Well..., now that is a fulsome reply. I must thank you for it, and I look forward to reading it in some more detail...instead of just shamefully skimming through it as I just have.

However, there are reasons for my skimming, not the least of which is to more clearly define my position (and I feel that any misunderstanding is entirely my fault, through a poor choice of wording, little background or context, and a debilitating tendency to ramble way off my original point.

I must admit that when I read your previous responses they did seem a little..., curt. I have a policy in such circumstances to leave well alone and chill out for a bit. I'm well aware that the written word, especially on forums, can be easily misinterpreted in terms of tone - and also that, due to my own shortcomings, you may have misunderstood my position.

I have to say that the work you have referenced by Barry Cunliffe is one that I would readily recommend - it is widely referenced by other authors in this field, and rightly so. I would also recommend another book by him (the name of which escapes me - I'll get back to this) covering a wider, European overview of what we have come to know as the Celtic world. I will also add that I have read the preview for the upcoming Pritanoi faction in EB2, and (as always with the EB team) an impressive piece of work it is.

So, to explain my position in a little more detail. I am looking to make a provincial mod of EB based around Caesar's Gallic campaigns. It is with regard to this particular time period that I am discussing a 'kingdom' ( which, in itself, is a poor choice of wording...). At this point I must put right any idea that I feel Holinshed's Chronicles are, in and of themselves, of any great import in terms of garnering any semblence of a history of pre-Roman Britain, it was in terms of the pretty comprehensive list of sources that is contained within the Chronicles that I thought there might be some use to be made of. However the 'invasions' of Caesar are described, under the heading Cassibellane; he takes as one of his sources Caesar himself - from the original Latin, it seems; another source is, indeed, Monmouth (and, no, I don't regard his work as a serious history of Olde England... I think anybody would be mad to do so.), but he mentions a third source (though he doesn't specify it, unfortunately) which agrees with the nature of Caesar's defeat. As I said, the idea that Caesar faced a defeat on his first campaign makes sense, to me. His description of the events read like someone covering up a defeat, and the reaction of the Gauls (the Morini?) on his return from that campaign follows a familiar pattern of the Gauls being emboldened by the any defeat of the Romans...(I have a feeling I'm rambling again)

So, whe I say Kingdom, i don't mean to infer that there had been a loshing line of Kings with regal and constitutionally legal familial heritage, as the likes of Monmouth would like to believe in. I mean, more probably, a Kingship, and a very recent one at that; perhaps even with this Cassivellaunus as it's instigator. Kingships, from Caesar's own writings, were not unknown to the Celts/Gauls (Divitiacus of the Suessiones, for example); that there were laws and customs seemingly specifically designed to combat them (see Orgetorix) and that those rules seem specifically devised to oppose familial heritage (see the Aedui and their - alleged - restrictions on holding the highest office) and what you see is, imo, clearly intra-noble conflict.

That is why I suggest that Cassivellaunus held kingship over a number of tribes in Southern Britain at that time, and the news of Caesar's imminent 'invasion' was the opportunity for some of these nobles under his 'sovereignty' to overthrow his power over them. Apparently envoys were sent to him promising compliance with his demands before he had even set off. This could be down to fear, inflicted upon them by the tales from the Belgae and Gauls they must have heard this from, but the circumstance I have offered seems equally likely - especially as reference is made to Cassivellaunus' alarm at the lack of support from the tribes.... (I can't remember if this is directly from Caesar or Livy..)

That Mandubracius is then reported to have gone for Caesar's aid in restoring his position, his father having been killed by Cassivellaunus rather fits this version also. That sounds like all the world, to me, a powerful king enforcing his power over his dominion (and certainly not like a defeated tribal leader).

I must also point out that when I say that this Cassivellaunus was, in some way, the 'rightful' King, I don't mean that he was (in some Monmouth-ian spirit) truly a 'rightful' King, but rather that he had gathered enough support that he was viewed by those as rightfully (as in fit to be) King (perhaps in a the same way that, despite the objections by the empowered nobles within the Arverni, Vercingetorix garnered enough support to overthrow that conviction).

I had read that Cassivellaunus may have been a title relevant both to his position and to his tribal affiliations (as in, the Casse) and that Catu was a descriptive of being the 'followers of' of 'smiters of' Vellaunus - I shall have to search for the source of that information - perhaps it was just a convenient (and invented?) method for linking the Casse with this character.