We see problems in the tradition.

SB replied: From around 1594, William Shakespeare is a shareholder in the theatrical troupe The Lord Chamberlains' Men. Other members of the troupe include Richard Burbage, Henry Condell and John Heminges. 

In 1603, William Shakespeare is named as being part of  a new theatrical company, The King's Men, which includes Richard Burbage, Henry Condell and John Heminges.

In 1616, William Shakespeare dies. In his will, he leaves small bequests to Richard Burbage, Henry Condell and John Heminges.

In 1609, Richard Burbage dies.

In 1623, the First Folio is published. Condell and Heminges state that it has been produced to commemorate the memory of the man they'd known and worked with for decades, and that the plays in it should supersede earlier publications, "surreptitious copies, maimed and deformed by frauds and stealths of injurious impostors".

Mark Haslett wrote:..much has been added to our understanding about dating the plays, the roles of the aristocracy in play-writing (particularly the Earl of Oxford's role), and to the lives of the two men who are forever linked to the work-- the 3rd Earl of Southampton and the eldest son of an illegal wool dealer from Stratford named "William Shaksper".

SB replied: What bearing has John Shakespeare's occupation, illegal or otherwise, have upon Will's authorship?

Mark Haslett wrote: It was 7 years after he died before the first whisper of what would become the "Stratfordian myth" even began.

SB replied: Shakespeare was acclaimed for his writing in Frances Meres Palladis Tamia, published in 1598.

He was also subject to jibes too, generally accepted to being alluded to in Robert Greene's A Groats-worth of Wit (1592) and more directly in The Parnassus Plays (around 1598-1602), derided as someone uneducated who thinks he can write as well as those who've been to university.

Whether being praised or criticised, there's nothing to suggest that Shakespeare wasn't regarded as being the author of the plays that bore his name.

SB replied: Alternative Authorship arguments are essentially negative, making a case against rather than a case for. If you want to doubt Will's authorship - well, fine. But what reasonable alternative do you suggest?

Particulary, the arguments against the alterative candidates still stand.

It certainly may be entertaining to play the detective, but you need to have a more serious case than what has been presented so far, including by you in this thread, before considering changing a traditional attribution that may repose on few elements, by others that have even less and are more determined by prejudice, taste for mystery and "hidden treasures".

To look in the works for elements that will give you an idea of who the man behind the work was, is methodologically ok, even if it implies to be careful. You can very easily take a wrong road this way.

To  look for candidates that fit that portrayal is fine.

But then, you need proof. You don't justifie hypotheses by other hypotheses. That's not enough. You can't just build a narative.

Particularly when there's already a tradition, just because you're not convinced by the traditional attribution and (against the majority of scholars) you prefer a fringe theory.

That doesn't mean that fringe theory can't be true, but until you can prove it, it is only that.

In the case of Shakespeare, what we actually have is a body work linked by a common name. There're also stylistic reasons beside the tradition to consider most of them have a common author, a few are works done in collaboration, and a few others (that at a point or another have been attributted to the author) are apocryphal. There's still doubt for some.

But we have a name, that name is Shake-speare or Shakespeare.

And there are hints pointing to the Statford man. Way not enough to be sure it's him, and some are suspicious. Based on this, a tradition has been built.

We also have to take in consideration Cromwell, the Commonwealth of England, and the interdiction of theaters. And also the fact that, judging by his works, Shakespeare wasn't favorable to protestantism. All that may explain why we don't find more, and even why the Stratford man may have not been remembered, at a point, as a man of theater (either actor or the author of the plays.)

So on scarce elements, a narative was built to give an author of flesh and blood to what is essentially an anonymous work. It's an operating enough explanation, something to satisfy the taste of the public.

There're problems, but it is good enough, given how few we know.

But not everybody finds it good enough, and it is fine. They get from the works another idea of the author and doubt the elements that point to the Stratford man. Well, it is true they are light, so if you can find something better, don't hesitate to look for it. They find a candidate that fits their idea, that's not the same for all, but it's normal at that point. This is when you need proof. But they find no proof.

Excepted the ideas they have of the actual author, of their candidate and of the Stratford man. Their versions also, are built on wind.

So either accept that the work is anonymous, and that we have only hints of who the author COULD be, or you have the choice between following the official and traditional narative if you really need one, or chose one of the outsiders.

Well, Mark, here we'll have to go with the traditional "We have to agree to disagree."