OK, I'll be serious just this one time.
I've read quite a bit on the subject and have yet to see one shred of admissible evidence that anyone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works which bear his name. Most of the nay-sayers are people who just can't stand to admit that the son of a glover with no more than a village school education could have penned works of everlasting beauty and value. Examined closely, hardly any of their arguments hold any water at all.
For example, there's always the tired old claim that a "mere lowly actor" like Shakespeare could not have known the intricacies of the royal court to write some of his scenes. Well, who says those scenes are accurate at all? Shakespeare was certainly more familiar with doings at the Court of St. James than the average man on the street who attended the plays, having given any number of performances at that court with Queen Elizabeth I (and later, of course, King James I) in attendance. Beyond that, there's no reason to assume he was privy to secret intrigues except as he himself might have become involved in them. (George Bernard Shaw imagines Mary Fitton, a lady in waiting to QE I, as being the 'Dark Lady' of Shakespeare's sonnets and, hence, possibly his inamorata at court. There is absolutely no evidence for this whatever and anyone who tries to echo Shaw's theory runs the risk of being accused of plagiaristic usurpation of an indefensible theme. That has happened, btw, to an author who assumed that Shaw's flight of fancy reflected accurate history.)
There are those, too, who echo Ben Jonson's libelous claim (which was intended as part of a compliment to the Bard) that Shakespeare knew "little Latin and less Greek." That claim is not only libelous, it is spurious and these days is made generally by peole who have little or no knowledge of the carricula in those "village schools" which were administered by the Church of England. Graduating from the school at Strtford, Shakespeare would have had to be quite fluent in both Latin and Greek to earn a diploma. There is no reason to assume that he wasn't so. But if, for the sake of argument, we accept Jonson's criticism as valid -- so what? Where in the plays need he display any more knowledge of either of the ancient languages than what any first-year Latin student would know? I can understand every Latin reference in Shakespeare's plays and I have taken exatly one course in first-year Latin. You don't need a dictionary to know what Et tu, Brute?
As for that impressive list of names that you've posted above, Rick, it is completely meaningless. Mark Twain was also a communicant of the Episcopal Church. Am I to believe everything he may or may not have believed? John Gielgud, for all I know, might have been a closet Scientologist. The point is that these are the personal beliefs and convictions of some people who may well have other convictions I wouldn't agree with either. (In the case of Mark Twain, btw, I'm not sure just how serious he was; it sounds like something he might have thrown out at ssome point and regretted having said later.) None of the people on your list is a particularly noted Shakespearean scholar. Certainly not the James boys, William and Henry. Or Jesse and Frank, for that matter.
In the final analysis, the only reason to even question the authorship of the plays is that it's an academic road to recognition as a "deep thinker" and "researcher." This is revisionist history at its most blatantly worst, academics struggling desperately to find something attention-getting to write popular books about. The paucity of verifyable documentation from the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods makes this sort of game playing fairly easy. Just find a letter that Lord Huffenpuff wrote to the Earl of Nunsuch in 1583 wherein he uses the expression, "...and to thineown self be true..." and -- aha! -- we have verification that his Lordship used the phrase long before it was put into the mouth of Polonius in Hamlet.
Hence, QED. Lord Whozis wrote the plays that S. Claimed credit for.
And if you think that's strong circumstantial evidence, I certainly don't want you on any jury where I'm the defendant.