This question has been treated exhaustively for many years. The driving force behind the question – setting aside the infinite number of “explanations" (of which Yeoman’s is one of the weakest) is the paucity of records to build a biography after some 500 years of fires, floods, wars, etc. that destroy public documents. The main objection to acknowledging that there was such a person is that modern-day notions of commercial notoriety are erroneously applied to Elizabethan culture. If you were royalty, your deeds could find their way into Chronicles and the like (Holinshed’s Chronicles, for example, contain the stories of the British monarchy; Froissart’s Chronicles related French/British history), but if you were a popular entertainer or even a writer, your life did not necessarily find it way into public records or print. Historians tried to assemble a portrait of Shakespeare after his popularity grew as literature (in large part because some of his contemporaries gathered his work into a Folio in 1616, after his death). Another theory points to the permissions required to perform in public, suggesting that someone in court was responsible for those permissions (an easy step to conjectures about anonymous titled authorship.) The point is that historians loathe a vacuum; contemporary wisdom says that, since the age did not promote self-portraits, the physical authorship is very much secondary to enjoying the plays’ wit, drama, psychological insights, linguistic innovations, etc. and leaving the “authorship” to historical archeologists. Finally, linguistic scholars who have taken a close look at internal details conclude that one person wrote all the plays now gathered under the name of Shakespeare.