Thanks Justin.
But the new documents do not by themselves "clearly refute" theories that "Shakepeare the player" was not Shakespeare the author, although they do add significantly to what seems to me to be an obvious identification.
Gentry, those entitled to a coat of arms, were then (as now) at the margins disputable. Shakespeare's father was rich enough (and had enough of a supposed ancestry) to claim arms. Shakespeare the player got richer, and did so successfully. He seems to have been the only "player" to have actually done so successfully, and since actors were not generally seen as high class, it is unlikely that his qualities as an actor made the difference; as a writer he could of course have qualified as a gentleman. Ben Jonson's reference to his coat of arms suggests the usual jealousies between two playwrights.
But that's as far as it goes. To my eyes it is entirely convincing, as if I needed to be convinced. But to those who think that Francis Bacon (1909-1992) the well-known illegitimate (?) child of Edward VII and someone or other, and possibly the rightful King of England, was the real author of plays published three centuries before his birth, it will of course be another example of academic conspiracy.
Mark