Like all alternative authorship theories, this one is based on a fundamental misunderstanding, that being that "great art" is necessarily biographical or reflects the "soul" of the artist. Once you've made that error, you can trivially point out that Shakespeare wrote about people, places, and situations that the Stratford man wouldn't have been personally familiar with, and then you can pick anyone else you like from the era that you think might match your profile better. This exact process has been used for Bacon, Derby, Oxford, and dozens of other claimants; nobody has offered a truly new argument against Shakespeare for decades.

I recommend the book _Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?_ by James S. Shapiro as the definitive work examining, explaining, and debunking alternative authorship theories. It's thoughtful and well-written, not the dry diatribe one might expect.