To Manichaean:

"Indulge me if I play the Devils Advocate.
1. Is the subject not too dark-skinned and foreign looking to be an English indigine of the time. Perhaps Italian or Jewish?"

Sure I'll indulge you, because no one's ever asked me to indulge them and I feel privileged. I'm looking at the portrait right now, and honesty I can't tell where he's from. But to say he's too dark-skinned or even more ambiguously "foreign looking" doesn't give weight to the argument that it's not Shakespeare (if it's his portrait in the first place).

Sometimes people don't look like the place they're from. But, to be more substantial, Shakespeare's heritage isn't traced back to its roots: could it be possible that one of his ancestors had some non-English blood in him which he passed onto Shakespeare and which gave him a "foreign" appearance? We don't know everything about Shakespeare, and we know even less about his ancestors and where they were from.

"3. If Shakespeare attended the local grammer, King's New School as is widely supposed, he would have attained a good education. Far from having "small Latin and less Greek" as per the charge of Ben Johnson, a tremendous amount of time would have been spent on reading, writing and reciting Latin ad infinitum. Through such exercises he would have learned every possible rhetorical device and ploy. According to "Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, in their introduction to the Oxford edition of the "Complete Works", any grammer school pupil of the day would have recieved a more thorough grounding in Latin rhetoric and literature than most present-day holders of a university degree in classics."

Yes, but was his education complete? Did he learn enough to actually get a true grasp on Latin and Greek?

"Oxfordians correctly point out that there is no documentary evidence of Shakespeare's schooling, thought they often neglect to add that there are no records of any student at the Stratford school before 1700."
(Source: http://shakespeareauthorship.com/school.html)

Added to this is: "Although boys normally attended grammar school until age fifteen or sixteen, Shakespeare may have been forced to leave school as early as 1577, at age 13, because of his father's financial difficulties."
(Source: http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/L...marschool.html) And you can read more on his father's financial difficulties here: "http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/life/family.html:

Are we expecting Shakespeare to be a master of Latin and Greek by age 13? Or to know "little Latin and less Greek" because of his incomplete education?

"any grammer school pupil of the day would have recieved a more thorough grounding in Latin rhetoric and literature than most present-day holders of a university degree in classics."

I'd have to disagree with this statement because that would be expecting too much from 16 year olds. But, to ask a question: if the grammar school graduates of Shakespeare day were better versed in their studies than people who go to universities today, then what about those who went to university in Shakespeare's day? Would that make them supreme geniuses of their field, each on the level of Shakespeare in art, Newton in science, etc?

"Shakespeare's generation was demonstrably much better educated than his father's, due to extensive improvements in the schooling system (see David Cressy's Education in Tudor and Stuart England and Literacy and the Social Order for more information)."

And

"As for the grammar school proper, the curriculum of the Stratford Free School (incorporated in 1553) does not survive, but since the educational system was nationalized under Elizabeth"

(Source: http://shakespeareauthorship.com/school.html)

This would mean most children who went to grammar school (15-16 year olds) were smarter than those who hold university degrees today.

"3. During the plague years of 1592-3 when London's theatres were officially ordered shut, Shakespeare disappears from sight. Did he go to Italy with his drinking buddy Francesco Collu which would perhaps account for a rush of Italian plays upon his return - The Taming of the Shrew, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Merchant of Venice, Romeo and Juliet. Did not the effusions of the Italian Renaissance of this time reflect (like Shakespeare's works), a period of pessimism and nostalgia for the classical age?"

Read the article http://shakespeareauthorship.com/italy.html There's way too much there for me to even cut and paste, but it addresses the question of Italy and the prominence of Italian culture in England well. And remember, Titus Andronicus was one of Shakespeare's earliest plays, and he seems to have had a interest in Roman culture for most of his life. Oh, and Shakespeare could have gone to Italy. I have nothing against that.

"4.How did he, as a possible Italian blend into the English scene. Easy. Look at today's second generation immigrants with South London or Scouse accents."

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by that. Can you please explain?

"6. As well noted by yourself; John Milton was under age to be drinking with Will & Ben in the Bread Street Arms and anyway would have been too much of a gentleman to make politically incorrect racial comments on appearences or accents."

Hah ha! I didn't say he went drinking at that age, but that he probably saw Shakespeare.

"7. You really are on thin ice when bringing up his English patrotism. Next time you watch the Olympic Games kindly consider the fervour with which our second generation immigrant winners of gold so lovingly wrap themselves in the Union Jack."

I don't think I'm on thin ice. I was saying that if Shakespeare really was an Italian immigrant, then his tremendous passion for England seems odd (especially in his early plays) if he supposedly wasn't born there. And I'm not from England.

Hey no problem. I also wanted to reply in good nature and not with malice.