The Shakespeare Authorship Question Will Never Be Taken Seriously if You Keep Doing This

But keep doing it if you want to doubters to continue to be mocked and scorned

This post, and many others going forward, will contain a free summary section and a “deeper dive” section just for the people who reward me for my work with a paid subscription. The more financial strain I am under, the harder it is to continue my SAQ research and writing. Financial support is the most vital component for me right now, in the absence of a salary. But I appreciate your support in all forms, including reading, liking and sharing.

Upcoming Event

In London? Come and see me in person next week, giving a talk in a room above a pub for the London Fortean Society: ‘The Shakespeare Furore.’ Tickets (£5.50) here.

I’m a person who has made it their mission to get the Shakespeare Authorship Question taken seriously in academia and the mainstream media as a valid question. I argue that it is a question that has a sound basis in evidence; that the evidence pattern requires it should at least be asked. That it should not be dismissed as a conspiracy theory or general crackpottery. That it should not be an academic taboo.

I have friends in the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship. People I love and respect. I’ve travelled to the US twice to speak at the SOF conference, most recently in 2023.

So, imagine my despair when, earlier this month, the SOF’s official newsletter announced “The pamphlet war between Edward de Vere and Gabriel Harvey.”

Wow, Edward de Vere had a pamphlet war with Gabriel Harvey?

No. He didn’t. Thomas Nashe did. This headline buys into the ludicrous fiction that Edward de Vere didn’t just write the entire works of Shakespeare, but also the entire works of Thomas Nashe.

Yes, the SOF’s members hold a range of views, many of which I disagree with. That’s true of every single authorship organisation that exists, and that is healthy. Organisations should accommodate a range of views. But for the SOF to promote this totally unfounded point of view in a headline as if it were a fact is a terrible idea.

If you enjoy being mocked, if you enjoy being the butt of the joke, if you want Edward de Vere as a candidate and indeed the whole SAQ to continue to be disparaged, sure, get behind it. But otherwise? You should be chucking this idea in the bin.

End of soapbox.

If you are serious about the Question and you want to know in detail why we should not, as authorship doubters, entertain this possibility at all (let alone trumpet it like it’s a fact), here’s the lowdown.