Neanderthals and humans are related sub-species but have drifted so far apart there is little chance of successful interbreeding. Horses and donkeys are similarly related but on being paired they produce mules, which are sterile.

When the dinosaurs disappeared about 65,000,000 years ago, among the species of animals that began replacing them were mammals called primates. They lived in the trees and were a kind of lemur of squirrel-like size and appearance. Between fifteen and eight million years ago, some of the primates in East Africa, perhaps stimulated by the opportunity to fill ecological niches, mutated in their genetic code and fostered variations in different directions.

Some became larger and lost their facial snout. Some became the ancestors of monkeys, others lost their tails and became ground dwelling apes, while, in due time, others became members of biped groups and began to walk upright. By about four million years ago the members of one biped group formed the Neanderthals while another was singled out to become human beings.

Hi guys, just caught up with you so it will be easier to respond to you all as a lump. So where to begin? Well, I'll ignore the ancient, inane wisecrack plagiarised from someone more intelligent and go straight to it.

I make no apology for stealing a little bit of humour that fits neatly into what I'm writing. People do it all the time and in this case it works well. The governor of this site can chop the article if he feels strongly about the matter and I'll accept that, but I don't give a damn in hell for any of your better-than-thou sanctimonious opinions. There was a time in my life when I felt hurt when people criticised my efforts, but I was out of that by the time I was eight.

It occurs to me. Have I had the mischance to stumble on some of that little gang that noses through Listverse expressing noble sentiments about the craft of writing? They usually whinge and nitpick about spelling mistakes, minor grammatical errors and incorrect punctuation, but I've never noticed them string more than a weak sentence together themselves. They pride themselves on carrying the torch of literary righteousness when they're no more than small minded gerbils nibbling on a damp match. My little sin must have got them spinning in a slaver.

Come on guys. This site is for fun. Got it? FUN!

No you won't have got it, I'm striking flint on clay. By nature such people are small-minded cretins whose only joy in life is pulling others down. Well, you won't pull me down, my little caustic sunbeams. The centre of the planet will freeze before that happens. Have a nice day.

bassbait

Edward II was the son of Edward I and had prominent part in the movie. If you have genuine interest in King Arthur check out the name Ambrosius Aurelianus on Google.

It may not be exactly the same one hermy. Edward I later rebuilt some and added many others, including those at Harlech, Conwy, Caernarfon and Caerphilly that still stand today.

If there is a touch of plagiarism planted here and there to enhance the script, so what? There's no money changing hands and the result is better than straight pasting from Wiki, ain't it?

I must point out that the Scots were originally migrants from County Antrim in Ireland. Scotland as a country did not exist until the ninth century when Kenneth McAlpine imposed himself into the vacant Pictish kingship

The Romans employed Angles and Saxons in Britain as auxiliary troops. When the Romans went home (410ish A D) Celtic kings such as Vortigern continued to make use of them and they began coming over in larger and larger numbers. The legend of King Arthur blossomed in this period.

Never heard that story about Richard III. He was a warrior though. He died trying to smash his way through the enemy ranks in an attempt to get at Henry Tudor and got close enough to kill Henry's standard bearer.

Typo error! 1547 should read 1647.

King Charles became a prisoner of Parliament when the civil war ended in 1646, but that didn't prevent him from trying to bribe the Scots to start it all over again. Such behaviour was deemed as treasonous by Oliver Cromwell and was the reason for the trial and execution of the king in 1649.

When Richard was being held prisoner in Austria, his brother John hoped to become king himself. He did his level best not to pay the demanded ransom, but the Pope and King Philip of France insisted he did the honourable thing.

When Richard eventually returned to England he knew all about his brother's scheming and John was shaking in his shoes. 'Forget it', he said, slapping John on the back, 'you are but a child'. And he promptly took the 27 year-old child to a feast.