I meant "Merchant of Venice" was anti-Puritan, not "Othello" (Jews standing for Puritans - both dour, fanatical, outsiders and money-lenders). I don't think Mr. S. was moneylender - just a common play thief. "King Lear" was more complicated but still a protest against the apocalyptical wave of the Puritans which was about to break, precipitating the 30 Years War in Europe (1618-1648) which killed 1/3 of the German population and completely backfired by converting western Europe into a secular (anti-extremist) society.
The reviewer trumpets how completely ignorant he is of this entirely legitimate controversy by his dripping contempt for the very idea.
Personally I don't believe the author was DeVere but I am sure it wasn't Shakespeare either - that's a no-brainer. Yes, kudos to the film for daring to stand up to the mythology and portraying the petty criminal Shakespeare more likely as he was (although I think he could write his name - even his illiterate daughter could write hers, although barely).
Um, maybe the Queen spared Southampton because he was her son and not because of any plays, which had been presented on an ongoing basis anyway? What was to stop him publishing them after her death? The plays were anti-Stuart? Not really. Othello and King Lear were (heavily veiled) anti-Puritan, more like, and James 1 was no Puritan supporter (compromising with them even less than Elisabeth despite their increased popularity).
Sadly, de Vere died in 1604 while King Lear was first presented in late 1608 and The Tempest (based upon a 1609 shipwreck on Bermuda) around 1611.