:: Was Shakespeare A Fraud? ::

As a film it had its failings and limits. The bigger problem is a conformity driven tradition that somebody named Shakspere with no evident ability to even sign his name must be the guy, we are told, who invented the pseudonym Shakespeare/ Shake-speare and the stupendous literature written under it.

It is highly illogical and full of gaps and contradictions. People's emotions get riled, because it was taught like loyalty to country and family. After all, they didn't ask teacher isn't this crazy, but followed along, and now it is all a shuck? As to what the true story is, trust me, it is far more inspiring than a perpetuated lie. An orphaned nobleman-child, who lost his father, poisoned by a rival, his mother married off to the rival's assistant, him taken from his home to live with the official in cahoots with the poisoner--he escaped into literature and eventually got his revenge by telling how the psychopaths who led the country really lived.

This became the Shakespeare canon, and he paid with having his name removed from history and only the pseudonym left on the works. A pseudonym so close to Shakspere of Stratford, that a name switch happened to make it all permanent. In summary, this was the story Anonymous tried to tell and is still too murky to be communicated and believed.

Alas,my dear.

"This above all: to thine own self be true". - Hamlet (Act I, Scene III).