Fabulous post!
I think its important to note that the arguments against Shakespeare have more to do with the *ability* to gather the requisite knowledge rather than aspersions to any inherent mental inferiority of being a "farm boy." Stratford-Upon-Avon in the late 16th century was a *LONG* way from London, even if its only about an hour drive today. There was no equivalent of Google, and most libraries were basically closed to those outside the upper classes: it is hard for us today to even conceive of what expensive luxuries books were until well into the 18th century.
Moreover, while certainly some of his work was "lifted" from earlier works, much was not, and his comfort in discussing things that were clearly outside the experience of anyone but the upper classes is incongruous.
That is to say, given there's no really solid proof one way or another, its so much more likely that he was not Shakespeare of Stratford, but if he was, he was not only an intellectual giant--and would be considered so no matter what his background--but he had an unparalleled force of will to overcome the most astounding odds in gaining *access* to the knowledge needed to write what he wrote.
If anything, I've mostly been put off by the fact that there are suspiciously few historical records for Shakespeare-of-Avon anywhere to be found, only placing him possibly as an actor, and thus making him a likely target for a high-placed courtier in need of a "beard."
I come to a different conclusion, simply because I'm applying Occam's Razor, not because the evidence is necessarily more convincing for one or another.
He learn'd but surety-like to write for me, Under that bond that him as fast doth bind,
Buffy
