Thanks for expanding upon Hales v Petit.

I'll reiterate that I don't disagree that the plays show a good understanding of law, but also that, as anti-Stratfordians acknowledge -  and sometimes make much of - Shakespeare was a litigious man. As you say, speculation that he was a law clerk as a young man is - well, precisely that. We can't prove he was, we can't prove he wasn't. And, again as you point out, there's nothing to have stopped Will from asking questions from friends, or friends of friends.

They are formatted as:

Willm Shakp

William Shaksper

Wm Shakspe

William Shakespere

William Shakspeare

When did he use "William Shaxper"?

And in the patent creating The King's Men, the name is written as William Shakespeare. The same spelling as would be used in the First Folio twenty years later.

And I believe, but may be wrong that "Shakespeare" was the spelling used by John Manningham when he recorded the anecdote about William The Conqueror coming before Richard III.

With regards to mastery, Shakespeare thought that:

Lord Woodville, Earl Rivers and Lord Scales, were three people, rather than one man with three titles. 

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------

Steven: "Build metaphors on?". It's two or three lines! They certainly seem to allude to Hales V Pettit, but they're hardly extensive, or an in-depth examination of the case.

You still haven't responded regarding the formatting of Shakespeare's name. When did he use "Shaxper", which I've seen repeatedly used by posters in this thread?

Or the fundamental errors in his plays. Or the contemporary testimony of his peers.

But I'm afraid I'll have to call it a night for now! :)

As I mentioned above, the case was first reported in the language of Law French of the English courts in Les Commentaries, ou, Les Reportes … de Divers Cases … en les Temps des Raignes le Roy Ed. le size, le Roigne Mary, le Roy & Roigne Philip & Mary, & le Roigne Elizabeth in 1571, some three decades before the play "Hamlet" appears (in the so-called Bad Quarto). There was no available English translation until 1761.

And that does raise the question of how.

Impossible that Stratford Will was told in detail, through a person or persons capable of translating, about the case such that he could employ it to dramatic usage? No.

Probable? Well, at the very least problematic... no?

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------

Steven: You seem to feel you've made some kind of point here, but I'm not sure what it is? And, as you yourself have noted, Shakespeare's membership of a theatrical troupe can easily be extended backwards, to his earlier partnership with The Lord Chamberlain's Men, and Lord Strange's Men. 

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ ----

Mark H: You say the Folio was created to memorialize the man...The First Folio was published, not to "laud the memory of Mr William Shakespeare" but to protect the legacy of the works

------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------

Steven: Heminges and Condell (and perhaps Burbage was involved, although he died in 1619 before the First Folio was published) collected as many plays possible to commemorate the man they knew. In their own words, they collected the plays into the folio "onely to keepe the memory of so worthy a Friend, & Fellow alive, as was our S H A K E S P E A R E". 

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------

Mark H: The introductory matter, supervised by Ben Jonson (who also wrote its main epistles), never explicitly identifies the Warwickshire man; 

------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------

Steven: The front page of the Folio is headed "Mr William Shakespeares Comedies Histories and Tragedies".

Jonson's introductory poem refers to "Shakspeare", who is, or was, the Swan of Avon.

Mr William Shakespeare of Straford Upon Avon left a will in which he left small bequests to Burbage, Heminges and Condell.

If you want to make the case that Will of Stratford was feigning authorship, that's up to you. But it's ridiculous to claim that he wasn't being identified as the author.

And I'm afraid you've lost me with regards to Davenant's poem? What point are you making?

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ -

With regards to the signatures, what you've proven is the fluidity of spelling of the period. You haven't, as you've conceded, shown any evidence of Will of Stratford using the spelling "Shaxper", with the disingenuous suggestion that it somehow got muddled with the supposed pseudonym "Shakespeare". 

And you've sidestepped that it was "William Shakespeare" - spelled that way - that was used on the royal patent.

Again, I don't deny it indicates a good, even strong, legal knowledge, but I think it's misleading to describe it as "extended". I'd use that term when describing the lengthy discourse over Salic Law in Henry V, Act I, scene 2,