> thank you, i now have some stuff to read when i find the time

Here's another one, which may be the one you were thinking of all along; the description I read describes many of your arguments:

+ J. Thomas Looney, _"Shakespeare" Identified_. Various publishers, in at least three editions.

This was the first book to suggest de Vere wrote Shakespeare's plays.
Looney's method was to pretend that the plays were anonymous, and that nobody had any idea who wrote them, and to carry out an investigation of their origins as free as possible of preconceptions. Beginning by examining the works themselves for clues about the personality and background of the author, then looking for Elizabethans who fit that background and personality, and had a matching writing style, he concluded that
a) it couldn't possibly have been Stratford Willy, who failed to match nearly every characteristic;
b) "it has become impossible to hesitate any longer in proclaiming Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, as the real author of 'Shakespeare's' works."

One day, I'm going to have to find a copy of this book myself.


(You've undoubtedly noticed that the man who originated the Oxford = Shakespeare position was, undeniably, a Looney.
It is, unfortunately, one of the few things his critics paid attention to.)

Pa"a Looney would be in good company here"ul