SB replied: Like so much of Shakespeare's work, 'Richard II' is ambivalent over whether it's depicting the justified deposition of a fledgling tyrant, or the awful consequences of the usurpation of the rightful king, but, given that it had been performed since 1595, the censor obviously didn't regard it as being subversive - although it's worth noting that the deposition scene in Act IV scene 1 probably wasn't printed in full until the First Folio.

Mark Haslett wrote: The idea that a mere commoner could write incendiary plays about the fall of kings, have them staged before rebellions, and walk away untouched defies the historical pattern. 

SB replied: Augustine Phillips testified that the only reason The Lord Chamberlain's Men performed the play was because they were paid more than their usual fee to do so. None of the troupe seem to have understood that their performance was to be used to stir up support for Essex, and Elizabeth I herself obviously didn't regard them as having been complicit in his attempted rebellion.

SB replied: It's impressive that Alternative Authorship theorists keep demolishing William Shakespeare's authorship, yet the overwhelming majority of people still regard him as the author.

Mark Haslett wrote: Traditional biography says William Shakespeare attended the rigorous Stratford Grammar School...

SB replied: It's true that it's generally assumed that Will attended, at least for some time, the King Edward VI School, but also that there's no absolute proof that he did...

Mark Haslett wrote: — for, if he didn't get Latin instruction, then he couldn't write the works.

SB replied:...but who makes this claim? Not Ben Jonson, for a start, who wrote in his commendatory poem in the First Folio "And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek". 

Petter Myhr Ness wrote: Generally I don't understand why any serious scholar would claim he [Shakespeare] went to that grammar school when there are no records or evidence that he did so.

SB replied: John Shakespeare's life - his marriage above his class to Mary Arden, his repeated attempts to acquire a coat of arms - all suggest an ambitious man. Education then (and still now) was a great aid to social mobility, allowing bright children (well, sons, at that time) the opportunity to mix with their social betters and move up the social scale.

The school was roughly a quarter mile from Shakespeare's childhood home, and was free for all male children.

What's more likely - that John allowed Will to take advantage of such an opportunity, or that he didn't?

JB wrote: The problem arises from the Stratford camp elevating the school to an educational level greater than most of the universities of the time.

SB replied: But that's not what Stratfordians believe. While lauding his art, they recognise his educational shortcomings. Again, see Ben Jonson's own words above.

But if it was one man who wrote all those plays, then I feel like it's reasonable to conclude that he was absolutely brilliant, and brilliance is more important than the system which educates it. I work as a teacher and teach middle school everything - language, math, social studies, science - and I happen to be the father of a ten year old whose mathematical genius and capability far surpasses the formal education he's received from this system. Therefore, to me, it is other information which compels me to conclude the authorship question harder to answer than simply, "his schooling wouldn't have been as good as we assume."