A court fool is rather foolish and Mary I gets married
Posted By Claire on July 25, 2020
On this day in Tudor history, 25th July 1535, the Feast of St James, the imperial ambassador wrote about a furious King Henry VIII who’d apparently been nearly driven to commit murder!
What had angered the king? Well, it involved Henry VIII’s fool and some foolish name-calling. Find out more in my latest “on this day in Tudor history” video:
Also on this day in Tudor history, 25th July 1554, Queen Mary I, daughter of Henry VIII by Catherine of Aragon, his first wife, married Philip of Spain, son of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. The couple got married at Winchester Cathedral and Mary’s Lord Chancellor, Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, officiated at the ceremony. Find out more about their wedding in last year’s video:
12 thoughts on “A court fool is rather foolish and Mary I gets married”
The eextreme anger of king Henry VIII. What s terrifying and disturbing thing to witmrss for all who were there. I bet there wsd a lot of whispering amomg the guests aftet they left.
I know a royal fool often pushed the boundaries of decency and decorum but calling the Queen a woman of no moral standing and a whore isn’t going to get you an invitation to dinner. Of course he ran off to an enemy of Anne Boleyn, the future public supporter of Jane Seymour, an old tournament buddy of the King who would protect him until the storm blew over. Henry’s anger was murderous at times and he vowed to kill his poor fool if he didn’t recant but the danger hung in the air. If Henry’s anger was allowed to settle, then it often did recede and Sir Nicholas Carew hid Will Somers until the trouble was passed and eventually Henry forgave him and he was received back into his service. It was a very foolish risk to criticise Anne like that but Will had made criticism an art form, like fools did and criticised the way Henry allowed those around him to swindle him in the late 1520s so he could get away with it through humour. This was a step too far but to be fair to the King, I would be angry at a servant calling my partner unpleasant names which attacked their reputation. Anne may not have deserved her reputation as a whore and husband stealing shrew but it existed nonetheless and Henry was honour bound to protect her now that she was Queen. We don’t know exactly what caused Will Somers to make such remarks but some unsavoury verses had been floating around about the Queen amongst the taverns of England and so he was really only repeating much of the popular gossip. Henry’s anger for me is perfectly understandable. Fortunately for Will Somers, he managed to get out of the way and allowed Henry’s anger to calm down. Carew no doubt managed to intercede for his favourite fool and confidant. Somers remained high in favour and was provided for after Henry’s death. He is seen in many family portraits and Henry was obviously fond of him. But phew what a lucky escape.
Ironic isn’t it that in just a few years Henry would have Anne murdered for the very things that will Somers called her?
Yes, that’s the tragedy of this. Its less than ten months later, Michael, that Anne was executed under the very laws designed to protect her from scandal. I wonder if Will was tempted to make a joke then or wise enough to keep his mouth shut. Nicholas Carew was then talking about Henry coming out of hell into heaven and yet a few months later was arrested for verbally supporting Mary alongside a number of her household. Of course Henry had banged his brains by then, but here we see his murderous intent, although he didn’t follow through. Chapuys might have exaggerated. Henry might have just shouted and thrown dishes at him, but of course he was terrified and fled and who can blame him, Henry could be a frightening guy. He was a massive guy, even without the bulk. He was physically strong and he had cuffed servants before now. I think I would hide somewhere for a bit as well.
You and me both.
Royal weddings are always great public occasions and great spectacular ceremonies and celebrations. The Tudors and other Royal families of the past really went to town, when the opportunity arose with Dynastic weddings and this one was celebrated with all the bells and whistles going. However, the preparations for this alliance between Hapsburg Spain and Tudor England had been troubled by a rebellion, aimed at putting Elizabeth on the throne, dressed up as a protest against this marriage. Thomas Wyatt junior had led this rebellion which had ended in disaster after Mary rallied support and the gates of London were closed to him. Most of the ten thousand supporters fell away and the majority of those captured had been pardoned. 500 had been condemned and then pardoned and despite claims by some historians, who like a bit of drama, 80 were executed, not hundreds. Even a number of leaders from her Council had been pardoned and were back in her service. Wyatt and the others executed had their heads popped up on Tower Bridge as was the custom because it marked the boundary entry to the City, heads which had been only removed shortly before the state entrance of King Phillip.
Sensitivity had also played a role in this marriage, which had divided opinion. Some of her advisers wanted Mary to marry her cousin, Edward Courtney, who wasn’t suitable as her offered nothing tangible, save Yorkist blood, heavily watered down and an old English name. However, Kings don’t marry subjects, at least they didn’t, but her father bucked that trend four times. Mary, like the majority of royal Princes knew the importance of an alliance against France and Spain was the best choice. Would this have been a problem if Mary were male? No, of course not. Moan all they wanted, her marriage wasn’t the business of the commonwealth, nor in the end of her Council. Mary did actually seek their advice, but in the end she made it perfectly clear it wasn’t up to them. She had sought the advice of Charles V and he recommended his son, who had much to offer and who at this time was a Renaissance Prince and three decades and miles removed from the fanatic of the Armada. Mary’s Regal status was an issue as was her sex because tradition and the law said she would have to be subject to her husband and obey him, so she couldn’t marry a subject and anyone who was to marry her would have to deal with her authority. A compromise would need to be worked through which both protected Mary’s royal dignity and the crown matrimonial. This was were the marriage contract worked out in Parliament and between Mary and her future husband came in. The next sensitive issue was English xenophobia.
Mary was very careful to think about her people and the future of the succession as well as the continued independence of England in this partnership, especially in the case of the death of either party before the other. This treaty dealt with specifics about the role of Philip and the limitations on him in English affairs, the co rulers roles, the status of heirs and a number of political and legal clauses that protected Mary as a female King. England was also supposed to remain outside of Spanish wars but that wasn’t going to be terribly realistic. Philip would also expect to take Regency Powers if Mary took to her chambers for childbirth for example and his opinion was sought on a number of issues. The objections to the marriage, despite the claims of Protestants like Wyatt, were not mainly religious, because the majority of people were Catholic, but because of the uncertainty of having a female ruler and what that meant legally and because of false rumours about England potentially becoming part of the Holy Roman Empire. There was also an underlying anti Spanish feeling in the capital, despite a long history of favourable trade and commercial and political relationships between the two countries. Having said that it was noted that the Spanish themselves were welcomed on a personal level and despite all the trouble caused by the rebellion, Philip actually received a warm welcome.
Still, the wedding took place outside of the capital at Winchester Cathedral in order to remove this happy occasion from the site of so much sadness and to respect those sensitive issues and the previous feelings they had given rise to. It was a very joyous occasion, with many tableaux shown and ceremonies and beautiful images, the bride and groom were elevated on a high platform and their was much rejoicing. The imagery we have of Mary and Philip shows them as equals and joint rulers. In a number they are face to face, but early ones show Mary first with Philip as second, behind her. Mary is also both shown as warrior and healer, and throughout her short reign she emphasised and protected the gender free authority of the crown and in fact restored much of the crowns lost dignity. There isn’t any evidence that Philip found Mary unattractive. His absence was because he succeeded to the crown of Spain and had vast kingdoms and responsibility of his own. However, there was still the tragic side of their marriage, that Mary believed herself to be pregnant and entered into confinement twice. On at least one of those occasions, she suffered from a swelling which was probably a stomach cancer and infection. Mary naturally wanted children and of course she needed an heir. When Philip was absent she missed him. When she died in November 1558, Philip made overtures to Elizabeth but these were political, not really personal based on attraction. Not that Elizabeth didn’t have much to commend her, but she was a means to an end, holding onto the crown of England.
Reading some articles on the Tudor Trail site from a few years ago and its amazing how much England would have gained from this marriage, more in terms of land and political and economic prestige than any other Dynastic marriage the Kingdom had engaged in. We always concentrate on what Spain would gain, even temporarily or through heirs, but Mary and Philip became joint Sovereigns of a wide spread of territories. Our interests in the Lowlands was also guaranteed although Mary also opened up trade through the Hassianic League. Philip was King of Naples and several Arch Duchies were added to the joint Monarchy. The treaty also guaranteed heirs would not leave or be educated outside of England before their majority and without the leave of Parliament. In fact in terms of benefits its actually difficult to see exactly what Wyatt and his mob were actually moaning about. Mary and the Spanish Ambassadors and their representatives made every effort to conclude a marriage contract which benefited this country.
The problem was purely one of prejudice. It was more a case of how Spain ruled in her Northern territories rather than being part of the growing HRE itself. It was also a matter of preference and personality as well as religious and ethnic makeup. The HRE now consisted of most German States, Bohemia, the Lowlands and surrounding territory. The addition of Spain through the union of Philip the Handsome and Juana, daughter of Isabella and Ferdinand had produced a joint heir in Charles V and now his vast expanse was being divided up. Bohemia or the Czech Republic as we know it as, came under the lands to be inherited by Ferdinand his brother, who had a more tolerant attitude to its largely Hussite population. The Lowlands and Flanders were not exactly keen on Prince Philip because he was too reserved and although he hadn’t turned into a fanatic, they were concerned about Spain not respecting local customs and rule. Ferdinand was preferable because he had a more open attitude. Spain had a habit of taking over local authority and exploitation against local tradition, the Low Countries had already come into conflict because of trade privileges and taxation being interfered with and literature was produced exaggerating the role Spain would play in English affairs and government in the same way. It was actually a load of rubbish. On the contrary England would gain from her connection to Spain by sharing in any beneficial trade within the Low Countries, have access to routes closed by Henry’s break with Rome and would even have better access into the New World. Tell that, however, to a bunch of grumbling Councillors, who were too consumed with misogynistic ideas around Mary’s authority as a female King to listen to common sense and reassurances about the marriage treaty. It was the angry reactions to their objections that now appeared personal, that laid the groundwork for the Wyatt Rebellion. Anti Spanish xenophobia was about to take off big-time.
It was Mary’s personal ability to draw people to her which turned the tide, crushing Wyatt before his Rebellion really took hold. Her personal appeal and courage as she refused to flee and her rapport as an English Princess, the daughter of Henry Viii, whose memory was still esteemed, the mother of her people, all of her personal charisma which rallied the people of London against the lies and army of Thomas Wyatt and forced him to capitulate and his mob to disperse. Mary and Philip then put on a great show like no other, beautifully described above, with weeks of celebrations and he was welcomed. Philip actually showed common sense and restraint during his brief time as King of England, Wales and Ireland and France, the titles he shared with Mary. He became King of Spain in 1556, while Ferdinand inherited the HRE. Treaties and reality are rarely unified, however, life gets in the way. Sadly his absence was deeply felt by Mary, whose lack of children broke her heart. But that’s another story.
Hi Christine and BQ. You probably already know this but I just found out that Olivia de Haviland passed away July 26th.
Hi, Michael, yes, I was thinking when she died, what two weeks ago that we were just thinking about her the few days earlier on here. 104 is a really grand age. Olivia de Havilland was the greatest actress who lived for me personally, never surpassed. She was the goddess of screen and later television for generations. I am watching a documentary on the Vineland Map which has been dated to the 14th century through carbon dating. It’s been dismissed, then authentic again, then questioned, now it is definitely from that time period, but the problem is its 300 years after the Vikings came to America, so did they remain? Did they have descendents who mapped the New World? A six part series last year explored the possibility of later Vikings remaining in America and found traces in many obscure wild frontiers, well up the rivers and people of Norse origins who say their ancestors came with the Vikings. They even found archaeology from the thirteenth and fourteenth century and earlier, suggesting the Vikings didn’t all run away after a few harsh Winters or a fight with the locals, or after a generation, they stayed, or at least some families did. Columbus wasn’t the first European anyway. Most Native Americans are descended from settlers who crossed from Europe in the various Ice Ages, between 250,000 B.C and 12,000 B.C but please don’t tell them that. Do historians really think people didn’t know how to sail ships and open up trade routes before Christopher Columbus? If the Vikings founded Russia, visited China and Byzantium, then they went from Greenland to America. Everyone knows Columbus used older maps and texts, we have known it for decades. Columbus found a different part of the American Continent and the Indies. I don’t believe it takes anything away from his achievements to admit somebody else got to the New World first. We even know that the Romans had a town in China. The Egyptians sailed 3000 miles to obscure parts of Africa. The Polynesian Islands and Hawaiian Islands are descended from people who sailed there thousands of years before settling them. The Phoenician sailors crossed oceans without knowing what the lands were called and traded. I really think its absolutely arrogant of historians to deny something was possible just because they can’t understand how it was achieved. How do they think a Celtic Queen in Northumberland got Jade and stones from Afghanistan for her tomb if her people didn’t trade with people who came to Britain thousands of years ago and introduced those goods to her. Maybe it was her people who went there, maybe the goods simply passed from one place to the next, but you can’t find Jade in Northumberland, even 600 B.C. You can find gold and silver in Britain, tin and iron, slate, that’s what everyone wanted from us, plenty of it. Everyone had something to trade. Just because we don’t understand life 2000 years ago, doesn’t mean the people who lived then were some kind of dummies. The maps and geography made by the Greeks cover much of the world. Columbus knew about them and his calculations were fairly accurate. Alexander the Great can march to India, only to be prevented from going further because his men moaned, but the greatest sailors in history and great warriors, the Vikings can’t go to America? Yeah, o.k! I am not saying the Map is authentic, but it sure looks like it up to now. I am watching the rest now. Update tomorrow.
By the way I have finally booked our holiday. We are off to a beautiful spot in Cumbria, a lovely bay called Arnside, opposite Grange Over Sands, a beautiful small place, off the beaten track. We have been many times to the Arnside Silverdale area of natural beauty or Bitten as its sometimes called after the local bird. We stay in the same B and B every time and love it there. It was great to hear that everything is still there and open. We might have to book ahead for meals, but that’s typically Arnside if it gets busy anyway, but its usually quiet and it will be at the end of September. We could have gone earlier and had one of the bay window rooms on the top, but we need the downstairs room for my mobility. I am quite content to sit outside the Albion with a pint and not move for 9 days, just looking at the view. It’s like coming home and taking a deep relaxing breathe. Lots of woodland walks, limestone pavements, bays, old monasteries, the Laurel and Hardy Museum in Ulverstone, the town connection with George Washington in Wharton, the Quakers have a lot of connections around the area, the Furness Peninsula saw a number of rebellions, the English Civil War, the border Reavers from Scotland known as the Steel Bonnets, a number of lovely old castles and gardens and we even have Lambert Simnel. He landed on a tiny island of the coast and was taken to Furness Abbey and then Dalton and then to Ireland. We don’t know if he was meant to be Edward, Earl of Warwick in 1487 or Edward,V but he was too young to be the latter, one of the Princes in the Tower. We don’t know for certain because the sources vary from the official government version. He was crowned in Dublin and then he was taken south and captured at the Battle of East Stoke, which is in Staffordshire, in the Midlands. Henry Tudor put him to work in the kitchens and then as a royal falconer. In 1493, King Henry entertained some Irish Earls and Lambert was brought in to serve wine and food, but the Earls who had been present in Dublin didn’t recognise him. They later testified that the boy who had landed in Cumbria and been crowned in Dublin wasn’t the same boy who had just served them. Now, maybe after five years they just didn’t recognise a growing boy but the odd thing was, John de la Pole who led the army and was killed at Stoke had a genuine claim to the crown, a legal and legitimate one, yet had done homage to this young boy. Why? One theory is that the boy was a decoy who was to be disposed off and the real aim was to actually free Warwick and put him and the throne. Another was that John intended to do away with both and proclaim himself King as the heir of King Richard iii. He wasn’t actually officially made so but it was understood that Richard made him his heir until he had sons after Bosworth. However, the de la Pole claim wasn’t pressed and the true motivation remained a mystery. More recent scholarship has asked if the boy crowned in Dublin Cathedral and who landed at Cumbria was in fact, the real King Edward, the older Prince in the Tower. His proclamation in York called him Edward, no number. The mention in the contemporary sources followed an entrance in the York Books in 1486/7 calling him Edward Vi, but it seems the i was added later as a correction and is squeezed in. Was Lambert therefore, a mere pawn as he was said to be, a boy found and trained, but used for appearances only, while the real Prince Edward was crowned, protected during the Battle and either smuggled away or killed? Therefore, it was Lambert who was left in his place on the Battlefield to be captured by Henry Tudor. Henry would not have allowed a York Prince who would then be almost seventeen to live. By using the ruse of releasing the Earl of Warwick, then about 10 to 12,_one could use a boy of that age and leave him to be captured if it all went wrong, which it did. Whatever the truth, Warwick was held in the Tower, never to be let out again until his execution twelve years later and Lambert Simnel became a Tudor propaganda coup as a failed pretender and imposter. So, the South has Perkin Warbeck and we have Lambert Simnel, a castle, inn and chair where he sat and became a King. You can apparently sit in the chair and become King for the day, but you have to buy everyone a round of drinks. The Island is Piel Island and although we visited Furness Abbey a few years ago, we haven’t driven down to the island. That’s our holiday adventure this year, following Lambert Simnel, well as far as his time in Cumbria before he went to Ireland.
My programme has now finished and the debate was interesting. No doubt can now be put on the original settlement of the Vikings in the eleventh century and that they remained in Vineland for a time, a decade or so. However, recently scholars have said that they remained in America, somewhere for much longer, up to 100 years. Some evidence has emerged to support belief that the Vikings moved up the Saint Lawrence River and settled along it, maybe as far as 200 miles or more. I have heard claims of settlements over 1000 miles inland but we don’t have the archaeological evidence as yet to support this theory. As you know the Vineland Map was examined by scholars in the 1950s and many were sceptical and many accepted it. It then apparently became a forgery. However, its actually not quite as simple as all that. Analysis of the textual manuscripts with the maps show the parchment is mid fourteenth century. The parchment on which the map is drawn is also as was the sample. So o.k now we are very excited. No. The ink isn’t fourteenth century, its believed 80% to be 1930s and Germany is the origin. A Catholic priest one scholar says did the Map to fool the Nazis who might claim they were Norse but would have to face the problem that the Map says a Catholic priest circumnavigated the known world and introduced the Vikings in America to the Christian Faith in the eleventh century. Actually this is the period when a number of Viking countries accepted Christianity so Greenland may well have sent priests out to the new settlements in America, as that would certainly be a natural development in any colonization, spiritual comfort. The Map makes claims which can be verified by the sagas, but then go on to expand on life afterwards as the Vikings explored and expanded into America. The name America isn’t used as this was the name given later. Another theory is that the Map was made in 1527 at the Council of Basil, a great Catholic Council of many scholars that lasted over a decade and during which much new information was exchanged. Someone who knew the history of the Vikings in America could have produced the document and the Map. However, the modern consensus at the end was that it was made in Germany from various forms of information, that the history was expanded and that it was made by a real scholar but was forged with good intentions. It doesn’t discount the discovery of Viking life in America, nor change anything really to do with Columbus. It doesn’t change the fact that new evidence is emerging all the time of Viking settlement along the Saint Lawrence River, nor that they were in America for longer than first believed. In fact the documentary didn’t declare the case closed. There are anomalies in the Map, the text and other things which actually make it currently impossible to prove that its definitely a forgery, leaving open the possibility that it may still be genuine. In other words it may be done in the fifteenth century, 1527 or 1933. The case is still unproven.
I don’t know if our conversation about Ms. de Haviland was well timed or ill timed!
I am fascinated by the Vinland map but I am continuously frustrated by the narrow mindedness of scholars. They constantly claim that they know everything and there is nothing left to learn or discover. Cases in point: the coelacanth(sic) is extinct but a live specimen was caught in 1933. Reports were made of seeing a black and white bear in China. ‘experts’ crowed ‘impossible’ that became the panda. Reports were made of mountain gorillas. Again, scholars said there were no such things. They were also wrong here. More recently scientists have claimed that life is not possible near the fumerole vents on the sea floor because of the extreme temperatures. Again, wrong. Bacteria and a specific species of crab were discovered living right next to those vents. So many life forms have been discovered in what are considered inhospitable conditions that they were given the term ‘extremophiles’. The incredible stone structures if Great Zimbabwe were, until fairly recently thought by archaeologists to have been constructed by some unknown peoples long forgotten because native Africans couldn’t possibly have done that. A very racist perspective thankfully proven and accepted as wrong. All of these corrections are since 1900. This closed mindedness also applies to the Vinland map.
I saw a program about 30 years ago, I don’t know if it was Nova or on the Discovery channel, about the possibility that the Chinese had visited North America a couple of centuries before the Vikings. I don’t remember what that was based on. I also remember that it was mentioned that the next emperor put a stop to all exploration. If they were here I wouldn’t be surprised. The Chinese were ahead of everybody in so many things except perhaps the scholars living in the Arab countries.
That program you talked about sounds great.
Hi Michael you are quite right. We have to keep our minds open on archaeology and history because things are changing all the time. This Map looks very old. We know that Christopher Columbus had a access to old texts which have been lost and an old map which we know very little about. I think it was the Vineland Map.
Sorry for the very short response, it’s not easy posting on a Smart phone screen. Even though put the settings to make it easier, its still annoying. Not so smart, maybe lol. It’s a British make, but its as integrated as any into 5G as its new, so that’s going to be fun. It comes with extra security though and privacy, so I don’t think the Government is spying on me lol. Had to take it with me to our paranoid friends house last week and I dare not tell him it has an AI Camera and two others, including 3D. He would have run a mile. I am paranoid, but I don’t think the Government is spying through the camera of my phone. If they are, then they have fallen asleep long ago. If they are, hello and welcome to history. Whoever you are, I hope you find the next few hours entertaining and educational.
Seriously though, I have to agree, there are a number of things scientific experts have dismissed but now they agree they are real. For over two centuries Hebrews in Egypt was denied outside of the Bible, now they are called the Habaru and lived in the Nile Delta and were military experts, artisans and originally of noble birth. They were expelled en masse in the mid thirteenth century B.C. Guess when the Exodus took place. In the reign of Ramses the Great 1276 onwards B.C. How do we date it? The mention of Pi Rameses the huge city built by Rameses in the Bible was built by him at that time. Kenneth Kitchen is an expert on archaeological history of this period and he was convinced. David Rohl was definitely convinced but his theories are controversial because of the missing 300 years theory but he was correct, the regnal years of a Pharaoh in Egypt was complicated by the fact they crowned an heir ten years earlier and he ruled as Co Regent. What about the Kings written out of the King lists? Akenahten and Tutenkhamun and Horenhob ruled collectively for 30 to 40 years between them. Amenhotep iii was once written out as well until another list was found. It’s Egypt. Its covered in sand! What do they believe there is nothing left to find? No, they are always making new discoveries. Almost all of Pharonic history is propaganda anyway. Look at Rameses and the Battle of Quadesh. He put up a huge wall depicting it as a great victory. The Hittites wrote it was their victory because they drove them back. More finds and texts actually showed it was a draw. Ramses wrote a letter to them and made the first depiction of a peace treaty. He married a Hittite woman and made peace. He didn’t go to war again. He was renowned as a great builder instead and lived to be 93_ dated from his tooth. He ruled for more than 70 years. Of course he was held in esteem. Nobody could remember any other ruler. But it does bring into question about why few records of Moses might exist in Egypt. He was written out of history. Yet stories of him existed outside of the Bible. He is known in Lebanese history. Why? He was said to have defeated them in battle. There is certainly evidence of the alleged destruction the Hebrews did afterwards in the cities around what we call the Middle East…Canaan and Syria. Experts are divided but its another example of never say something didn’t happen or doesn’t exist. I don’t believe most of the stories of Apes in America, but I do think it’s possible they existed. It’s also possible some rare Apes exist and will be found one day. Let’s just hope its not by an idiot who wants to shoot it, just in case it is the last one alive.
A number of finds which you have highlighted, really do show that we cannot dismiss things that are doubtful, unless we can say 100% that it isn’t so through scientific proof. The huge fish that looked like a dinosaur you mentioned is a classic, because it was indeed believed to be extinct. The discipline of crypto biology has in fact grown into a respected and responsible discipline with a number of scientific methods of studying the evidence. Big Foot has often been shown to be a fake, but there are genuine studies to research if such a creature did exist and how it may have looked. In South America, the prairie horse was killed to the point of extinction until the Spanish arrived and it was reintroduced. Look at the Tasmanian Tiger. The last one died in a zoo in the 1930s but it had once been said to be extinct. In Tasmania they have identified new species of animals never seen before. Is it so far fetched that Native Americans described an ape living in the mountains and forests 300 years ago? Maybe the animals were driven out by the presence of man or hunted to extinction or have moved out of sight. Wolves were hunted to extinction in Europe and Scandinavia but not America or Canada and are moving down into habitat they haven’t been in across Washington State for hundreds of years. I saw the documentary series which followed them and the preservation team was very worried as some dumb locals with a pea for a brain threatened to shoot them. Wolves are a protected species. They stay away from humans. They don’t cause any harm and they were miles from any homes. Two small packs thrived through the Summer and Winter, but then a couple were injured by the dumb locals. They tracked them back out of the state, but the next Spring they were back and three or four small packs come back and forth, but not as far as the first time. In Scotland they have reintroduced wolves, in the very far North and wild cats are still seen there. Wolves are good for the environment and I believe we need to reintroduce them in remote areas and ban people living there. If you move into their territory, tough. You are the ones who are trespassing, not the animals. I am very sceptical about the Loch Ness Monster, but deep sea lochs like Inverness can have all kinds of big sea life in them. For example basking sharks which are actually whales, plankton eaters swim in the loch. Many a drunk has seen Nessie crossing the road, of course. Most so called sightings are fake or mis identification, but a few mysteries remain. I believe something lives or visits the loch which hasn’t yet been identified. Do I believe its a left over Plassiasaur from Dino times? No. That would be far too big for the loch to sustain as they were huge and they spent a lot of time on land. If there was one or two in Loch Ness then they would definitely have been seen by now without any doubt. A smaller descendant is possible because of course birds are descended from dinosaurs. Not all dinosaurs were huge. Most were actually quite small so its possible some form of fish or reptile lived and is living in the Loch. The problem is a number of serious studies have been done on the Loch, in fact there is one from the shore at the moment, mapping the sightings, but nobody has found anything. Its a very deep Loch, it has several channels and is very dark, leads out to the sea, has caves and underground channels, so its difficult to study everything. I am afraid Nessie will not be discovered any time soon.