And just to finish off, if you're not a historian, Keith, then you're speaking out of ignorance. But me no buts, you've accepted you have no knowledge of the subject, and demonstrated it with remarkable honesty. You seem to have settled to a core policy of quoting a selected list of secondary sources, which shows at best a A-Level capacity to trot out other peoples opinions, and have not demonnstrated any capacity to argue a case on your own. An undergraduate should be able to quote a number of contrasting positions and demonstrate how a synthesis might be made from them. A Masters student should be able to demonstrate exactly where the uncertainties lie, and a Doctoral candidate how to investigate them. You do none of these.
So kindly stop wasting everybody's time arguing round and round in circles, as you've become a pathetic bore, as well as an utter waste of time. Some historians are pathetic bores without being wastes of time, and others a waste of time without being boring. As you seem unable to achieve either, I can only conclude that you have surrendered to a form of mania which needs professional care, as you've neither balance, proportion nor willingness to examine the possibility you're wrong.