It’s a minor point in the greater scheme of things, to be sure, but the surrendering of the name William Shakespeare to one whose own name was mostly something quite different creates a distinctly unfair advantage for the Stratford man and his supporters. When people commonly see or hear the name William Shakespeare they think immediately of the glover’s son from Stratford, tho the man himself (if we grant him a literacy he might not have possessed) might not have acknowledged the name as his own. It’s a spelling only rarely associated with him.

As I’ve mentioned before, part of my fascination with the Authorship Question derives from how close to home it lands. I have on multiple occasions seen my name conflated with others who share it, from a well-known painter in Calgary, to a former significant other of Tilda Swinton’s, to a British cartoonist who even included on his website the disclaimer that he was “not the John Byrne who drew the X-Men”. Mix in various forgeries and other artists imitating my style, and we might wonder what a discussion of my work could look like in 400 years!

SB replied: Not really. As is conventional for the time, "Shakespeare" was spelt in a variety of different ways, including - well, Shakespeare, but also Shakspere, Shakespear, Shaxper, etc.

The name "William Shakespeare", spelt that way, was used in the royal patent of 1603 confirming the creation of The King's Men. I think it was also used in the bill of sale confirming the purchase of New Place in Stratford Upon Avon in 1597 and also a house in Blackfriars in 1613. It was also used in the First Folio, prepared for publication by Heminges and Condell, also named alongside Shakespeare in the royal patent of 1603.

And on the subject of names, let's not forget Hamnet Shakespeare, Will of Stratford's only legitimate male heir, who dies just before the granting of a coat-of-arms to the Shakespeare family, and about three or four years before the writing of Hamlet, which has a major theme of the transitory nature of achievement and the undoing of legacy.

JB wrote: When we consider that Shaksper, when working as a player broker, sold rights to works he did not actually own, it’s not a tremendous leap to imaging him claiming authorship, or being chosen to do so.

SB replied: How did Will of Stratford (let's call him that) acquire the plays by De Vere, but published under the pseudonym Shakespeare?

Why would De Vere (I'm assuming you still favour him as the alternative, true candidate) use a pseudonym, given that he was known as a playwright? What are the odds that he'd choose such an unusual surname - unlike something like, say "Smith, or "Brown" - which is the same as that of Will of Stratford (or at least one of the more common variants of the umpteen ones that his name is spelled as)?

If they're being incorrectly attributed to the Stratford man, why does De Vere take no action? Why does he fume impotently rather than have this upstart bumped off?

Why doesn't he acquire a proxy of his own, using him as a front, and pre-empting Will of Stratford's deception (this is kind of the plot of Anonymous, which suggests that Ben Jonson was going to pose as the author until Will of Stratford jumps in and ruins the plan)?