Is Shakespeare really who he said he is?

So there have been debates about Shakespeare's identity. That his name was a pen name and that he was really a Baron of sorts or the Queen or something and I don't mean to discount the scholarly work out there that has been found to support this.

But I think that William Shakespeare could have easily been who he said he was. That is, he came from a working-class family and made himself famous. I mean we have so many of those stories now, why couldn't those stories have existed then? I suppose the whole thing about upward mobility being more difficult, access to education and all that is a viable argument, but then again, isn't the argument simply showing that it's more difficult, but not impossible?

It makes the a lot of sense, actually, that Shakespeare was from a lower-class background because he was closer to human nature (I have this rose-colored vision that nobles masked their humanity in cloaks of manners and traditions). Or I would have assumed that he saw a lot more of how evil or bad people could be.

Not only that, he worked in entertainment. And speaking of his comedies, some of the most acute observations about society and its downfalls; some of the most jarring insights into human nature are done by comedians. I feel like comedians sometimes are the most aware of the world and its dirtiness, its problems and its barrenness. Instead of despair, they choose to laugh at it and to point out the follies of society and of human nature.

By that same token (though I'm using a reductio ad absurdum argument), by saying that Shakespeare, because his work is so brilliant, could have only been nobility is the same as saying that only nobility, or to translate to modern times, the rich, is capable of any kind of poignant and intellectual insight that is worth keeping over the decades.

I suppose at the time, it makes sense that they were more likely - they had the free time and the economic freedom to do so. Yet if one's occupation asks one to be creative and to appeal to a large audience that spans more than one class of people, wouldn't it make sense that with the education that he's been exposed to (Shakespeare had an elementary education, where he studied Chaucer and Homer among others), he would be able to utilize past knowledge and present experience to create what we now celebrate as masterpieces?

Well, regardless of who he really is, it doesn't change the fact that his stuff is pretty gosh-darn good.