The scholarly debate over the identity of William Shakespeare has been going on for many decades now. Few new facts have emerged and the theories spanning from Shakespeare being everyone from Sir Francis Bacon to good Queen Bess herself have appeared, gained fame, and disappeared. However, as I was sitting in my dark and dreadful chamber, dimly lit by candles, I stumbled upon the old debate concerning the identity of the great writer. And it did once again seem to demand my attention. This debate takes up the interesting thread about the Earl of Oxford being Shakespeare rather than the unknown man from Stratford. Whereas I myself do believe that it is highly possible that the simple man from Stratford indeed was the author of the marvellous works, some think that this cannot be true. The ‘oxfordians’ takes the view that Shakespeare's works were full of references and allusions indicating a highly-educated, man probably of noble birth. In contrast, there is little evidence Shakespeare of Stratford had the education or life experience that would allow him to develop the literary qualities required to compose the plays. Oxfordians also list links between the Earl of Oxford's life and the plays, in particular the plot of "Hamlet."

Conspiracies however, are seldom true; often they are mere ghosts of a reality we wish to be more complicated than it really is. In fact, real life is often much more simple than we want to believe, great historical events have happened by chance and coincidence and what might seem 'odrinary' or 'simple' often gives reason for surprise.

The man from Stratford we know as Shakespeare might ‘just’ have been a very gifted man. There are several theories explaining why the Earl of Oxford would want to conceal his authorship but all of them seem internally contradictory and gives no reason for this. There are disagreements about the dating of the plays, but there is consensus that at least one dates after 1604, the year of the Earl of Oxford's death. Many scholars acknowledge the "most troublesome aspect of the case" is the unlettered, simple background of the man from Stratford. However, there is "reasonable assumption" - though no direct proof - that Shakespeare attended the grammar school at Stratford-upon-Avon, an "excellent school" with faculty educated at Oxford. Coupled with the man from Stratford's ability to query from books and his own imagination such an education was sufficient to ground him in the specialized knowledge evidenced in the works.

It seems reasonable that all questions might be answered favourable to the man from Stratford: There is no evidence that the Earl of Oxford would write the works under a pseudonym; there are ample records to demonstrate that the man from Stratford is the author; and that his background, likely education and records left behind do not contradict the idea that he was the author of the works.