William Harte – Shakespeare’s nephew. Again, critics seem more eager to suggest incest than anything else… But why would Shakespeare dedicate a series of love poems to his nephew? And of course, Harte was an infant at the time the poems were written.
William Hathaway – Shakespeare’s brother-in-law, through his wife, Anne Hathaway. Assumedly Anne was not happy that her husband was never home, doing God knows what at that theater of his… he dedicating a series of love poems to her brother would just be cruel.
William Hall – An errand boy for the printer of the First Folio. You could dedicate your series of love poems to the kid who drops off papers for you, calling him their "only begetter…" but why?
William Hunnis – A minor poet of Shakespeare’s time. There doesn’t seem to be any reason to dedicate the Sonnets to another less known poet. Certainly there is no reason to call Hunnis the "only begetter" of the work.
William Harvey – A physician. Unless he and the Bard were playing doctor at the time, there doesn’t seem to be much reason to dedicate the love poems to such a random character.
William Herbert – The third Earl of Pembroke. Shakespeare’s First Folio plays were dedicated to Herbert (and delivered, assumedly, by Hall) so he seems like a worthy candidate. However, it is important to note that the abbreviation "Mr." was used to abbreviate "Master," which means "Young Sir." For a person of Shakespeare’s class to address an Earl so familiarly would hardly have been respectful. Then we discover hints throughout the Sonnets that the Young Man is not a member of the nobility (Sonnet 25: "Let those who are in favour with their stars/Of public honour and proud titles boast,/Whilst I, whom fortune of such triumph bars,/Unlookt for joy in that I honour most.") The Young Man’s father is described as deceased, while Herbert’s was still alive at the time. The Young Man is described as fair, with blond hair, while Herbert’s hair was dark brown.
Henry Wriothesley - The third Earl of Southampton. Other Shakespeare poems, "Lucrece," and "Venus and Adonis," were dedicated to Wriothesley so he seems like a worthy candidate. However, it is important to note that the abbreviation "Mr." was used to abbreviate "Master," which means "Young Sir." For a person of Shakespeare’s class to address an Earl so familiarly would hardly have been respectful. Then we discover hints throughout the Sonnets that the Young Man is not a member of the nobility (Sonnet 25: "Let those who are in favour with their stars/Of public honour and proud titles boast,/Whilst I, whom fortune of such triumph bars,/Unlookt for joy in that I honour most.") The Young Man is described as having no marriage plans; Wriothesley was engaged at the time. The Young Man is described as attractive and resembling his mother; from portraits of the time we see that neither of these points is true. And, simply, the idea that Shakespeare inverted Wriothesley’s initials to "W.H." doesn’t hold much water – Shakespeare never used such a trick before, and there doesn’t seem to be much reason to do it here. Why address Wriothesley here in such a secretive and loving tone when the dedication of Venus and Adonis reads:
"To the Right Honourable Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, and Baron of Titchfield.
Right Honourable,
I know not how I shall offend in dedicating my unpolisht lines to your Lordship, nor how the world will censure me for choosing so strong a prop to support so weak a burthen: only if your Honour seem but pleased, I account myself highly praised, and vow to take advantage of all idle hours, till I have honour’d you with some graver labour. But if the first heir of my invention prove deformed, I shall be sorry it had no noble a godfather: and never after ear so barren a land, for fear it yield me still so bad a harvest. I leave it to your honourable survey, and your Honour to your heart’s content which I wish may always answer your own wish, and the world’s hopeful expectation.
Your Honour’s in all duty,
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE."
"Godfather?" It’s just not the same guy.