How would our appreciation of Shakepeare change if we find compelling evidence that Shakepeare was in fact of name of a group of playwrights?

I think that would be truly scary. Why would anyone suggest that a group of geniuses was easier to believe than one? What? Did you think that if there was a group of them that they wouldn't have to be geniuses? Really? The reason that Shakespeare continues to be popular despite his strange language is because of the keen observation of people. We recognise others in his plays and, worse, we recognise ourselves. That level of observation is remarkable. To find it one person is rare. To find it in a whole group is pushing the boundaries of reasonableness, don't you think?

Maybe it's me, but I find all of the conspiracies about Shakespeare being someone else to be snobbish. "Oh no! We can't have one of the best wordsmiths in the world come from such common stock. He's got to be an earl at least or a group or anything else so long as he's not a commoner"

The only conspiracy theory I would give credence to is that Shakespeare was a front for a female playwright. As women were not allowed near the theatre, the only way a woman could achieve it would be this way. I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest it. Nor do I believe it. I'm just saying that that is the only idea with any reasonable sense to it.

Credit: The header image is available as wallpaper from  wall.alphacoders.com