I'm even more confused - you say that Shakespeare only held "ordinary" jobs, but we do know he worked in the theatre. And then you say you DON'T think the theatre is an "ordinary job".

You say none of the theories of alternative writers of the plays holds water and then say that I can't prove Shakespeare wrote the plays "and the circumstances of his life argue against it" -
If there is no credible alternative author (by your own admission) what exactly is your point? Who wrote the plays? Why would Shakespeare's name be attached to them (by anyone) if he didn't? His father may indeed have been illiterate (far from uncommon in those days) but what's that got to do with anything? We know remarkably little about the circumstances of his life but what we do know doesn't argue against his authorship of the plays.   Relatively few people in 16th and 17th century England and Wales left much in the way of documentary evidence behind them. I work some of the time in a living history museum in a house owned in 1645 by an influential and wealthy man. We know a similarly small amount about the precise circumstances of HIS life and yet his sphere of influence at the time was far greater than that of a playwright. You are approaching this whole question as if 21st century media, documentation and Wikipedia-like information was available in Shakespeare's time. It wasn't.

He didn't live or perform or write his plays in Stratford. His plays were staged in London, and that's where he would have been "idolised" and known about rather than in Stratford.   Some of his plays were performed at court. You can't assume that news of this success travelled around the country and that people in his home town would know very much about this - but he clearly did return home wealthy and a respected citizen, and his local church in Stratford has a contemporary monument to show it.

As to your list of people who don't believe Shakespeare was the author of the plays, I'd like to check on exactly who said what and when before taking that at face value. I have met Mark Rylance (I did a course on Shakespeare at the Globe theatre and met him then) and he certainly didn't make much of his disbelief at that time.

I'm not going to pick up your various arguments point by point because life is too short. You don't seem to be a serious student of 16th and 17th century life or drama and you don't seem able even in this thread to be able to distinguish facetiousness from seriousness.   

But I'll come back to your central emptiness ... if the man we know as William Shakespeare was NOT the author of the plays, why were the plays attributed to him at the time and none of the contemporary playwrights contested that attribution? Who did write the plays? If you think it was a consortium, how come there is so much textual coherence to the writing? How is it that we can tell in the later plays which lines were by the same writer as the earlier plays and which by other collaborators?

Most of all I'd love to know why you have leapt from telling us about an obscure book about the origins of Christmas (some of which may be true, some of which sounds like very dodgy scholarship to me) to the unlikelihood of Shakespeare writing plays by way of Mary and Elizabeth Tudor. Your central point early on seemed to be that we don't know as much about history as we think we do. This is, of course, totally true as there are more discoveries coming along all the time, either from previously undiscovered manuscripts or from archaeology. When I see unequivocal evidence that history has lied about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays then I'll take the other theories more seriously.

In the meantime, can you explain what point you were making about Mary and Elizabeth? Your comparison between the deaths of William the Conqueror and Judas is bizarre - there are conflicting accounts of Judas' death, but surely none that say he fell off his horse and that his body wouldn't fit a stone sarcophagus because it had swollen with the heat? Of course there are similarities between events in history - it would be extraordinary if there weren't. But making links between dissimilar facts doesn't really enlighten anyone much.