To prove this large claim, Demorest presents 'evidence' drawn from history, biography, minute comparison of works, and more arcane material, concerning number symbolism and an acrostic code, amongst other things. I will concentrate here on the general thesis put forward, and some basic problems with it. Ignored by mainstream literary criticism, the 'Shakespeare mystery' continues to thrive, fuelled in recent times by the Internet, whose wide open spaces provide attractive homes for conspiracy theorists. In her defence, Demorest clearly venerates the poetry of the English Renaissance. We don't know that Shakespeare attended the Stratford grammar school, as there are no records of attendance before 1700, but it is not an unlikely assumption.
Every conspiracy needs a motive.
It would suggest that he wrote subversively. So did lots of others, by this standard of evidence. Pseudonyms would be necessary for all Elizabethan and Jacobean dramatists, if their work is measured for potential subversion. Her argument rests on our lack of evidence of Donne's early writings. This is vague and disingenuous.