradford neighbors.

Or maybe you should consider that the writer of the works of Shake-speare was a disaffected nobleman who could get away with what he wrote because he covered himself with a pen-name. And maybe that nobleman had his identity covered-up to hide the embarrassment of what he wrote.

If the works of Shakespeare are written by Stratford, then they are magical works of the cut-and-paste genius, to be read only for their beauty.
If Edward De Vere wrote them, then they are a very intimate portrait of Queen Elizabeth and her court written by someone who was their.

Try this: pick up any of Shakespeare's works. Any will do. First read it as if it is written by a commoner from Stratford. Then read it as if it was written by a nobleman. See which reading makes more sense. The man from Stratford is nowhere to be found, but the voice of someone else is crying out.

A few years ago I read Bill Bryson's brief biography of Shakespeare, and found it kind of interesting. I love Bryson, but this was not one of his best works.

But if you're into historical mysteries, I HIGHLY Recommend Lee Miller's history of the Lost Colony at Roanoke. I can't remember the exact title (I'll try to find it), but it was fascinating, and it sounds quite a bit like the book you are describing.

I am reading All's Well That Ends Well. Stratfordians describe this play as a Problem Play, because it has an unlikable hero and deals with obscure issues. Oxfordians see it as a highly confessional piece by Edward de Vere.

The word "ever" appears strategically in the dialog in reference to Bertram, who represents de Vere (E.ver). But in the instances where the word is used in conjunction with a character other than Bertram, the word is spelled "e'er" (not "E.ver&quot .

I am going to go back through the works to confirm this, but if I remember correctly "e'er" is used frequently in the works. Now I just have to Verify context.

If William of Stratford wrote the works of Shakespeare, then he based them off the life of Oxford. OR Oxford wrote them.

Clues like this argue for the latter.

to titled gentry or that a man of common stock might not harbor in his bosom Homeric talent, nor can we say certainly that one same soul could not both craft true verse and yet sell grain