102 Reasons

There's better evidence for fairies at the bottom of your garden than for De Vere's authorship of Will's plays.

Their manifesto

Biblical revelation


This short article was written in 2013, one of our first. A response to Roger Stritmatter's idea that the marks in the Folger Library's Geneva Bible were made by the canon author, this turned out to be our most commented article that year and still tops the popularity chart. Repeated claims based on the Stritmatter's thesis caused us to have a much closer look at the mechanics of coincidence. This exposed a lack of validity in any of the claims Stritmatter makes in his thesis. The articles are here.

Oxford did not reveal his hand by unwittingly marking, in his own copy of the Geneva bible, all the passages he cited in the plays. 

In a classic piece of Oxfordian 'scholarship', Dr R Strittmatter tries to link references to the Bible in the plays to the annotations and marginalia in a copy of the Geneva Bible which has a very good claim to have been Oxford's. 

The great Globe itself...

Blackfriars TheatreShakespeare wrote not only for the theatre, but for different theatres. In 1609, the King's Men began playing at the Blackfriars—indoors and upscale—in the winter months, and Shakespeare's latest plays are written for that space. There is division into acts, with intervals between them for replacement of the candles. There are directions for "solemn," "strange," or "still" music (the wooden O was suited to the drum and trumpet). There was masquing and spectacle. And the fights were offstage: one could hardly risk spitting an aristocrat who'd paid good silver for a place on the stage. 

The best among us??

Despite the oft-quoted extracts from Francis Meres and George Puttenham, no one has ever actually claimed that Oxford was a playwright outside the heated confines of the authorship debate. 

Francis Meres made one mention of Oxford in Palladis Tamia, listing Oxford as 'the best for comedy' amongst several writers, some of whom, like Dr Gager, we know little about.

Royal sendoff

In 1603 Oxford, having dissipated his own large fortune, was unable to live on the money he had from two marriages into wealthy families and the pensions he had from the state. He was driven to writing begging letters to his acquaintance for preferment (all refused). Yet we know that at the time he was carrying out this desperate search, Sir John Fortescue had £3,000 to spend on Her Majesty's sendoff yet could not bribe or otherwise persuade Shakespeare to write a eulogy.

Call yourself a playwright

Oxfordians make much of the fact that there are no letters written by Shakespeare as if the fact that the 70 letters of Oxford's which survive give him precedence, Yet in 70 letters, there is not a single mention of poetry, plays, players, theatres, absolutely nothing. No evidence of any connection with Shakespeare' world whatsoever.

If this sounds like an Oxfordian argument disqualifying Shakespeare, it's because they make the same argument about unequivocal references to Will of Stratford, which are mostly non-literary.