There are hundreds conspiracy theories out there, They allow their subscribers to feel one up on the rest of us—in possession of a secret understood only by a select group of illuminati. Although there is unlimited variety in what they all claim, in another sense they are all alike. They all start from the desired conclusion and reason backwards, making the evidence fit the proposition rather than the other way round.
In the case of the Shakespeare authorship debate, backwards reasoning is everywhere.
Oxford was dead when the plays were written? Change when they were written. Puttenham said Oxford wrote without a pseudonym? Change what Puttenham said. Oxford's life not corresponding with Shakespeare's? Change both of them until they match.
The whole debate resembles a game of Monopoly. Fake currency, fake properties and bank errors in your favour. Who ever had a bank error in their favour? In the real world, you can't build houses on Trafalgar Square and no one has ever thought Bow Road worthy or needful of a hotel. Yet the arguments continue on and on, with plastic houses, plastic playwrights, plastic theatres and imaginary lives, deeds and actions.
Rather than defending Shakespeare from every type of attack aimed at depriving him of credit for his peerless work, this site looks at the most popular, best-supported candidate, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford and why he could never, EVER have been Shakespeare.