"Whoever Shakespeare was," she once said, "he wasn't a little ordinary yeoman who headed back to Stratford after he had his fun… I'm quite certain that he was a quite exceptional aristocrat who had to keep totally quiet and needed Shakespeare as cover."
You could just bottle the class contempt in "little ordinary yeoman". Scratch a socialist, find an extra from Downton Abbey.
By the way, one aspect of the anti-Stratfordian case I've never seen properly addressed is this contention (on which the whole conspiracy theory teeters) that Oxford had to keep his playwriting secret because it would have been scandalous in an aristocrat. Personally I think Oxford (from what I know of him) would have done whatever he damn well pleased; but while I can see that he might, like Sidney and others, have refrained from making his writing a direct source of income, I don't recall seeing any evidence that writing plays or even having them produced would necessarily have been infra dig. Is there any? (Not that this affects the non-question of the authorship of course, which is ridiculous on many other grounds besides.)