One of the points I have been trying to make over and over again, McG. History is not an exact science. In addition to that, the assertion that 'all historians agree' makes the whole argument flawed. I am not even saying if Keith is wrong about the three points - he may well be right for all I know - but to be so dogmatic and try to back up the 'facts (read 'historians opinions') with an invalid assertion is nonsense. Sadly Keith cannot see this and insists that if no-one can find evidence to the contrary, it must be true. Flying in the face of reason. Teribus seems to have a better handle on it and at least provides reason and logic to an otherwise poor delivery. Sadly we are now embroiled in the Jim and allies vs Keith and allies bun fight that will never end well. I would leave but, sadly, I am now hooked!