[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

If so, why? This trend seems to be growing in the British Iles, championed by non-academics such as Mark Rylance and Sir Derek Jacobi.

[Colin2B]

Haven’t noticed it growing. It was big in the 1800s, but died down because of the weight of historical evidence in his favour. Hardly ever raises a serious head nowadays, much like flat earthers.

[alancalverd]

Who cares? It's all out of copyright, so like the Bible, it doesn't matter who wrote it or when: either you like it or you don't.

The structure of the plays is generally immaculate and the writing (as is also the case  with the King James Bible) displays complete mastery of the English language. The consistency of metre and expression over such a huge quantity of work suggests either a single genius or a well-run committee at work, and whilst the KJB was definitely a committee job, there's no evidence to suggest a big Team Shakespeare behind the plays.

[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

Who cares? It's all out of copyright, so like the Bible, it doesn't matter who wrote it or when: either you like it or you don't.

It matters to truth lovers.

[Colin2B]

It matters to truth lovers.

And apparently to untruth lovers, unstarcrossed lovers, etc

[alancalverd]

Who cares? It's all out of copyright, so like the Bible, it doesn't matter who wrote it or when: either you like it or you don't.

It matters to truth lovers.

You won't find much truth in Shakespeare's plays. The time sequence of the histories is credible, but the comedies, tragedies and fantasies are all made up, dear. So why does it matter who wrote it? The only difference between one corpse and another is the name on the gravestone.