1)Academics have never found a single document which proves that Shakspere was an author - from the contemporary documents that have been discovered all we know about the man's interests is that he conducted a number of business transactions which included a small share in the Globe Theatre. Six ineptly penned signatures are the only examples we have of his abilities as a writer - there are no letters home to his wife and there are certainly no original literary manuscripts.
2) As doubts about the apparent chasm between Shaksper's known life and the works of Shakespeare grew, people naturally asked the question, "Well if Shakspere wasn't the author, then who was?" And over the last hundred years or so many candidates - from Marlowe to Bacon and the Earl of Derby - have been proposed and championed by ardent followers.
But the last paragraph leaves me helpless....
3)Today, 400 years after his death, there is only one serious candidate left in the field, only one man whose life matches the historical and literary evidence in all repects - Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford.
How such the bizarre conclusion could be developed, even though The Earl did not bequeath a single literary trace of a staged and written drama and died 1604 definitely before the Drama of Macbeth had been written (1606)?