> ... so the assumption is that he owned the clothes
> and that they are not theater props?
Or even provided by the portrait artist's studio, much
as is stil done with "Old West" photo shops today.
Seems a pretty weak argument.
> ... or is the left trying to destroy another western icon?
There are more significant arguments that the figure
known as Shakespeare, and iconified by this famous image
that may or may not be him, may not have even authored
the works. No original manuscripts have ever been
discovered.
A leading contrarian theory is that the plays and
poetry were penned by a noble who dared not do so under
his own identity, and that "Shakepeare" was merely
his front man.
Regardless of authorship, the works survive.
Asimov even theorized that Shakespeare was a stabilizing
influence on the English language. English grammar and
spelling had been morphing rapidly prior to that, but
it dared not change so much since to render Shakespeare
as unreadable as Beowulf.
a giant cacaphony of confusion to thwart any western society's perception of truth. since the truth is questionable, so is everything else about western civilization. there is no real rudder to steer by sinec nothing is solid.
no other society attacks and villifies itself like ours. thanx to the libs.
Another possibility is that a wealthy patron loaned him the fancy clothes and may even have paid for the portrait.