A woman was arrested after approaching Mar-a-Lago, claiming she had an urgent message for President Donald Trump and stating that there were guns inside her vehicle. The woman, identified as Caroline

Interim U. S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli announced late Thursday night the FBI is offering a $50,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of a masked protester

A federal agent wears an Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge while standing outside a courtroom at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building in New York on June 10, 2025. Yuki Iwamura/AP PhotoA standoff

Insane. And its not as if this is even anything new. Republicans had a vicious fight over this with Bill Clinton with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) which,

Those claiming they were stopping us from being dragged into a war in Iran may have dragged us into a war in Ukraine.July 11, 2025 by Daniel Greenfield Leave a Comment Anyone remember WW3? Before President

Californias cage free egg ban came a the worst possible time to spike egg prices. On the other hand, it was a state move and the voters seemed to have voted for it. Traditionally a Republican

Richard III is best known from Shakespeares biographical play and for his likely involvement in the deaths of his nephews. However, his personality and the way he is portrayed in the play and in historical documents have long been questioned. In the last decade, he has come to be known for one more thing: his grave was believed to be lost until it was found under a parking lot in 2014.A Family MatterKing Edward III, Unknown, late 16th century. Source: National Portrait Gallery, LondonKing Richard III of England was born far from the throne, though his pedigree was an impeccable combination of the royal family and the aristocratic Nevilles. As the fourth son of Richard, Duke of York, he was unlikely to inherit his fathers title, much less the crown. It was a strange combination of familial conflict turned civil war that placed Richard on the throne.It all began with his great-grandfather, Edward III, who had far too many children (thirteen!) and the poor luck that his eldest son and heir, Edward, the Black Prince, predeceased him. However, the line of succession was secure: the Black Prince had a son, Richard, who succeeded his grandfather in 1377.Richard II was, to be blunt, a poor ruler. After several attempts at pushing him to reform, he was overthrown by his cousin, Henry of Bolingbroke, in 1399. Though Henry IV was generally considered to be a usurper, the new king was accepted because his predecessor had been so bad. And, it was not as if he didnt have a claim: Henrys father was John of Gaunt, the third son of Edward III.The Usurpers LineKing Henry VI, circa 1540. Source: National Portrait Gallery, LondonThe new line remained uncontested for two generations: Henry IV was succeeded by his son, Henry V, who was succeeded by his son, Henry VI. Their position was even strong enough to survive the fact that Henry VI was a mere eight months old when he came to the throne. It was due to something completely out of his controla mental illnessthat the line was questioned.In August 1453, Henry VI fell into a catatonic state, seemingly completely unaware of his surroundings and unable to care for himself, much less rule the kingdom. During this time, his cousin Richard, Duke of York (father of our topic), was given the position of regent and Protector of the Realm by Parliament. Henrys wife, Queen Margaret, was not allowed to be involved in governing or to act in her husbands stead. This was, in part, because she was a woman, but, more importantly, the fact that she was a French princess prompted suspicion among the English nobility.The Duke of York was a perfect candidate to rule in Henrys stead: he was also a direct descendant of Edward III, via both Edwards fourth son, Edmond of Langley (on his fathers side), and Edwards second son, Lionel of Antwerp (on his mothers). His claim to the throne was, in fact, stronger than Henrys due to his descent from Edward IIIs second son, but he made it clear that he did not want the crown. And there was no reason to bring up the former line of succession as long as things were going well in the current one. Richards genuineness was shown when Henry returned to his senses on Christmas Day 1454 and Richard stepped away from power without question or complaint.John Talbot presents the Book of Romances to Margaret of Anjou and King Henry VI, by the Talbot Master, circa 1445. Source: British LibraryWhile Henry was ill, Margaret had delivered their first (and only) child: a son and heir named Edward. Even at this point, having done her duty as queen wasnt enough for the English nobility to stop questioning her loyalties, and she began to be concerned for her sons, and her own, position. She and some of her supporters led Henry to believe that Richard sought to usurp the throne.When Henry called his cousin to court to account for the rumors, the Duke of York did himself no favors by bringing a small army with him. He sent a messenger to the king that his intent was not to threaten but to protect his position and (possibly) his own life. This army fought and won a small battle against royal forces at St. Albans, near London, on May 22, 1455. He backed off, having made his point, and was forgiven by the king.Later that year, Henry suffered another breakdown, and Richard was again made Lord Protector. And, again, he gave up the position willingly in February 1456, when Henry was well.Shifting the SuccessionDetail from the frontispiece of the illuminated manuscript Talbot Shrewsbury Book, 1444. Source: The British LibraryIt was now evident that Henrys condition was not temporary; though he was no longer catatonic, there was no guarantee he would stay that way. Margaret built a faction around her son, to protect his inheritance (as well as her own position). A few battles were fought between her forces and Yorks, but there was nothing decisive. That Henry seemed to have no influence in that moment shows how compromised, and deemed irrelevant, he was.In 1460, Richard of York addressed Parliament, arguing that his was a better claim to the throne, via his descent from Edward IIIs second son. Parliament agreed, but they did not remove Henry; instead, they issued the Act of Accord, by which Richard was made Henrys heir. Margaret and her supporters, now styled Lancastrians in opposition to Richards Yorkists, refused to recognize the act and prepared for war.The two sides fought on December 30, 1460, in a battle that killed Richard. His eldest son, Edward, became the Fourth Duke of York and heir to the crown. The following March, Edward addressed Parliament, asking that the Act of Accord should be enacted by deposing Henry. He argued that the civil conflict of recent years was a direct result of Henrys inability to rule and that it would be irresponsible to wait for the kings death to replace him; Parliament agreed.Henry VI was removed from the throne on March 4, 1461, and was succeeded by Edward IV. It was believed this would end the conflict because there was no question that the Yorkist claim was better than the Lancastrians. The deposed Henry was placed in comfortable apartments in the Tower of London; Margaret fled with Prince Edward, first to Scotland, then to France.Kings Cant Marry for LoveMarriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. Illuminated manuscript page from Vol 6 of the Anciennes chroniques dAngleterre, by Jean de Wavrin, 15th century. Source: BnFEdward IV promptly made a serious political mistake that cost him much. In 1464, he married Elizabeth de Woodville, a widow of minor nobility whose late husband had supported the Lancastrians. In doing this, he ignored both a previous betrothal and a politically advantageous marriage that was being negotiated by his brother George, Duke of Clarence, and their cousin Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick. He also disregarded the fact that the Woodvilles were generally disliked by the aristocracy, whose support he badly needed.By all accounts, Edward IV married for love, damn the consequences. Warwick and George began working against him, eventually allying with Margaret and the Lancastrians.In September 1470, Lancastrian forces retook London, forcing Edward and his family to flee. Henry was released from the Tower, but it was Margaret, George, and Warwick who ran the kingdom. They paved the way for Prince Edward, now almost 17 years old, to succeed his father. Their return to power was briefby May 1471, Edward IV returned with superior forces and had retaken London and the government. In these battles the Prince of Wales was killed, removing the Lancastrian heir, and Margaret was captured.Henry VI was again deposed and returned to his Tower apartments. He died shortly after, likely on the orders of the King. It seemed the new line was secure: the Earl of Warwick had died in a battle earlier in the year, and Edward IVs brother George was executed for rebellion in 1478, thereby removing the most likely challenges.The Boys in the TowerThe Princes in the Tower, by John Everett Millais, 1878. Source: Wikimedia CommonsEdward spent another decade on the throne, mostly uncontested. When he died in April 1483, he was succeeded by his eldest son, Edward V, who was twelve years old. The young kings regency was placed in the hands of his fathers only surviving brother, Richard, Duke of York.Richard quickly came into conflict with the family of Dowager Queen Elizabeth, particularly her brother, Lord Anthony, the Second Earl Rivers. By playing on the fact that this family was disliked, it was not difficult for Richard to convince Parliament that the Woodvilles were plotting to take over the young kings regency. Lord Rivers was convicted and executed for treason in June 1483.Young King Edward Vs coronation was scheduled for June 22. In the meantime, he was living in the royal apartments in the Tower, as was traditional, and was joined there by his brother, Richard of Shrewsbury. Shortly after the execution of Lord Rivers, the regent sorrowfully presented to Parliament recently discovered evidence that his brothers marriage to Elizabeth de Woodville was illegitimate, due to his previous betrothal. This meant their children, including the new king, were also illegitimate. Parliament offered the crown to the regent, and he accepted it.The Tower of London, by Nick Fewings. Source: UnsplashThe Duke of York became Richard III on July 6, 1483. The last time anyone reported seeing either Edward V or his brother was in late June. At the time, it was generally assumed that Richard III had them killed, whether directly or through negligence, and this belief has continued to this day.It is a reasonable assumption: Richard had the most to gain from the boys deaths, but the fact is there is nothing that indicates the cause of the death or disappearance, one way or the other. Richards most prominent accusers were Thomas More and William Shakespeare, both of whom relied on the patronage of the Tudor family and thus it was in their interest to make Richard III seem as bad as possible, in support of the Tudor claim.A Short ReignPortrait of Richard III of England, late 16th century. Source: National Portrait Gallery, LondonThe reign of Richard III was bookended by rebellion, spilling over from the previous conflicts. The first, which he put down fairly easily, was led by the Duke of Buckingham in October 1483. Buckingham seems to have fought in favor of returning the crown to Edward V, but this goal was shifted to a Lancastrian cousin, Henry Tudor, when it became evident Edward was not available.Whether or not the tales of his cruelty are true, Richard is generally seen by historians as a decent king. He increased the peoples access to the legal system, making it more widely available by having the laws translated from French into English, creating a court at which poor people who could not afford a lawyer could bring their grievances, and changing the way bail was assessed to prevent accused people from losing their property or freedom before they had been tried and convicted. He also endowed colleges at Cambridge and banned the restriction of books.His life and reign ended with another rebellion, this one led by Henry Tudor, a descendant of John of Gaunt via his mother, Margaret Beaufort. His and Richards armies met on August 22, 1485, at Bosworth Field. Though Henry was outnumbered, he was triumphant.Richard was said by witnesses to have fought bravely, with one source saying he intended to meet his rival personally in battle; if this was his intention, he did not succeed. We know that Richards body was displayed for a short time, then hurriedly buried as Henry Tudor made plans for his coronation. The location of his grave was lost sometime after.LegacyPhotograph of The King in the Carpark. Source: Wikimedia CommonsThe modern view of Richard III is generally negative, a view that stems primarily from the idea that he was responsible for the deaths of his nephews and his depiction in Shakespeares work. The Bard describes Richard as being deformed, particularly having a hunched back, a presentation that is meant as a physical reflection of his horrible nature.The sources of the period do not mention Richard as having any deformities, though some say one shoulder was slightly higher than the other. Scholars have argued about the legitimacy of this portrayal ever since, but there was no way to be sure of the answer. That is until Richards grave was discovered in 2014. His spine shows a minor case of scoliosis, indicating that if any deformity was visible at all it was much closer to the contemporary theory.Richards body was reburied at Leicester Cathedral in March 2015.

Early Dark Age Britain is shrouded in mystery since there are very few surviving sources about it. The Arthurian era, broadly the late 5th century through most of the 6th century, is a subject of particular interest to many. This was the era that saw one of the most significant early battles between the Britons and the invading Anglo-Saxons: the Battle of Badon. Generally, this battle has been placed in the very early 6th century. However, more recent research has indicated that the popular chronological scheme for much of early Dark Age Britain should be revised by several decades.Traditional Chronology of Early Dark Age BritainIllustration of Gildas, by William Marshall, c. 17th century. Source: British MuseumAccording to the most popular version of the chronology of Dark Age Britain, the Battle of Badon can be dated to c. 500. The birth of Gildas, a monk who wrote about the battle in a document called De Excidio, occurred in the same year. He died in about the year 570. When he wrote the De Excidio, it was 43 years after the Battle of Badon, or about c. 543. At that time, there reigned kings Maelgwn Gwynedd, Vortipor of Dyfed, Cynlas of Rhos, Aurelius Cynan, and Constantine of Dumnonia. When most of these kings died is unknown, but Maelgwn died in 547 during the Yellow Plague.Thus, there was a distinct gap between the careers of these kings, contemporary with the writing of De Excidio, and the later kings famous in the north. Examples of the latter type include the powerful Urien Rheged and his son Owain. At least, this is what the traditional chronology of this period in Dark Age Britain affirms.Annales Cambriae in the Harleian MS 3859, folio 190r, c. 12th century. Source: British LibraryHowever, it is worth asking what the basis is for this traditional chronology. The fundamental cornerstone of this chronological scenario is the Annales Cambriae. In this Latin chronicle, written in the 10th century, there is a reference to the death of Maelgwn in 547. This is the key date that is used to establish the date of Gildas, and by extension, the Battle of Badon and the other four kings mentioned by Gildas.The reason for this is that Gildas directly tells us, according to most interpretations of his Latin, that the Battle of Badon occurred 43 years before he was writing. Now, how do we know when he was writing? Crucially, he refers to a certain powerful king named Maglocunus. Almost all scholars agree that this is Maelgwn Gwynedd. Given that Gildas presents him as still alive and reigning, De Excidio must have been written before 547, the date of Maelgwns death in the Annales Cambriae. That same chronicle goes on to place the death of Gildas in 570.Recent Observations on Maelgwn GwyneddIllustration of Maelgwn Gwynedd from Brut Y Brenhinedd in Peniarth MS 23, folio 96 v, c. 15th century. Source: National Library of WalesWhile this chronological scenario might seem fairly straightforward, the reality is much more complicated. Notably, the Annales Cambriae is not the earliest source to provide chronological information about Maelgwn. A document that predates it by about a century is the Historia Brittonum. This provides us with some useful information about Maelgwn, and since it is earlier than the Annales Cambriae, it logically holds more weight.Going against the general consensus about Maelgwns date of death as established by the Annales Cambriae, renowned scholar Rachel Bromwich made an important observation. In her landmark Trioedd Ynys Prydein, in the entry about Maelgwn, she notes that the information in the Historia Brittonum appears to make Maelgwn a late-6th-century king. It does this in a few key ways. The primary piece of evidence, which is the one used by Bromwich, is that it states that Maelgwn began his rule 146 years after his ancestor Cunedda arrived in North Wales. What does this mean?Jesus College MS 20, folio 38r, showing Cunedda Wledig as the ancestor of Maelgwn Gwynedd, c. 14th century. Source: Bodleian Library, OxfordThe Historia Brittonum itself explains that Cunedda went down to North Wales from southern Scotland (or northern England) to drive out the Irish. Based on an analysis of the information in that passage, along with comparisons from numerous genealogies of those who claimed descent from him, when did this happen? Bromwich acknowledged that it must have been closer to the year 450 than 400. Another scholar, Peter Bartrum, in his A Welsh Classical Dictionary, likewise dated it no earlier than 425. When we count forward by 146 years, that would take us to the year 571 for the start of Maelgwns reign. Bromwich suggests that Maelgwn may have died in a later plague which was later confused for the more famous Plague of Justinian, which did occur in the 540s.This is not the only piece of evidence for this late date in the Historia Brittonum. In the same passage, it associates Maelgwn with the time of Taliesin and Aneirin, both famously late-6th-century bards.More recently, historian Flint Johnson has also argued for a later date for Maelgwns career, rejecting the Annales Cambriaes date of 547 for his death.Evidence From Welsh PoetryBook of Taliesin, in Peniarth MS 2, folio 22r, showing Aircols name in the text of the poem Trawsganu Kynan Garwyn mab Broch, c. 14th century. Source: National Library of WalesIt is important to note that the Historia Brittonum is not the only source that predates the Annales Cambriae and mentions one of Gildas five kings. At least one of the kings whom he presents as still living can be dated by early Welsh poetry. The king in question is Vortiporius or Vortipor. Scholars agree that he was the son of Aircol of Dyfed, as presented in the earliest surviving genealogical record of the British kings.The reason that this is notable is that Aircol appears in an early Welsh poem called Trawsganu Kynan Garwyn mab Broch. This is credited to Taliesin, and it is considered plausible that it was genuinely written by him. In any case, it is a source which certainly predates the Annales Cambriae. In this poem, the honorand, Cynan Garwyn, is said to have engaged in a conflict in Dyfed against Aircol. Hence, Vortipors father was still alive during part of Cynans career. What is the significance of this?Inscribed stone with the name Voteporix, possibly the Vortiporius mentioned by Gildas, c. 6th century. Source: Carmarthenshire MuseumThe significance of this information is that Cynan Garwyn was clearly a mid-to-late-6th century king. For example, he was the father-in-law of the early 7th-century king Cadfan of Gwynedd. Cynans son, Selyf, died in battle in c. 616. Regardless of his exact birth, the general era in which Cynan lived is clear enough.With these facts in mind, it seems reasonable to place his birth no earlier than c. 530. Taliesins elegy mentions a conflict in Dyfed beyond the halfway point in his career; although admittedly, the poem might not have the conflicts in chronological order. Therefore, if we assume that Cynan was at least thirty years old when this conflict occurred, it would have been in c. 560 when he went up against Aircol.If Aircol was still alive and reigning in c. 560, then it is evident that his son Vortipor had not yet succeeded him as king by that point. Additionally, Gildas explicitly describes Vortipor as growing old. Therefore, this reference from early Welsh poetry to Aircol, Vortipors father, having a conflict with Cynan definitely indicates that Vortipor was reigning towards the end of the 6th century. This would therefore be the time in which Gildas was writing.How This Relates to Gildas HimselfStatue of Trephine, mother of the younger Gildas, Pontivy, Brittany. Source: Wikimedia CommonsOf course, if Gildas was writing towards the end of the 6th century, then this would mean that he was born towards the middle of that century. How does this accommodate the evidence that he was already an adult by that time, and how does this fit in with the date of 570 for his death in the Annales Cambriae?The simplest solution, which many historians over the centuries have presented, is that there were two men by the name of Gildas. It could thus have been the older one who died in 570. The younger one, therefore, could have survived much further towards the end of the century, into the reigns of Maelgwn, Vortipor, and the others.The fact that there really was a younger Gildas is explicitly stated in the earlier of the two medieval hagiographies, which recount the life of Gildas. This record tells us that Gildas helped one of the wives of Conomor, and she, therefore, named her son Gildas in his honor.The Truth About Early Dark Age Britains ChronologyArthur Leading the Charge at Mount Badon, by George Wooliscroft Rhead and Louis Rhead, 1898. Source: University of RochesterIn conclusion, what does the evidence really suggest about the chronology of early Dark Age Britain? For a long time, the traditional chronology has placed the Battle of Badon right at the beginning of the 6th century. Gildas is understood to have been writing in the 540s, with Maelgwn Gwynedd dying in 547. This chronology is fundamentally based on the 10th-century Annales Cambriae.However, a number of scholars in recent decades have argued, at least partially and to varying degrees, that these dates should be pushed forward by several decades. Rachel Bromwich argued that Maelgwn, Gildas contemporary king, may have come to the throne as late as the 570s. Indeed, the evidence from the Historia Brittonum definitely points to this conclusion. Flint Johnson, more recently, argued for a less extreme revision.We have also seen that an early Welsh poem, which also predates the Annales Cambriae, supports this conclusion by making Vortipors father, Aircol, a contemporary of Cynan Garwyn. Of course, this is only a brief overview of a much more complicated issue. Nevertheless, we can see that a good case can be made for placing many supposedly early 6th-century people and events much further forward in the stream of time.