The purpose of the book is to counter Baconian and other "anti-Shakespearean" theories of Shakespeare authorship. It's a clearly written book that goes through the exact same arguments which are debated today, 115 years later. It's important to remember that almost nothing is new in these debates except one thing: Henry Neville. Neville's wasn't proposed as an authorship candidate until 2005.
James, Rubinstein, Casson, et al. have made a case for Neville in the past 13 years that far surpasses any case made for any candidate in the past 150 years. It's not even close. Not even sort of close. But the case for Shakespeare really hasn't changed.
On Page 33 Ashhurst makes a very interesting argument. He argues that Shakespeare was obviously a supporter of Essex, especially considering Shakespeare wrote nothing to honor the death of Queen Elizabeth, and since the "Phenix and Turtle" and Richard II are so critical of Queen Elizabeth. In fact, Shakespeare was a "devoted follower and friend of Essex and Southampton, trembling perhaps each hour while the Queen lived, lest he should be called to account for Richard II."
Of course, these words actually apply to Henry Neville, and have nothing to do with William Shakespeare. And, once again, they explain why Neville chose to produce his works under an assumed identity. Here are the relevant paragraphs with a few things in bold:
That the "Phenix and Turtle" is written by the same hand that wrote "Venus and Adonis," the "Rape of Lucrece," and the sonnets is reasonably clear; further, the intention of the production appears to have been distinctly political. It is set out as being "consecrated by them all to the noble knight Sir John Salisburie," who like Chester himself and Shakespeare's patron, Southampton, was deep in the Essex Plot. Therefore, if we accept Shakespeare as the author of his own poems and plays, his joining in Chester's enterprise was quite natural; but it would be strange company for Bacon, one of Elizabeth's most trusted and apparently devoted counsellors.
In 1603 Queen Elizabeth died. Not a poem, a stanza, or a line by Shakespeare, lamenting her death, or celebrating her glorious reign, appeared. Contemporary literature is full of appeals to Shakespeare to properly remember the occasion in verse, but he remained obstinately silent. This was most natural for the devoted follower and friend of Essex and Southampton, trembling perhaps each hour while the Queen lived, lest he should be called to account for Richard II.; but how can we account for Bacon's silence under such circumstances? Even if he found praising his dead mistress might not be pleasing to her successor, the well-kept secret of his pseudonym would have enabled him without danger, to have described the glories of the great Queen's reign and lamented her death. In his own person [Bacon] wrote the well known Latin encomium on his dead mistress, though it was not published until later.
