There are only five undisputed signatures of the pseudonymous “William Shakespeare”, according to one source. Always it is without the first of the three “e”‘s of “Shakespeare.” One such spelling is “Shakspere.” 
That what author Charles Beauclerk calls “the Stratford man” (to distinguish him from the person or persons who really wrote the plays) “was familiarly addressed at Stratford-on-Avon as Mr. Shaxpere may be gathered from the orthography adopted by the scrivener who drew up the Will…” 
In 1592, “Willelmus Shackspere” made a loan of seven British pounds to a John Clayton. 
The Sonnets of the Spear Shaker were first published in 1609. There the name is spelled with a noticeable hyphen and with no first name on the cover: “Shake-Speares Sonnets”. This is strange, as if Nancy Pelosi wrote a book of poems and the cover said, “Pel-osi Poems”.
At the top you can hopefully see two images. On the left is the engraving for the original Shakespeare monument in Holy Trinity Church. The hands rest on a sack of grain. Willelmus Shackspere was a grain merchant. On the right the sack of grain has been replaced by a cushion. This, and the quill, were added in 1748 “to make it less like the bust of a rural businessman.” 
Soon after publication of the First Folio, King James I died. His son became King Charles I. The Winter’s Tale was performed at the court of Charles I in 1634, but the next recorded performance of a Shakespeare play was not until 1741. And it was not until that time that the Stratford man became commonly identified as the author. The Stratford myth was not fully launched until 1769. The cult of “Stratford Willy” coincided with a rise in British imperialism. 
The true author may be disguised by the character Hamlet. Hamlet is true heir to the throne but hides behind a mask of madness. Unable to exercise power directly, Hamlet uses the theater as a means of influence. A play called The Mousetrap challenges the official propaganda about what had happened to Hamlet’s father. Author Charles Beauclerk theorizes some of the Shakespeare plays are like an Elizabethan Mousetrap critical of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. 
“… the play’s the thing wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king.” (Hamlet: Act 2, Scene 2)
The name itself of William Shakespeare suggests a deeper meaning. “William” is in German “Wilhelm” and means “Will” + “Helmet”. The Belgian “Guildhelm” means “gilded helmet.” Shake-spear indicates Pallas Athena, the “spear shaker.” 
Secret societies such as the “Knights of the Helmet” (Guildhelm) and the “Spear-Shakers” may have been funded by Francis Bacon. (Background: Esoteric Shakespeare (Part 2), Ersjdamoo’s Blog entry of February 15, 2014.)
Above you can hopefully see a portrait of the young Princess Elizabeth. The painting is attributed to William Scrots (active 1537-53) (artist).  Princess Elizabeth became the first Queen Elizabeth and is associated with the Spear Shaker plays. One of the secret signs in the portrait is the book she holds and how her finger is inserted into it: This symbolizes hidden knowledge. At the bottom left can be seen what looks like a snake. This serpent suggests a “fallen Eve”, according to Beauclerk. The teenage Elizabeth may have been impregnated (possibly raped) by Thomas Seymour, 1st Baron Sudeley. If so, the Scrots portrait tends to emphasize purity and chastity as a counter measure to rumors of inchastity. In the painting she wears pearls everywhere, on her head, neck, chest and waist, symbols of purity. 
“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” (Hamlet: Act 1, Scene 4)
Can it be that the “Virgin Queen” had a child, or even children? “Virgin Queen” was just a mask, hiding the actual sexually active reality. The monarch had “two bodies” – one for the state, the other the body natural. Elizabeth had many “mysterious illnesses” and long periods of confinement which possibly served to hide children born to her. 
One of these children may have been Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Reportedly, “Paul Streitz, an American writer, makes the sensational claim that Elizabeth I produced several children, overturning accepted notions of the Virgin Queen.” 
Another of these “royal bastards” was Francis Bacon, according to authoress Virginia M. Fellows. The private “body natural” of Elizabeth recognized and loved her son Francis; but the “body politic” of Elizabeth could not do so. 
Picture this: a group of “royal bastards” all the offspring of Elizabeth. Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, and unknown others strike back at mom via “Mousetrap” type plays. William Francis C. Wigston wrote that it is plain there were many contributors involved with the “Shakespeare” plays. “Shakespeare” was only the mask, just like “Virgin Queen” portraits of Elizabeth. The Spear Shaker plays “issued from a secret society, or body of men, bound to each other by inviolable ties of common interest and profound ends.” 
——- Sources ——-
 “Which Shall It Be? New Lamps or Old? Shaxpere or Shakespeare?”, by unknown author. Brighton: Fleet & Bishop, 1879.
 Shakespeare’s Lost Kingdom, by Charles Beauclerk. New York: Grove Press, 2010
 “Elizabeth I when a Princess”, Royal Collection Trust. http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/404444/elizabeth-i-when-a-princess
 “Was Shakespeare the love child of Queen Elizabeth?”, by Louise Jury, Arts Correspondent. April 21, 2006. The Independent (U.K.). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/was-shakespeare-the-love-child-of-queen-elizabeth-474975.html
 The Shakespeare Code, by Virginia M. Fellows. Gardiner, MT: Snow Mountain Press, 2000.
 A New Study Of Shakespeare, by William Francis C. Wigston