Disney strikes again!?

Ask him.

You've yet to prove anything, and you're the one who made the claim that "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare." Where's your proof, apart from your contention that it "makes the most sense," which is a ridiculous explanation for almost anything?

Stating that the most logical explanation is also the most likely one is ridiculous? Actually, I've proven it several times. You're just too stupid to realize it.
Also, the idea that Shakespeare can't have written about nobility or royalty due to not being in the upper class himself is hogwash. The idea that someone had to live something to write about it is actually a pretty new concept and frankly not true.

Here's Ian McKellen, then:

Article Link: McKellen's thoughts


Straight from a Shakespearean actor who has been on stage for decades now.

Um, I also said Shakespeare worked with other people to write his plays. I said that playwrights writing a new play for a specific theater had to iron out the kinks with the other people who worked there.

Fine. Then I suppose there's also reason to doubt Albert Einstein was the man behind the scientific theories attributed to Albert Einstein. After all, how could a man who did so horribly in school be the greatest scientific mind of the 20th century?

I'll leave it on this point. No one from the Elizabethan or Jacobean eras ever doubted that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. No Elizabethan ever suggested that Shakespeare's plays and poems were written by someone else, or that Shakespeare the player wasn't Shakespeare the author, or that Shakespeare the Globe-sharer wasn't Shakespeare of Stratford. No contemporary of Shakespeare's ever suggested the name used was a pseudonym. AND none of the major alternative candidates be they Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, or Christopher Marlowe had any connection with Shakespeare's acting company or with his friends and fellow actors.

Antistratfordians have to rely on speculation about what they think the "real" author should have been like, because they can't produce one historical fact to bolster their refusal to accept who that author actually was. No matter how they try to ignore it or explain it away, the historical record (all of it) establishes William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon as the author of the works traditionally attributed to him.

...Copyright didn't exist back then. The playhouses owned the plays Shakespeare wrote. The plays weren't Shakespeare's to give in his will. And for the most part, Shakespeare's plays weren't thought to be the best thing since sliced bread when he was alive. They were looked at pretty the same way blockbuster movies viewed now: entertaining and well-made, but just that. He only became "the greatest writer like eva!" after he died. Back when he was alive, he was just a guy doing his job at the theater company he worked for.

Dear Lord, have these people never heard about being vindicated by history?

Dude, I wouldn't even mention the original trilogy in the same sentence as Shakespeare's better works.

Oh, those are brilliant works of art.

Right? And it isn't even about anal. I didn't see anal anyway. That last letter looks like a v to me, so anav?