Between 1910 and 1968, the Ohio Insulator Company (which later changed its name to Ohio Brass) built a series of four high-voltage testing labs, with Austin being involved in the first two. The need for such a lab had been driven by the increase in voltages used for electrical transmission. Lines running at 25 kV were typical in 1891 but by the early 1920s lines were commonly running at 220 kV and it was not yet fully understood how these lines would be affected by storms, rain, fog, or snow. The high voltages necessitated physically large equipment and clearances, which meant the labs could no longer fit inside buildings and had to be built outdoors.
The first lab was built in 1910. In 1926, Austin built another outdoor electrical testing laboratory on the grounds of the Barber estate. In operation until 1933, this was the second of the four high-voltage labs established by Ohio Brass. It has been described as, "a juxtaposition of Victorian elegance and high-tech equipment". Equipment included four iron-core, 60 Hz transformers manufactured by Allis-Chalmers, rated at 2.2 kV input, 600 kV output. By over-exciting the transformers, Austin was able to increase the output rating to 750 kV and produced up to 900 kV in tests. R. P. Cronin of the Sandusky Register wrote that these were connected in series and were "three of the largest transformers in the world". A capacitor and synchronous switch was used to produce a transient overvoltage and a spark across a sphere gap which could be applied to objects being studied. A 1933 newspaper report wrote about the lab:


The courtyard of the laboratory, where most of the experiments have been conducted, is a weird place, filled with cage-like structural towers, and dominated by three mammoth transformers. From an insulated ball suspended in the air, at Austin's will 30-foot flashes of lightning leap to the ground with a crack like a rifle shot.The space available on the Barber estate was outgrown by 1933 and in 1934, the third lab was built by Ohio Brass adjacent to their factory. In 1968, the fourth lab, which includes a 5000 kV impulse generator, was built in Wadsworth, Ohio. As of 2024 it operates as Hubbell's Frank B. Black Research Center, named in honor of Ohio Brass's founder.


Austin used his lab to experiment with the effects of lightning on aircraft, both airplanes and lighter-than-air airships from the Goodyear Zeppelin Corporation with his research leading to methods of protecting aircraft from these strikes. Austin's interest in this area stemmed from a 1929 Transcontinental Air Transport crash. In 1930 Popular Mechanics described the lab as "the most powerful outdoor high-voltage laboratory in the world". The article observed that aircraft lightning strikes had not previously been a major problem because there were few planes and most would stay on the ground during thunderstorms but the increasing popularity of air travel would make lightning a greater hazard.
Preliminary experiments at the Barber estate lab were done on scale models of airplanes. The models were hit by artificial lightning strikes measuring millions of volts and hundreds of thousands of amps. These experiments showed that lightning would typically enter and leave the plane at projecting points on the structure; the two points might be the opposite wingtips, the propeller and the tail skid, or other pairs. In one experiment, the pitot tube was struck. The hot engine exhaust gas did not appear to attract strikes, contrary to speculation that it would.
Later tests used a full-sized Barling NB-3, a monoplane with a fabric-covered all-metal frame which had been provided to Austin by Popular Mechanics for testing. The plane was subjected to repeated lightning strikes while on the ground. Additional tests on the plane's LeBlond 60 engine showed that it would continue to run at idle speed after being struck. Lightning strikes on the tip of the rudder resulted in small holes burned through the fabric covering where it contacted the duralumin frame. Austin's experiments showed bare sheet metal was undamaged by lightning strikes, and only minor damage was caused when the metal was covered by fabric. As of 1930, when these findings were published by Popular Mechanics, additional experiments were planned to investigate the effect of lightning on fuel tanks, the engine crankcase, flight instruments, and control cables.


In 1933, Austin started the A. O. Austin Insulator Company. After Austin's death in 1964, the company passed through a number of ownership changes, being at various times part of Decca Navigator Company (a division of Decca Records). Racal-Decca, and Litton Marine. The purchase by Decca in 1971 was accompanied by a move to the Decca Radar plant in Toronto, Canada. Decca had previously been a customer and relied on the specialized insulators which Austin provided; to ensure the continued availability of these components, Decca bought the company.
As of 2024, the company has undergone additional changes of ownership and is being run as an independent company known as Austin Insulators Inc. The company's main products are high-voltage insulators and transformers mostly used by the radio transmission industry. Insulator strings of the "safety core" type with mechanical ratings up to 1,000,000 pounds (450,000 kg) are available.


Blood on the Floor is a suite in nine movements composed for orchestra and jazz trio by Mark-Anthony Turnage. It was composed over a span of three years (1993–1996) after a commission from the Ensemble Modern—a German music group—to produce a piece for an evening jazz event in 1994. After the performance, Turnage expanded the piece into a larger nine-movement suite. During this period of composition, Turnage's brother Andrew died of a drug overdose, shaping the music greatly. As a result, drug culture is one of the main themes in the suite. Blood on the Floor also draws influences from the paintings of Francis Bacon and Heather Betts; the suite's title is an adaptation of Bacon's painting Blood on Pavement.
Like other compositions by Turnage, Blood on the Floor incorporates elements of both classical and jazz music. Due to this, it has been described as being part of the "third stream" genre, a term coined by Turnage's former teacher Gunther Schuller. The suite is written as a concerto grosso and features a blend of classical, jazz, non-western and electronic instruments. As part of this fusion, the suite contains space for soloists to improvise in four of its movements. Blood on the Floor shows elements of non-functional harmony and has complex rhythmic changes, often changing metre every bar. Motifs are found recurring throughout the suite.
The premiere performance of Blood on the Floor was by the Ensemble Modern at the Queen Elizabeth Hall, London, in May 1996. The suite received a mixed reception from music critics. Some enjoyed the suite's fusion of classical and jazz music, while others found it to be an unfulfilling combination. Outside of the Ensemble Modern, Blood on the Floor has been performed by various ensembles, including the Berlin Philharmonic, Melbourne Symphony Orchestra and Boston Symphony Orchestra.


Blood on the Floor was composed by the British composer Mark-Anthony Turnage between 1993 and 1996. During his compositional process, Turnage used sketches he had produced during a period of collaboration with the saxophonist Martin Robertson. These sketches were used to create the prologue of the suite.


The piece was commissioned in 1993 by the Ensemble Modern—a German group dedicated to contemporary classical music—for an evening jazz event with pieces by George Gershwin, Leonard Bernstein and George Antheil. The version Turnage produced for the event was ten minutes long and was performed in 1994. After the event, Turnage expanded the piece into a nine movement suite; the final composition ended up being a little more than an hour long. This was largely due to persuasion from the Ensemble Modern, who have a history of working on larger musical projects. During the composition of Blood on the Floor, Turnage consulted Robertson, John Scofield and Peter Erskine, who would be playing in the jazz trio with the Ensemble Modern. Erskine objected to the level of notation in the drum kit part for the suite, leading Turnage to have a "culture shock" after restricting his score to its essential elements to allow Erskine more freedom.
Blood on the Floor takes inspiration from the paintings of Francis Bacon as with Turnage's previous works, like Three Screaming Popes. The suite's name is an adaptation of Bacon's painting, Blood on Pavement. Other works by Bacon, as well a painting by the Australian artist Heather Betts, influence elements of the suite. Blood on the Floor reflects Turnage's personal feelings on the death of his brother Andrew, who died of a drug overdose during its composition. As a consequence, drug culture is an overarching theme in the suite. Due to this, the music in Blood on the Floor is often quite harsh, with Turnage commenting that it was "probably the nastiest thing I have written".


Blood on the Floor is written as a concerto grosso, a form of concerto played by a group of soloists. The concertino consists of a jazz trio of electric guitar, soprano saxophone (doubling alto saxophone and bass clarinet) and drum kit. For the suite's orchestration, Turnage uses a mixture of orchestral and non-orchestral instruments, including instruments usually associated with jazz, as well as unusual instruments like synthesisers and scaffolding. The score calls for a large ripieno consisting of the following instruments:


Blood on the Floor has been described as a "third stream" piece: a fusion of classical and jazz styles. The suite uses jazz chords as its harmonic basis and displays aspects of non-functional harmony. Blood on the Floor is neither tonal nor atonal: some passages feature tonal ideas, but there is never a single key that represents a movement. Turnage contrasts thematic ideas with no transitions in between them, creating juxtapositions. Driving rhythms are found in many sections of the suite. Complex metres are used, and metre changes occur in almost every bar.
In terms of notation, the concertino parts include a mixture of notated music and space for improvisation. Improvisation forms a major part of Blood on the Floor and appears in four movements (II, V, VI and VIII). Although his works combine classical and jazz music—of which improvisation is a key part—this was the first time that Turnage integrated improvisation into one of his compositions.


Turnage employs musical motifs heavily throughout Blood on the Floor. In his 2008 Doctor of Musical Arts thesis, Matthew Styles identifies a total of eight motifs employed that appear in the prologue and reappear throughout the other eight movements. Styles argues that this use of motifs adds musical unity to the suite and fulfils "the idea of a prologue": to introduce themes found later in the suite. One motif used is a recurring glissando played by the brass and low woodwind, which appears in the first, fifth and seventh movements. Another motif featured is a chromatic melody similar to the one played by the soprano saxophone. This melody is played by the bass clarinets and horns, and features a "spinning" cycle of notes based around D♯ and E. It appears in the prologue and returns multiple times in the ninth movement, "Dispelling the Fears".


Each movement features different instrumentation and number of players. A full playing of the suite takes approximately 70–80 minutes.


The suite's prologue is scored for the orchestra and lasts for approximately eight and a half minutes. The prologue features offbeat rhythms played by the soprano saxophone in a rotation of five chromatic notes. The movement is based around the note E, which is rooted in bass instruments at each end of the movement. Chromatic progressions are a major part of the prologue, which along with irregular shaping and metre changes makes the movement have an unrelenting feel. For example, in bars 66–69, Turnage uses a progression of metres: 44 → 78 → 34 → 78. The loss of one quaver (eighth note) when changing to a 78 bar gives the music a stumbling feeling. When paired with an accentuated upbeat, this groove helps to reinforce the melody and move the movement forward. Reflecting this, the music critic Andrew Clements wrote that the prologue of Blood on the Floor "is perhaps the most uncompromising and unforgiving music Turnage has written to date".


This movement is scored for soprano saxophone, electric guitar and orchestra. "Junior Addict" is a wordless musical setting of the eponymous poem, written by Langston Hughes. The movement is in ternary form and lasts for approximately five and three-quarter minutes. "Junior Addict" opens with a theme played by the soprano saxophone, which has been described as a "very lyrical and haunting melody". This reflects the influence of Turnage's brother, whom the movement is dedicated to. The saxophone melody was later revisited by Turnage and used in the third movement of his 1994 composition, Two Elegies Framing a Shout. "Junior Addict" also features an electric guitar solo.


"Shout" is scored for the orchestra and lasts for approximately five and a half minutes. "Shout" both starts and ends with passages played by the scaffolding, which is used as an unpitched percussion instrument throughout the movement, usually paired with the horns. The movements uses a ritornello taken from the prologue, which is found near melodies played by the clarinets.


"Sweet and Decay" is scored for flutes, soprano saxophone and orchestra. The movement is approximately nine minutes long. "Sweet and Decay" originated from one of two sketches Turnage produced for his soprano saxophone concerto, Your Rockaby. The sketch was not used there, as Turnage thought that having two slow movements would be "overdoing it". In "Sweet and Decay", Turnage uses melodic cells set against a chordal background. The movement features solos from the saxophone and flute. At the end of the movement, Turnage instructs that there should be pause before "Needles" begins. This can be replaced with a full interval if wanted.


"Needles" is scored for a jazz sextet and five other performers (trumpet, two horns, trombone and bass clarinet). The movement is a variation of ternary form (AABA) and lasts for approximately four and three-quarter minutes. Out of all the nine movements, "Needles" reflects conventional jazz performances the most. The movement starts with a soprano saxophone head melody, which then progresses to sections of soprano saxophone and electric guitar solos. The brass section continually interrupts the latter solo. These interjections accentuate the offbeats, giving the section a jazzy, big band feel. This feeling is reinforced by the presence of a big band-style riff, played by the group of five performers. After the solos, the movement returns to another playing of the head.


"Elegy for Andy" is scored for electric guitar and orchestra. It lasts for approximately eight and a quarter minutes. The movement has an angular theme played by electric guitar, which creates a sense of unease. The angular feeling is created by Turnage's use of wide intervals of 7ths and 9ths. This guitar melody progresses into an improvisational section. "Elegy for Andy" incorporates musical quotations from a piece played by Turnage at his brother's funeral and Giacomo Puccini's Madama Butterfly. According to Clements, this movement is Blood on the Floor's "emotional heart".


The movement is scored for alto saxophone, trombone, drum kit and orchestra. "Cut Up" features a trombone solo that was described as "fiendish" by Aksel Tollåli of Bachtrack. The movement lasts for approximately six and a quarter minutes. "Cut Up" has a complex structure and has been variously labelled a variation on verse and refrain, rondo and ternary forms. The movement's form can be represented using letters as ABCDACEAFCA.


"Crackdown" is scored for a jazz trio of guitar, bass clarinet and drum kit. The movement is written in the jazz fusion style, and features improvised solos from all three members of the trio. "Crackdown" is the shortest movement in Blood on the Floor and lasts for approximately four and a quarter minutes. The movement is conventionally not conducted. It opens with a long improvised solo from the drum kit, which lasts for around two minutes. The solo has no metre. During the solo, the drum kit is asked to start pianissimo, before "gradually moving towards rhythmic stability". After the solo ends, the drum kit is instructed to support a funk groove. After solos from the guitar and bass clarinet, the drum kit continues, ending the movement softly.


"Dispelling the Fears" is scored for two trumpets and orchestra. The movement takes inspiration from Dispelling the Fears, a painting by the Australian artist Heather Betts, and is dedicated to her and her husband Brett Dean. "Dispelling the Fears" is taken from a previous concerto of the same name that Turnage had composed in 1994. It is the longest movement in Blood on the Floor and lasts for approximately fifteen and three-quarter minutes.
The movement's style is dissimilar to that of the other movements, bar "Sweet and Decay": instead of focusing on rhythmic modulations like the other movements, "Dispelling the Fears" is centred on slowly moving chords. Like "Sweet and Decay", the movement features use of cells instead of repeating melodic ideas. "Dispelling the Fears" uses previous themes encountered in Blood on the Floor: the chromatic saxophone melody from the prologue appears again, now appearing as one of the movement's main themes. It is joined by the chord progression from "Needles" which takes place during that movement's solos. The music played by the two solo trumpets has been compared to the style of Miles Davis.


Blood on the Floor was premiered in London in May 1996 at the Queen Elizabeth Hall. It was again performed by the Ensemble Modern at the Salzburg Festival in August 1997. The suite had its American premiere on 28 September 2001 at the Miller Theatre, New York, performed by the Absolute Ensemble under the baton of Kristjan Järvi. As the performance was following the events of the September 11 attacks, the concert almost did not take place due to the "provocative" nature of the music. However, the theatre's manager, George Steel, decided to allow the concert to go ahead, as he did not want "to infantilize the audience".
During his first month as principal conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic, Simon Rattle conducted a performance of Blood on the Floor in October 2002. The orchestra also held a workshop event for young musicians to play the suite; according to Franz Xaver Ohnesorg, who ran the event, "the Blood on the Floor project [gave] a chance to open up a dialogue with young people about drugs.
Blood on the Floor has become a frequently performed piece, often performed several times a year. Stefan Asbury conducted a Boston Symphony Orchestra performance of Blood on the Floor in the Seiji Ozawa Hall to close the 2006 Tanglewood Festival of Contemporary Music. Also in 2006, the suite received its Scottish premiere, conducted by Martyn Brabbins. Six years later, a performance by the Oslo Philharmonic saw Blood on the Floor conducted by Jonathan Stockhammer, with solo performances from Robertson, Erskine and John Parricelli. On 9 April 2021, the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra performed Blood on the Floor at the Hamer Hall, conducted by Fabian Russel. This was part of their Metropolis concert series, and featured solo performances from Carl Mackey (saxophone), James Sherlock (guitar) and Dave Beck (drum kit).
The British choreographer Wayne McGregor chose to use Blood on the Floor as the basis for his debut full-length ballet, L'Anatomie de la sensation. The ballet was influenced by Francis Bacon and premiered in July 2011 with the Paris Opera Ballet. During its run at the Opera Bastille, Turnage's score was performed by the Ensemble intercontemporain.


Blood on the Floor is commonly seen as Turnage's most extensive fusion of classical and jazz styles. The suite received a mixed reception from critics. Some critics, like Clements, praised the suite. In a review for The Guardian, Clements commented that in Blood on the Floor, "Turnage's use of rock and jazz elements [are] integrated much more thoroughly into the melting pot of his style" than prior compositions, and are "one of the foreground elements for the first time". In The Times, Ivan Hewett appraised how Turnage worked with jazz musicians to create a "truly collaborative piece". In a more mixed review for AllMusic, Richard S. Ginell said that "[...] this is definitely not easy listening entertainment" but considered it to be worth the listening effort.
Other critics took a dislike to the suite. Writing for The Daily Telegraph, Richard Wolfson considered Blood on the Floor a "clumsy attempt" at a fusion of classical and jazz music. Nick Coleman of The Independent agreed, questioning the nature of the work:


Is it possible to lose the funk in the bleak architectonics of [Turnage's] formal
composition? Or do we have to take it on trust, because Turnage is interested in "urban alienation" and wrote for American jazzers John Scofield and Peter Erskine in his Francis Bacon-inspired Blood on the Floor suite, that some kind of cold fusion has taken place between the tradition of Miles and Marvin and that of European art music?


The Boundary Fire was a 2017 wildfire in Arizona that burned 17,788 acres (7,199 ha) of the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests. The fire was ignited on June 1 when lightning struck a spot on the northeast side of Kendrick Peak within the Coconino National Forest. The fire spread rapidly because of high temperatures, steep terrain, leftover dead trees from a wildfire in 2000, and high wind speeds.
The winds blew smoke over local communities and infrastructure, leading to the closure of U.S. Route 180 from June 8 to June 21. Smoke was also visible from the Grand Canyon. The Boundary Fire burned out on July 3, 2017, after 32 days of firefighting. The cost of managing the fire was $9.4 million (equivalent to $11.5 million in 2023). Damage to the area's foliage increased the risk of landslides into 2018.


Wildfires are a natural part of the ecological cycle of the Southwestern United States, but human-induced climate change has caused them to increase in number, destructiveness, duration, and frequency. Fire suppression efforts can also have the contradictory effect of worsening the effects of fires that do occur. The Boundary Fire was one of 2,321 wildfires that burned 429,564 acres (173,838 ha) in Arizona in 2017. In a report released in April 2017, about a month before the fire, Arizona State Forester Jeff Whitney expected a typical season in the state's northern forests but one with high fire potential in the state's southern grasslands because of high temperatures, low humidity, and an abundance of fuels. Temperatures in Arizona were higher than usual through the 2017 season; on July 4, the National Weather Service stated that that year's June was the fifth-hottest recorded in the city of Flagstaff, which sits between the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests. According to the Arizona Department of Health Services, Flagstaff recorded temperatures of up to 93 °F (34 °C) between June 12 and June 27. By August, wildfires had burned the most land since the 2011 season.


The Boundary Fire was sparked when lightning struck the northeast slope of Kendrick Peak, within Coconino National Forest, at about 2:02 pm on June 1, 2017. The fire grew to 380 acres (150 ha) by June 6. Owing to the danger posed to firefighters by difficult terrain and leftover dead trees from the Pumpkin Fire in 2000, the United States Forest Service (USFS) decided to confine the Boundary Fire to a 15,000-acre (6,100 ha) area around the mountain and allow it to burn out naturally. Firefighters began creating firebreaks along roads in the area on June 6, especially to the west of the fire. On June 8, high winds fanned the fire over the firebreaks to its north and towards U.S. Route 180 (US 180), 2 mi (3.2 km) from the fire at that time. That night, fire managers closed US 180 as firefighters monitored the fire's spread. Smoke from the Boundary Fire drifted into communities surrounding the fire, such as Flagstaff, and was visible from the Grand Canyon, approximately 65 mi (105 km) north of Flagstaff.
By June 9, the Boundary Fire had grown to 1,550 acres (630 ha) and was burning along US 180 and within both Coconino and Kaibab National Forests. Fanned by strong winds on June 10 and 11, the fire swelled to 4,420 acres (1,790 ha) and was being managed by 261 firefighters. After June 12, reduced winds enabled the USFS to use aerial ignition, a form of controlled burn, to spread the fire uphill more quickly, reducing the damage to the soil from the fire. By June 14, the fire had grown to 5,784 acres (2,341 ha) and was being managed by almost 500 firefighters with aerial firefighting assets. Low wind speeds allowed ground crews and aerial assets to continue with controlled burns from June 15 to June 19, ahead of forecasted high temperatures in the following days. By June 19, the fire had burned 8,067 acres (3,265 ha). The next day brought light rain, cloud cover, and a higher humidity, which caused the fire to burn lower to the ground and consume detritus rather than foliage. Firefighters were able to secure fire breaks and private property, increasing the portion of the fire that was contained from 18% to 30%.
The visibility along US 180 had improved enough by June 21 to allow the Arizona Department of Transportation to reopen the road with reduced speed limits. On June 22, firefighters raised containment of the Boundary Fire to 42 percent despite high winds and temperatures that fanned it to 11,540 acres (4,670 ha). On June 23, the USFS stated that it believed the area closed by the fire could expand to 18,000 acres (7,300 ha), but made progress in containing its spread. By June 25, the fire had grown to 17,049 acres (6,899 ha) but was 88 percent contained, and temperatures dipped to 88 °F (31 °C). Aerial firefighting assets were temporarily grounded on June 25 because a civilian drone flew over the fire. The fire burned out on July 3.


The Boundary Fire burned 17,788 acres (7,199 ha) over 32 days and cost $9.4 million (equivalent to $11.5 million in 2023) to suppress. Of the total area burned, three percent suffered total foliage mortality. No structures were damaged or destroyed. Four evacuated civilians suffered injuries related to the fire. Almost 500 firefighters worked to contain and suppress the Boundary Fire at its height. Due to the smoke from the Boundary Fire and plans for a later prescribed burn, the USFS decided to quickly suppress the Government Fire when it ignited "a few miles away" in the same season.


Trails on Kendrick Peak did not reopen until September 14, 2017, because of the potential for landslides caused by heavy rains brought by the North American monsoon. The Kaibab National Forest Supervisor stated that the closure was prolonged to "allow the landscape to stabilize during the immediate post-fire period", particularly with the added monsoon conditions. Forest Road 149, near Kendrick Peak, was closed again in July 2018 because the area was at risk for landslides, as stabilizing foliage growth after the Boundary Fire had been slow in that area.
The base camp for fighting the Boundary Fire was located at a nearby fairground. When the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) visited the site for an audit on June 19, 2017, the camp was consuming 106 US gallons (400 L) of diesel fuel per day for lighting, electricity, and food preservation, as well as 2,250 US gallons (8,500 L) of water. The audit also found that 5% of the waste was recycled and all of the batteries were single-use.


The British government did not seriously consider using its nuclear weapons against Argentina during the 1982 Falklands War. The United Kingdom had ratified the Treaty of Tlatelolco which established a nuclear-weapon-free zone across Latin America in 1969 and made a commitment in the United Nations during 1978 not to use these weapons against non–nuclear powers. The strong international norms against the use of nuclear weapons also influenced British decision making. The British War Cabinet never contemplated the use of nuclear weapons but the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, may have done so separately when considering how she would respond to a serious defeat.
Four of the British Royal Navy warships which were sent to the South Atlantic following the invasion of the Falklands initially carried a total of thirty nuclear depth bombs as part of their standard armament. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Terence Lewin, wanted to retain them on the ships in case the Soviet Union became involved in the war but this was opposed by civilian Ministry of Defence staff. The War Cabinet decided on 8 April 1982 to have these weapons removed but reluctantly reversed this decision three days later due to the impracticality of offloading the depth bombs at that time. On 28 May, the War Cabinet decided that the weapons should be returned to the UK and many of them were shipped back before the end of the conflict. The presence of nuclear depth bombs in the naval task force was reported by journalists soon after the end of the war but not confirmed by the British government until 2003.
It was alleged during and after the war that the British ballistic missile submarine HMS Resolution had been sent to the South Atlantic to potentially attack Argentina. This has been denied by senior British government figures as well as Resolution's commanding officer. Historians have found no evidence of such a deployment. Nuclear-capable Avro Vulcan bombers were used in the war but were armed only with conventional bombs.
The British nuclear arsenal did not deter Argentina's invasion of the Falklands on 2 April 1982 as the Argentine government believed that the weapons would not be used. The Argentine government was unconcerned about the deployment of nuclear-capable British forces during the war. Experts have debated the implications of the war on whether nuclear deterrence prevents conflicts.

British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War


The Falkland Islands is an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean and a British Overseas Territory. The islands are located 8,000 miles (13,000 km) from the UK. Sovereignty over the Falklands has been disputed between Argentina and the UK since 1833. A crisis over the islands developed in early 1982. On 2 April that year, Argentine forces invaded and captured the Falklands. At this time they were defended only by a group of 70 Royal Marines and Royal Navy personnel. The British government decided to retake the Falklands and very rapidly assembled and dispatched a task force of Royal Navy warships to begin this process. The military campaign was very risky for the British as the forces which could be deployed to the South Atlantic were not significantly superior to the Argentine defenders and it was difficult to sustain them at such a distance from the UK.
After initial diplomatic negotiations failed, fighting began on 1 May. Further negotiations proved fruitless, and British forces landed on the islands on 21 May. Following a series of fierce battles the Argentine forces there were defeated and surrendered on 14 June 1982. Several Royal Navy warships were sunk by Argentine air attacks during the war.


The United Kingdom first tested a nuclear weapon in 1952 and began producing operational nuclear bombs from 1953. This made the UK the third country after the United States and Soviet Union to deploy these weapons. During the Cold War the British military was equipped with hundreds of nuclear devices. The size of the British nuclear arsenal peaked between 1974 and 1981 when it comprised approximately 500 nuclear warheads.
The British Armed Forces operated several types of nuclear weapons in 1982. A total of 100 warheads fitted to standard Polaris missiles and 35 fitted to missiles that had been upgraded through the Chevaline programme were carried by the Royal Navy's four ballistic missile submarines. The submarines comprised the British strategic nuclear force and were focused on deterring the Soviet Union. The Royal Navy was also assigned 43 WE.177A nuclear depth bombs; these were tactical nuclear weapons intended to be used against submarines. The Royal Air Force had 250 WE.177 bombs. In addition, the British Armed Forces had access to more than 150 nuclear warheads provided by the United States. Most of the American-owned warheads were assigned to the British Army of the Rhine that was stationed in Germany.
During the early 1980s many Royal Navy warships routinely carried WE.177A nuclear depth bombs. This practice had begun during the 1960s. The weapons had an explosive yield of 0.5 kilotons of TNT (2.1 TJ) and could be dropped from anti-submarine helicopters or Sea Harrier jet fighters. The Royal Navy considered the existence of the WE.177A nuclear depth bombs to be a sensitive issue and they were first officially disclosed as part of the 1981 Defence White Paper. The Navy had a policy of never confirming or denying whether specific ships were carrying nuclear weapons. The British Ministry of Defence had also never publicly commented on the whereabouts of nuclear weapons.


In 1967 the British government signed the Treaty of Tlatelolco which established a nuclear-weapon-free zone across Latin America and the nearby waters, including the Falkland Islands. The government ratified the treaty in 1969. Argentina also signed the Treaty of Tlatelolco in 1967 but had still not ratified it at the time of the Falklands War. Under the terms of the treaty, the UK was not able to use nuclear weapons against countries who had ratified the treaty. It also could not station these weapons in the Falkland Islands and its other dependencies in the South Atlantic or their territorial waters. Deploying nuclear weapons to other locations in the South Atlantic Ocean was not prohibited. Nuclear-powered ships, such as the Royal Navy's nuclear submarines, were outside the scope of the Treaty of Tlatelolco.
Prior to the Falklands War the British government had also provided a commitment not to use its nuclear weapons against countries that did not possess these weapons. In June 1978 the British government issued a "Negative Security Assurance" as part of a process overseen by the United Nations' Special Session on Disarmament. In this assurance the government stated that it would not use nuclear weapons against non–nuclear states unless any of these states attacked the "UK, its dependent territories, its armed forces or its allies" in "association or alliance with a nuclear weapons state". Argentina was a non–nuclear state at the time of the Falklands War. As the country had not ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons or the Treaty of Tlatelolco the British were not legally obliged to treat it as such.
The Argentine government knew that it was not protected from British nuclear attack under the terms of the Treaty of Tlatelolco. However, it believed that these weapons would not be used in response to an invasion of the Falklands. This was because there was a strong international norm against the use of nuclear weapons as a result of their devastating effects – often labelled the "nuclear taboo". The national security experts John Arquilla and María Moyano Rasmussen have observed that due to the "normative inhibitions against the threat" of using nuclear weapons "there is no evidence of the [Argentine] junta being intimidated" by the British nuclear arsenal. The Argentine government decided to invade as it believed that the British government was not strongly committed to retaining the Falklands and could not deploy sufficient conventional forces to recapture the islands at such a distance from the UK.


From the outset of the conflict the British government had no intention of using nuclear weapons. On 27 April Viscount Trenchard, the Minister for Defence Procurement, stated in the House of Lords that "categorically ... there is no question at all of our using nuclear weapons in this dispute". This statement was made to ensure that the British government's position on the matter was clear. An opinion poll conducted in the UK on 14 April 1982 found that 93 per cent of respondents opposed using nuclear weapons against Argentina and 5 per cent supported doing so. A key issue underpinning the government's and public's views was a perception that the use of these extremely powerful weapons would have been grossly disproportionate to the threat Argentina posed to the UK.
The British official historian of the Falklands War, Sir Lawrence Freedman, investigated post-war "suggestions ... that the nuclear option had been seriously considered" as part of preparing the official history during the early 2000s. He found that the possibility of using nuclear weapons may have been included in a very early draft of the options paper prepared for the British government following the Argentine invasion, but this had been removed well before the paper was completed and submitted to ministers. Freedman concluded that "I have found no references to any consideration of nuclear employment. This was never taken seriously as a realistic possibility". This finding is in line with comments made by the Chief of the Defence Staff during the Falklands War, Admiral Sir Terence Lewin, who had told Freedman in 1989 that "there was never any thought whatever of giving advice to the War Cabinet that nuclear weapons should be used. It never entered our remotest thoughts".
During the mid-2010s historians Peter Hennessy and James Jinks also looked into the claims that the British government had been willing to use nuclear weapons against Argentina. While endorsing Freedman's conclusion that the War Cabinet did not consider the use of nuclear weapons, they stated that the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, had probably done so separately. Hennessy and Jinks' source was the former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, Sir Michael Quinlan, who had stated in a 2013 BBC interview that Thatcher told him after the war that she would have considered using nuclear weapons had the British forces faced defeat.
The political scientists Todd S. Sechser and Matthew Fuhrmann considered this issue in 2017. They believe that the British government deliberately deployed nuclear-capable forces to suggest to the Argentines that these weapons could be used, though no preparations to do so occurred. They labelled Quinlan's comments about Thatcher "a stunning revelation".


The Royal Navy hurriedly assembled a force of warships in response to the Argentine invasion of the Falklands. It comprised ships stationed in the UK and some that were on exercises or operational deployments elsewhere. It prioritised preparation of the task force as quickly as possible so that it could limit the build-up of Argentine forces on the islands, leading to urgent efforts at the Royal Navy's bases in the UK and Gibraltar to stock the ships with supplies and dispatch them.
Several warships assigned to the task force were carrying nuclear depth bombs. The aircraft carriers HMS Hermes and Invincible had 16 and 10 WE.177A nuclear depth bombs respectively, representing the majority of the Royal Navy's holdings of these weapons. The frigates HMS Brilliant and Broadsword each carried two WE.177As. Three warships and three Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) support ships carried "surveillance round" or "training round" variants of the WE.177A. The surveillance rounds were inert WE.177As that were fitted with sensors to monitor conditions in weapons magazines. They did not include any nuclear material but were otherwise almost identical to live WE.177As. The training rounds were empty WE.177A casings which were used to practice handling nuclear depth bombs.
It was not feasible to remove the nuclear depth bombs before the warships sailed from Gibraltar and the UK between 1 and 7 April. The main issue which prevented this was the need for the task force be rapidly dispatched. While some of the nuclear depth bombs could have been offloaded from warships at Portsmouth, this could not be done covertly and the unloading process would disrupt work to prepare other ships to deploy given that all major activities needed to cease in a 270-metre (890 ft) radius while the weapons were being moved.
Lewin favoured retaining the nuclear depth bombs on board the ships. He did not believe that they would be necessary and had no plans for them to be used, but thought it was desirable to have the weapons at hand in case the Soviet Union intervened in the war and its submarines attacked the British force. Civilian staff in the Ministry of Defence disagreed with Lewin and advocated for urgent actions to remove nuclear weapons before the warships sailed. This in turn led to concerns among some admirals over civilians overriding military assessments.


The British War Cabinet debated what to do about the nuclear depth bombs. Thatcher and the ministers who made up the War Cabinet had not previously been aware that British warships routinely carried nuclear weapons. They disagreed with Lewin's views on the desirability of sending nuclear depth bombs to the South Atlantic and preferred that this not occur. The matter was considered at the War Cabinet's first meeting on 7 April. At this time its members wanted to remove the weapons before the warships entered combat as long as this could be done covertly so as to not disclose the whereabouts of British nuclear weapons. If the issue was raised in Parliament, the government would have confirmed that nuclear weapons would not be used unless circumstances significantly changed but not comment on whether the warships were carrying them. On 8 April the War Cabinet endorsed a proposal made by the Foreign Secretary, Francis Pym, that the nuclear weapons be removed.


Following the War Cabinet's decision on 8 April, consideration was given to options to unload the weapons from the warships at sea. One option involved transferring the active and inert depth bombs stored on board frigates to the aircraft carriers or RFA ships where they would be less vulnerable. Due to a shortage of ships, no RFA vessel was available to return the weapons to the UK at this time. Consideration was also given to offloading the depth bombs at Ascension Island in the South Atlantic when the task force arrived there. This was ruled out largely on the grounds of urgency, as the operation would delay the task force's departure from Ascension by up to 36 hours. The island was also ill-suited as it lacked suitable facilities for storing nuclear weapons or covertly unloading them from warships.
Due to the difficulty of offloading the nuclear depth bombs, the War Cabinet agreed on 11 April that they should be retained on board the task force's ships. This decision was made reluctantly. It was decided that all of the weapons would be stored on board the two aircraft carriers as they had the best protected weapons magazines. Thatcher stressed that the ships carrying nuclear weapons must not come within 3 miles (4.8 km) of the Falkland Islands as this could breach the terms of the Treaty of Tlatelolco. The nuclear depth bombs on board Brilliant were transferred to RFA Fort Austin on 16 April. The ship also received a surveillance round from the destroyer HMS Sheffield that day. The nuclear depth bombs on board Broadsword were offloaded four days later to RFA Resource. Both RFA vessels were large fleet replenishment ships that carried ammunition, food and other items. They were fitted to securely transport nuclear weapons.
The depth bombs were subsequently transferred to the aircraft carriers. Fort Austin's weapons were moved to Hermes on 9 May and some of Resource's to Invincible on 14 May. A training round was transferred from Invincible to Resource that day. The remainder of the nuclear depth bombs on board Resource and a training round were transferred to RFA Regent on 15 May before the former ship detached from the task force's aircraft carrier battle group to operate near the Falklands. On 17 May Regent received a surveillance round and a training round from Fort Austin and a surveillance round from the destroyer HMS Coventry. Regent returned the depth bombs and two surveillance rounds to Resource on 26 May before it began operating close to the Falklands.


The sinking of several British warships by Argentine aircraft in late May led to concerns over the consequences of a ship carrying nuclear weapons being attacked. The War Cabinet decided on 28 May that the nuclear depth bombs as well as the surveillance and training rounds should be returned to the UK. Due to operational demands this could not be achieved immediately. An assessment was made of the risks associated with keeping the weapons on board ships that might be attacked. It was concluded that there was no risk of the nuclear depth bombs exploding if the aircraft carriers were struck by Argentine Exocet anti-ship missiles, though it was possible that the ships would become contaminated with nuclear material.
The weapons on board Invincible were transferred to Fort Austin on 2 and 3 June. Fort Austin also received all of Resource's depth bombs and surveillance and training rounds as well as training rounds from Brilliant, the destroyer HMS Glamorgan and RFA Fort Grange on 3 June. The aircraft carrier battle group was operating to the east of the Falklands at this time. Fort Austin arrived in the UK on 29 June. Hermes' nuclear depth bombs and two training rounds were offloaded to Resource on 26 June. This was after the end of the war, and at this time Hermes was the only carrier operating near the Falklands as Invincible was undergoing a period of maintenance at sea 3,000 miles (4,800 km) to the north east of the islands. Resource reached the UK on 20 July. Both RFA vessels unloaded their cargos of nuclear depth bombs and surveillance and training rounds at HMNB Devonport on the day of their arrival in the UK. The weapons were then sent to storage facilities.
Seven of the containers holding active and inert nuclear weapons were damaged during transfers between the various ships. None of the weapons was affected and they were all found to be safe and serviceable after they arrived back in the UK.


Shortly after the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, the BBC World Service incorrectly reported that the nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarine HMS Resolution was operating off Argentina. Resolution was conducting a standard 72-day patrol in the North Atlantic at this time and her commanding officer and navigator were amused when they learned about the story. Family members of Resolution's crew who contacted the Navy about the report were told it was false. In August 1984 New Statesman magazine published an article claiming that the British government had considered using one of the Royal Navy's ballistic missile submarines to attack the mainland of Argentina. This article alleged that a Resolution-class submarine had been sent to operate near Ascension Island following the sinking of Sheffield in early May to bring its missiles within range of Argentina.
Supposedly, the British government intended to threaten Argentina with nuclear missiles or even make a demonstrative nuclear attack on Córdoba Province if a troop ship or aircraft carrier were sunk. The article stated that its source was the Labour member of parliament Tam Dalyell who claimed to have learned this from an unnamed Conservative member of parliament. The Conservative MP was probably Alan Clark, a backbencher. The British government strongly denied these allegations. The First Sea Lord during the Falklands War, Admiral Sir Henry Leach, stated that "we did not contemplate a nuclear attack and did not make any preparatory moves for such action" and that the ballistic missile submarines remained in their usual patrol areas. The claims were raised again in 1989 by the British academic Paul Rogers. In 2005 a psychoanalyst who had regularly met with French President François Mitterrand during the Falklands War claimed that he had told her that Thatcher had threatened to use nuclear missiles against Argentina unless France provided codes to disable Argentina's Exocet missiles.


Freedman investigated these claims in the early 2000s and judged that they were not justified. He did not find any archival evidence that indicated that a Resolution-class submarine had been sent to the South Atlantic. Freedman suggested that the Conservative MP who told Dalyell about the supposed deployment may have done so as "a mischievous test ... of the latter's gullibility".
The claims that a ballistic missile submarine had been deployed were also explored by Hennessy and Jinks as part of a 2015 history of the Royal Navy's submarine force. They interviewed Resolution's commanding officer at the time of the Falklands War as well as Admiral Sir Peter Herbert who had been the Flag Officer Submarines. Both were adamant that there had been no consideration of sending a ballistic missile submarine to the South Atlantic and that Resolution had completed a standard patrol in the North Atlantic. Hennessy and Jinks also dismissed the claims made by Mitterrand's psychoanalyst, noting that it is not clear what "codes" for Exocet missiles she was referring to.


Several of the Royal Air Force's Avro Vulcan bombers were used in the Falklands War. While these aircraft formed a key part of the UK's nuclear deterrent force, they operated during the war solely as conventional bombers. Flying from Ascension Island, Vulcans made seven attacks against Argentine forces in the Falklands during Operation Black Buck.
The British government did not consider making preparations for the Vulcans to use nuclear weapons during the Falklands War. However, it was aware that the aircraft were primarily considered nuclear bombers and this was noted as part of a Cabinet discussion on 14 April. The Cabinet also noted the desirability of the Argentine government being concerned that Vulcans would be used to attack the country's mainland, though the British had no intention of doing so. In 2017 Sechser and Fuhrmann suggested that "Britain may have exploited the aircraft's perceived atomic connection to intimidate Argentina".


The deployment of nuclear weapons–capable British forces to the South Atlantic did not cause the Argentine government to believe that the UK would use these weapons during the war. Argentine officials dismissed the wartime speculation over this issue. The Argentine government also considered it highly unlikely that the British would employ nuclear weapons if their forces were defeated in the Falklands. This was because of the "nuclear taboo" as well as an expectation that the Soviet and United States governments would have restrained the British had they threatened to use nuclear weapons. The Argentine government repeatedly claimed during the war that the UK had violated the Treaty of Tlatelolco by deploying nuclear submarines and ships carrying nuclear weapons to the South Atlantic.
The Soviet embassy in Argentina encouraged speculation following the sinking of Sheffield that the ship had been carrying nuclear weapons. It was also alleged that the British had raised nuclear depth charges from the wrecks of Sheffield and Coventry, with the Soviets helping to spread these claims. While both destroyers had deployed carrying surveillance rounds, they had been removed prior to their loss. British divers had operated on the wreck of Coventry, but this was to recover classified equipment. The depth of the ocean where Sheffield sank was beyond the reach of diving equipment.
A collection of letters from a Royal Navy officer who had been killed in the war was published in November 1982. In these letters he observed sighting what he took to be a dummy nuclear depth bomb on RFA Fort Austin. This revelation led at least one journalist to later confirm that nuclear depth bombs had been sent to the South Atlantic. The British government did not confirm or deny these reports, in line with its broader policy of not commenting on the deployment of nuclear weapons.
In response to Argentina's claims that the UK had violated the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the British government stated that it had not deployed nuclear weapons "within the Treaty's zone of application". The issue was debated at the May 1983 meeting of OPANAL, the regional nonproliferation agency that had been established under the Treaty. The countries who were parties to the Treaty adopted a range of positions on Argentina's claims. The resolution that was adopted at the end of the meeting stated that the participating countries "note with concern" Argentina's allegations and "take note" of the statement provided by the UK denying them. During the 1980s the governments of Argentina and Brazil also repeatedly claimed that the UK had stationed nuclear weapons in the Falkland Islands following the war. The British government rejected these allegations and stated it had no intentions of deploying nuclear weapons to the military facilities that had been constructed in the islands. The British provided an assurance that they would continue to abide by the Treaty of Tlatelolco.
The British Ministry of Defence first confirmed the presence of nuclear weapons on board British warships during the Falklands War in December 2003. This admission was made in response to repeated requests made by a journalist working at The Guardian. The President of Argentina, Nestor Kirchner, requested that the British government "ask our forgiveness" for sending nuclear weapons into the South Atlantic. He also said that the revelations had not harmed the relationship between Argentina and the UK. Specific details of the deployment of nuclear weapons during the Falklands War were revealed as part of the British official history that was published in 2005.


Following the Falklands War British ministers considered whether Royal Navy warships should continue to routinely carry nuclear depth bombs. It was reported in 1985 that the government was reluctant to authorise this due to its concerns over the practice. Eric Grove, a naval historian and defence analyst, wrote in 1987 that it had been decided to "keep the stockpile [of nuclear depth bombs] ashore during peacetime". In contrast, defence commentator and historian Norman Polmar stated in 2007 that Royal Navy ships continued to carry nuclear depth bombs until the weapons were retired in 1993.
The Royal Navy maintained its policy of not confirming or denying whether individual ships were carrying nuclear weapons following the war. The Australian government, which had a policy of not allowing nuclear weapons on Australian territory, refused permission for Invincible to be repaired in a graving dock at Sydney during December 1983 when the British declined to comment on whether it had nuclear weapons embarked.


Experts have discussed why the British nuclear arsenal did not deter Argentina from invading the Falkland Islands. The Indo-Canadian political scientist T. V. Paul commented on this issue in the conclusions of a 1995 article focused on the implications of non-use of nuclear weapons in the Falklands and Yom Kippur Wars. He observed that "mere possession of nuclear weapons need not deter a non–nuclear state from launching a conventional attack against the nuclear-armed state if the initiator believes that it can wage a limited war without provoking a nuclear response" and that nuclear deterrence may only be effective in "circumstances in which the nuclear-weapon state's existence is at stake". Jeremy Stocker, a fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, similarly wrote in 2007 that such weapons "will not deter lesser adventurism where the use of nuclear weapons would be disproportionate and so not credible as a deterrent – for example, the 1982 Falklands War". In 2017 Sechser and Fuhrmann gave the Falklands conflict as an example of a nuclear-armed country failing to coerce a non-–nuclear nation.
The conflict has also been cited as part of broader debate over whether nuclear weapons have the capacity to deter wars. The American philosopher Douglas P. Lackey wrote in 1984 that "British nuclear threats did not prevent seizure of the Falkland Islands" as part of a section of a book in which he asserted that nuclear weapons made no difference to the outcomes of international crises and wars. In 1989 Evan Luard, a British international relations writer and former Labour member of parliament and Social Democratic Party politician, reached a similar conclusion. He stated that while international relations theories hold that the ability of nuclear weapons to deter conflict is greatest when one country has them and the other does not, the Falklands War was one of several examples that demonstrated that this was not actually the case. In 2008 the American researcher and anti-nuclear campaigner Ward Wilson argued that the Falklands War was one of a number of conflicts that demonstrated that nuclear weapons do not deter wars. Derrin Culp, who is also an American researcher, authored an article in 2012 critiquing Wilson's views. As part of this, he judged that nuclear deterrence did not fail during the Falklands War as the British government had never indicated it would use these weapons if the islands were invaded.


Brochfael ap Meurig (ruled c. 872 – c. 910) was king of Gwent in south-east Wales. He ruled jointly with his brother, Ffernfael ap Meurig. Gwent and Glywysing, the neighbouring territory to the west, were ruled as a single kingdom in some periods; at other times they were separate and the king of Glywysing had the higher status. Brochfael's father, Meurig ab Arthfael, ruled both territories with the title King of Glywysing, but Brochfael and Ffernfael were only kings of Gwent, and had a lower status than their cousin Hywel ap Rhys, King of Glywysing.
The Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales, but in the late 880s Brochfael, Ffernfael and Hywel submitted voluntarily to Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians. A number of Brochfael's charters survive, mainly grants to Bishop Cyfeilliog and settlements of Brochfael's disputes with the bishop. Brochfael was the last of his line and was succeeded by Hywel's son, Owain ap Hywel.


The boundaries and names of Welsh kingdoms varied over time in the early medieval period. In the seventh century, south-east Wales was a single kingdom called Gwent, but by the ninth century it had been divided between Glywysing (later Morgannwg and Glamorgan) in the west and Gwent in the east, with the king of Glywysing having the higher status. From the early ninth century, Mercia, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom on the eastern Welsh border, claimed hegemony over most of Wales.
In 878, King Alfred the Great of Wessex defeated the Vikings at the Battle of Edington and around the same time King Ceolwulf of Mercia defeated and killed Rhodri Mawr (Rhodri the Great), the powerful king of the north Welsh Kingdom of Gwynedd. Rhodri's sons soon recovered their father's power. In 881 they defeated Ceolwulf's successor as ruler of Mercia, Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, at the Battle of the Conwy. This victory was described in Welsh annals as "revenge by God for Rhodri".


Brochfael acceded to the throne of Gwent in around 872. He and his brother Ffernfael ap Meurig were sons of Meurig ab Arthfael. Historians of Wales do not agree on Meurig ab Arthfael's death date. Thomas Charles-Edwards thinks that he may be the Meurig whose death is recorded in the Annales Cambriae under 849, but Wendy Davies argues that 874 is more likely and dates his reign as c. 848 – c. 874 or c. 850 – c. 870.
In early medieval Wales, it was common for brothers to share the kingship, and in his Life of King Alfred, written in 893, the Welsh monk Asser describes Brochfael and Ffernfael as kings of Gwent. They are both listed in the twelfth-century Book of Llandaff as witnesses to charters together with their father, but Ffernfael does not have any surviving charters of his own, whereas several show Brochfael as a royal grantor and witness, so Ffernfael may have been subordinate to Brochfael.


Brochfael and Ffernfael were joint kings of Gwent, and their cousin Hywel ap Rhys was king of Glywysing. The kingship of Glywysing had a superior status, and Hywel was probably an over-king allowing his cousins to rule Gwent. He gave more grants in Gwent than Glywysing, whereas Brochfael's grants were confined to Gwent. In the previous generation, Davies (followed by Charles-Edwards) states that Brochfael's father Meurig ab Arthfael gave grants in both territories, and that he ruled them both as king of Glywysing. The historian Patrick Sims-Williams dissents, arguing that the charters placing Meurig in Glywysing were forged, and that he had no power outside Gwent.


Æthelred's defeat at the Battle of the Conwy in 881 ended Mercian domination of north and west Wales, but he violently tried to maintain his rule over the south-east. Alfred the Great, King of the West Saxons, became the competitor of Mercia for the allegiance of the south-eastern Welsh kings, and Æthelred's oppression drove them to voluntarily submit to Alfred and seek his protection. Æthelred himself soon followed in abandoning the attempt to maintain his independence and submitted to the West Saxon king.
In his Life of King Alfred, Asser listed Brochfael among Welsh kings who submitted to King Alfred:


At that time [late 880s], and for a considerable time before then, all the districts of right-hand [southern] Wales belonged to King Alfred, and still do. That is to say, Hyfaidd, with all the inhabitants of the kingdom of Dyfed, driven by the might of the six sons of Rhodri [Mawr], had submitted himself to King Alfred's royal overlordship. Likewise, Hywel ap Rhys (the king of Glywysing) and Brochfael and Ffernfael (sons of Meurig and kings of Gwent), driven by the might and tyrannical behaviour of Ealdorman Æthelred and the Mercians, petitioned King Alfred of their own accord, in order to obtain lordship and protection from him in the face of their enemies.


Charters in the Book of Llandaff show Brochfael in his early years witnessing his father's charters, and later making grants as king. In about 868, King Meurig surrendered the church at Tryleg and returned it to Bishop Cerennyr in the presence of Brochfael and Ffernfael. Like other Welsh kings, Brochfael had large landed estates, and he made several grants to Bishop Cyfeilliog of land and fishing rights on the coast of the Severn Estuary. Grants to Cyfeilliog between the 890s and 920s were all of land in Gwent, and Brochfael was the main grantor.
Charters also record Brochfael's disputes with Cyfeilliog. One disagreement concerned a church with three modii (about 120 acres or 50 hectares) of land which Brochfael gave to his daughter, described as "a holy virgin", to support her in her religious life. When she died around 910, Brochfael attempted to recover his donation, but Cyfeilliog claimed the property and judgement was given in his favour and endorsed by Brochfael. The historian Lester Little comments that this episode saw Brochfael "in a relatively docile mood". Earlier, in about 905, there was a disagreement between Brochfael's familia (household) and Cyfeilliog's. Brochfael insulted Cyfeilliog, who threatened to excommunicate him and his family. Once again, Brochfael backed down and apologised. Cyfeilliog was awarded an "insult price" in puro auro (in pure gold) of the worth of his face, lengthwise and breadthwise. Brochfael was unable to pay in gold and instead paid with six modii (about 240 acres or 100 hectares) of land at Llanfihangel.


Brochfael died in the early tenth century, but the exact date is unknown. Davies dates the end of his rule as c. 910, and Charles-Edwards thinks that Glywysing and Gwent were probably ruled as a single kingdom by Hywel's son Owain ap Hywel by 918. Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in a section probably compiled in the 1050s, states that in 927, Owain, king of the people of Gwent, was one of the British rulers who submitted to Æthelstan, King of England. Davies states that the royal line descended from Meurig ended with Brochfael.


"Can't Catch Me Now" is a song by American singer-songwriter Olivia Rodrigo from the soundtrack to the 2023 American dystopian action film The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes. Rodrigo co-wrote the song with its producer, Dan Nigro. Geffen Records released it as the soundtrack's second single on November 3, 2023. A folk rock and chamber-folk ballad driven by acoustic guitars, the song has lyrics about vengeance and the narrator's inescapable presence in the subject's life, inspired by the film's plot.
Music critics praised Rodrigo's ability to make folk-influenced music and her vocal performance on "Can't Catch Me Now", comparing its sound to the ballads on her own albums. The song received several awards and nominations, including winning Hollywood Music in Media and Gold List awards. It was nominated for Best Song Written for Visual Media at the 67th Annual Grammy Awards and was shortlisted for Best Original Song at the 96th Academy Awards. In the United States, the song debuted at number 56 on the Billboard Hot 100. It reached the top 30 in Australia, Ireland, Lithuania, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.
Leonn Ward directed the music video for "Can't Catch Me Now", which intersperses scenes from The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes with clips of Rodrigo singing the song in a cabin and a grass field. She performed the song at the KIIS-FM Jingle Ball and on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Rodrigo included it on the set list for some dates of her 2024 concert tour, the Guts World Tour. Kelly Clarkson performed a cover version of the song for The Kelly Clarkson Show in April 2024.


Dan Nigro – the sole producer of Olivia Rodrigo's debut studio album, Sour (2021) – returned as her principal collaborator on the follow-up album, Guts (2023). It included some indie folk songs, with lyrical themes like heartbreak, body image, and social and adolescent anxieties. The album was released to critical acclaim in September 2023. The songs on the albums were autobiographical, reflecting Rodrigo's approach to songwriting like a diary entry.
In 2022, Rodrigo was approached to preview the American dystopian action film The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes and potentially write music inspired by it. A fan of the books and the soundtracks from the franchise, she considered it "such an honor". Rodrigo was stimulated by one of the final scenes in the movie, an aerial view of birds weaving in and out among trees, which she kept thinking about repeatedly and believed was the "climax". She felt a connection to the character Lucy Gray Baird, portrayed by Rachel Zegler; Rodrigo and Nigro wrote the song "Can't Catch Me Now" from her perspective, with the intention of capturing the scene. Rodrigo enjoyed the challenge of writing from a movie character's point of view, describing it as "sort of acting" and "character work", but she also believed parts of the song were about herself: "I think I injected parts of myself into it too. I saw bits of myself in her; I admired her resilience, so I tried to embody all that and put it into the song." Nigro nudged her to experiment with new musical styles on it as well.
On November 1, 2023, Rodrigo's hotline began playing a short clip of "Can't Catch Me Now" on repeat. The same day, Lionsgate announced that the track would serve as the official song for the film, at a promotional event in Times Square which was attended by its actors Zegler, Tom Blyth, and Josh Andrés Rivera. Alongside a 60-second trailer of The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes, which featured the song, Rodrigo revealed it would be released two days later and expressed her excitement about the opportunity to write for the film. Geffen Records made "Can't Catch Me Now" available for pre-order as the opening track on the film's accompanying 2023 soundtrack album, from which it served as the second single. The song was also released on the 7-inch vinyl format on November 3.


"Can't Catch Me Now" is 3 minutes and 25 seconds long. Nigro produced and mixed the song, and he engineered it with Dylan Waterhouse. Nigro played guitar, keyboards, bass, and Mellotron; Paul Cartwright conducted the string arrangement and played viola and violin; and Chappell Roan provided the background vocals. Randy Merrill mastered the song.
"Can't Catch Me Now" is a folk rock and chamber-folk ballad driven by acoustic guitar instrumentation. The song opens with that instrument as the sole accompaniment to Rodrigo's voice and subsequently includes strings. She harmonizes with herself on it, which Stereogum's Chris DeVille described as "piercing". "Can't Catch Me Now" employs a melody which gradually rises to a slow crescendo, and the intensity escalates when Rodrigo belts the titular line over orchestral instrumentation: "You can't, you can't catch me now." Her voice ascends while singing the line "Coming like a storm into your town." The song ramps up and reaches an intense climax, after which Rodrigo sings the final line with "an open, unresolved cadence", according to Consequence's Carys Anderson and Jo Vito.
The lyrics of "Can't Catch Me Now" are written from Lucy Gray Baird's perspective, inspired by the plot of The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes. They are about vengeance and the narrator's inescapable presence in the subject's life. The first verse describes scenes like snowfall and mountains, as the narrator wonders that the subject probably expected them to become less furious over time. In the chorus, they taunt the subject that, despite being everywhere, the latter would not be able to capture them: "But I'm in the trees, I'm in the breeze / My footsteps on the ground / You'll see my face in every place / But you can't catch me now." Rodrigo then sings "Coming like a storm into your town", which Steffanee Wang of Nylon interpreted as a reference to Lucy Gray Baird. During the song's conclusion, Rodrigo alludes to the film again: "Yeah, sometimes the fire you founded / Don't burn the way you'd expect / Yeah, you thought that this was the end."


Music critics were positive about "Can't Catch Me Now" and believed its folk-influenced production suited Rodrigo. Vanity Fair's Rob Ledonne described the song as emotional and compelling, noting that it showcased her talent in folk music and marked "one more step towards Rodrigo's world domination". Alex Hopper of American Songwriter believed it was alluring, shocking, and "one of her most interesting songs to date". Though he thought "Can't Catch Me Now" represented a change in Rodrigo's sound, it also felt natural of her and Nigro.
Critics believed "Can't Catch Me Now" resembled the ballads on her own albums, and Billboard's Jason Lipshutz opined it formed an earnest addition to the soundtrack and her discography. Some reviewers, like Anderso, Vito, and The New Zealand Herald's Alana Rae, praised Rodrigo's vocal performance. Liberty Dunworth of NME called her voice "haunting", and Wang believed it "soars into the treetops". Ledonne, Anderson, and Vito thought the melodies were luxurious, and others described the acoustic instrumentation as intense.


"Can't Catch Me Now" received awards and nominations. The song won the 2023 Hollywood Music in Media Award for Best Original Song in a Sci-Fi, Fantasy or Horror Film, and in 2024, the Gold List award for Best Original Song and the Society of Composers and Lyricists Award for Outstanding Original Song for a Dramatic or Documentary Visual Media Production. It received nominations for Best Original Song at the 2023 North Carolina Film Critics Association and the 2024 Gold Derby Film Awards, as well as the 2024 Guild of Music Supervisors Award for Best Song Written and/or Recording Created for a Film and Best Song Written for Visual Media at the 67th Annual Grammy Awards. "Can't Catch Me Now" was shortlisted for Best Original Song at the 96th Academy Awards, but it was not nominated.


"Can't Catch Me Now" debuted at number 56 on the US Billboard Hot 100 issued for November 18, 2023. In Canada, the song peaked at number 42 on the Canadian Hot 100 issued for December 2, 2023, and was certified platinum by Music Canada. It reached number 12 on the UK Singles Chart. "Can't Catch Me Now" received a gold certification in the United Kingdom from the British Phonographic Industry, and the Official Charts Company declared it her 16th-biggest song in the country in February 2024.
In Australia, "Can't Catch Me Now" charted at number 23 and was certified platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) for selling 70,000 equivalent units. The song entered at number 15 in New Zealand and received a gold certification from Recorded Music NZ. It peaked at number 43 on the Billboard Global 200. "Can't Catch Me Now" also reached the top 50 at number 5 in Ireland, number 25 in Lithuania, number 37 in Norway, number 44 in the Czech Republic, number 45 in the Netherlands, and number 50 in Slovakia. The song received gold certifications in Belgium, Brazil, and Poland.


Leonn Ward directed the music video for "Can't Catch Me Now", which was released on November 13, 2023. The cinematic video intersperses clips of Rodrigo with scenes from The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes. It begins with a camera tracking shot being guided inside an isolated cabin, where she performs the song on a guitar while perched on a bed. After strolling through the cabin, Rodrigo leaves it and runs through a field of grass in a white dress during the bridge. She also sings the chorus during this sequence: "You'll see my face in every place / But you can't catch me now." Scenes depicting Blyth and Zegler portraying their characters play out simultaneously. In the final scene, sunlight falls upon Rodrigo.


Rodrigo performed "Can't Catch Me Now" live for the first time at the KIIS-FM Jingle Ball on December 1, 2023. USA Today's KiMi Robinson remarked that even though the song was only a month old at the time, the fans sang along as if it had been out for much longer, and iHeartRadio's Sarah Tate thought it "continued to build energy and defiance" during her set. Ten days later, Rodrigo reprised the song on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Clad in a white slip dress, she initially sat on a stool amidst bare trees and a fog-covered set before standing to deliver the chorus with a backing band of four musicians and singers in the shadows. Gil Kaufman of Billboard believed the theater was filled with electrifying pop energy. Rodrigo included the song on the set list for some dates of her 2024 concert tour, the Guts World Tour. Miami New Times's Celia Almeida considered it a highlight of the show.
Kelly Clarkson covered "Can't Catch Me Now" on The Kelly Clarkson Show on April 25, 2024, in an olive green cargo dress with her hair styled in soft waves. She was supported by a vocalist providing harmonies and a team of instrumentalists. Writing for Billboard, Rania Aniftos described it as "flawlessly delivered".


Dan Nigro – producer, songwriter, mixing, engineer, guitar, keyboards, bass, Mellotron
Olivia Rodrigo – songwriter
Paul Cartwright – string arrangement, viola, violin
Dylan Waterhouse – engineer
Chappell Roan – background vocals
Randy Merrill – mastering


Costello's (also known as Tim's) was a bar and restaurant in Midtown Manhattan, New York City, from 1929 to 1992. The bar operated at several locations near the intersection of East 44th Street and Third Avenue. Costello's was known as a drinking spot for journalists with the New York Daily News, writers with The New Yorker, novelists, and cartoonists, including the author Ernest Hemingway, the cartoonist James Thurber, the journalist John McNulty, the poet Brendan Behan, the short-story writer John O'Hara, and the writers Maeve Brennan and A. J. Liebling. The bar is also known for having been home to a wall where Thurber drew a cartoon depiction of the "Battle of the Sexes" at some point in 1934 or 1935; the cartoon was destroyed, illustrated again, and then lost in the 1990s. A wall illustrated in 1976 by several cartoonists, including Bill Gallo, Stan Lee, Mort Walker, Al Jaffee, Sergio Aragonés, and Dik Browne, is still on display at the bar's final location.
The bar was founded in 1929 as a speakeasy on Third Avenue by brothers Tim and Joe Costello, who had emigrated to the United States from Ireland. Tim was known as an affable, intelligent proprietor with an interest in literature. In the early 1930s, the bar moved to the corner of East 44th Street and Third Avenue, before moving one door away on Third Avenue in 1949. The bar moved to its final location at 225 East 44th Street in 1974. Costello's closed in 1992; the Turtle Bay Café took over the space, operating until 2005. Since then, the location has been occupied by a sports bar called the Overlook. The bar is remembered through the stories that have been told about it over the years. The writer John McNulty is credited with creating a mythology around Costello's—which he called "this place on Third Avenue"—through a series of short stories published in The New Yorker in the 1940s.


Tim Costello (September 5, 1895 – November 7, 1962) and his brother Joe opened the eponymous Costello's (also known as Tim's) in 1929 (during prohibition) as a speakeasy—a bar illicitly selling alcohol—in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. It was located on Third Avenue near the East 44th Street intersection and under the Third Avenue El. Tim and Joe were born and raised in Ferbane, Ireland, to James and Teresa (née Flynn), who owned a drapery shop. As a young adult, Tim worked as a taxi driver in Dublin. He was arrested in 1922 for dangerous driving, sentenced to three months in prison, and fined £10 (equivalent to $690 in 2023). Tim emigrated to the United States in 1927; in transit, he met his future wife, Kathleen Gordon. Tim was known as an affable, intellectual proprietor, who was knowledgeable about literature, opinionated about art, and often well-dressed in a Brooks Brothers suit.
After the 1933 repeal of the prohibition of alcohol in the United States, Costello's moved to 701 Third Avenue, on the corner of Third Avenue and East 44th Street. From opening at 701 Third Avenue through World War II, Costello's and its neighbor P. J. Clarke's "were the great egalitarian mixers of New York", according to a 1976 story in The New York Times, where "chauffeurs, ice-men, taxi drivers and hod carriers" dined and drank with writers, journalists, and artists. Contributors to The New Yorker, columnists and reporters for the New York Daily News, correspondents with the Associated Press and United Press International, and cartoonists for Yank Magazine, as well as people working in the Madison Avenue advertising industry, were attracted to Costello's because of its proprietor's literary knowledge and charm. The journalist John McNulty, a regular at the bar, described it as "somewhat dim and dusty" and "run in a catch-as-catch-can style, with no efficiency at all". Other notable regulars included the author Ernest Hemingway, the cartoonist James Thurber, the poet Brendan Behan, the short-story writer John O'Hara, and the writers Maeve Brennan and A. J. Liebling. In 1949, Costello's moved one door south to 699 Third Avenue.


When Tim died in 1962 at the age of 67, his son Timothy Costello inherited and continued operating the business. In the 1970s, Costello's began to change along with the neighborhood, which was being developed by larger businesses and facing increasing rents. By 1972, Costello's was no longer a gathering place for authors and journalists; rather, according to Timothy Costello, it catered to businesspeople, whom he referred to as "technicians". The bartender John Gallagher said that many of their customers worked on Wall Street. Through the 1970s, however, some Daily News journalists continued to frequent the bar.
 Costello's was evicted from 699 Third Avenue in 1973 because the building's owners intended to tear the building down; the Times reported that a spokesperson for the building's owner said "Yes, ... it's too bad about Costello's." Despite claiming that he could not afford rent in the neighborhood, Timothy Costello reopened the following year at 225 East 44th Street. Costello's closed in the morning of February 29, 1992, in part as a result of the early 1990s recession. Later that year, a dive bar called The Turtle Bay Café moved into the location. The bar was frequented by diplomats, United Nations employees, and the cast and crew of the soap opera Guiding Light. 225 East 44th Street has been occupied by a sports bar called the Overlook since 2004. Regarding the closure of Costello's, the wines and spirits journalist Robert Simonson observed: "How quickly the character drains from things in 21st-century New York."


Costello's was decorated with illustrations that were painted and drawn directly on the walls by several notable cartoonists, including James Thurber, Bill Gallo, Stan Lee, Mort Walker, Al Jaffee, Sergio Aragonés, and Dik Browne. At some point from 1934–1935, when Costello's was located at 701 Third Avenue, Thurber illustrated the walls, depicting the Battle of the Sexes. The journalist Jacquin Sanders described the cartoons as black and white illustrations that were "full of large, angry women, small, cowed men and regretful dogs".
There are several conflicting accounts of when and how Thurber completed the cartoon. The New York Times journalist Murray Schumach wrote that he borrowed the keys to the bar and painted the cartoon in one day in the winter of 1935. Susan Edmiston and Linda D. Cirino reported that, one night, he drew the cartoon in 90 minutes. By contrast, the Times journalist Robert Tomasson stated that Thurber worked throughout 1934–1935; he would arrive to the bar late at night, working from booth to booth, and in the morning, the walls would be varnished to preserve the illustrations. The cartoon was accidentally destroyed when painters hired by Tim Costello painted over them. Thurber then again illustrated the wall with a similar cartoon. In 1949, that section of the wall was removed and moved to the bar's new location at 699 Third Avenue. On April 8, 1972, several cartoonists who had worked for Yank Magazine during World War II restored the illustrations. The Thurber cartoons were brought to the bar's final location at 701, where they were only occasionally displayed. The Thurber cartoons disappeared in the 1990s.
In 1976, two years after Costello's moved to its final location, Timothy Costello enlisted the cartoonist Bill Gallo, who was then president of the National Cartoonists Society, to illustrate one of the walls. Gallo initially declined because he "didn't want to compete with Thurber". Eventually, he struck a deal with Costello to close the bar and provide free food and drink for the approximately 40 cartoonists who contributed to the wall, including Stan Lee, Mort Walker, Al Jaffee, Sergio Aragonés, and Dik Browne. The wall features characters such as Hägar the Horrible, Beetle Bailey, and Spider-Man. In 2005, the cartoonist Bill Kresse called the wall the "Sistine Chapel" of the National Cartoonists Society.
When the Overlook took over the lease in 2004, there was fear that the cartoons would be removed during renovations. The Overlook's owner denied that they had intended to remove the cartoons; instead, they preserved the cartoons—including old graffiti—under glass. Gallo and two dozen other cartoonists returned in 2005 at the invitation of the Overlook's owner to illustrate a corner of the bar. In 2009, the wines and spirits journalist Robert Simonson wrote that the 2005 illustrations "feel like wan attempts to recapture a more glorious artistic past", noting that each of the characters had been given dialogue advertising the Overlook.


Costello's is a part of the stories and mythologies of several writers. John McNulty wrote about the discussions and happenings at the bar, which he called "this place on Third Avenue", in the 1940s in a series of short stories for The New Yorker. In those stories, McNulty recorded the bar's customers and staff, their doings, and their discussions. The journalist Thomas Vinciguerra called McNulty's short stories "rambling yarns with titles as long and shaggy as the stories themselves". According to the journalist George Frazier in Esquire, "there were those New Yorker writers who considered it unthinkable to hand in their manuscripts to the magazine before getting [Tim Costello's] approval".
In one oft-repeated story about Costello's—which was recorded in The Oxford Book of American Literary Anecdotes—in the spring of 1944, Ernest Hemingway and John O'Hara bet $50 (equivalent to $893 in 2024) that Hemingway could not break a blackthorn cane over O'Hara's head. Hemingway then proceeded to do so. The cane was allegedly a gift from John Steinbeck, who was reportedly "disgusted by the incident and lost any personal admiration he had for Hemingway". The two halves of the broken cane were displayed over the bar until Costello's closed.


The Cross Temple (Chinese: 十字寺; pinyin: Shízì sì) is a former place of worship in Fangshan, Beijing. The temple was used during different periods by Buddhists and early Chinese Christians. Though it was originally built as a Buddhist temple, some scholars hypothesise that it saw Christian use during the Tang dynasty (618–907). The temple was used by Buddhists during the Liao dynasty (916–1125) and by Christians during the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368). It returned to Buddhist use during the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), before being sold in 1911. It was first recorded in modern scholarship in 1919, damaged during the Cultural Revolution, and re-established as a national-level protected site in 2006. Some scholars consider it to be the only place of worship of the Church of the East (also known as Nestorian Christianity) discovered in China.
Today, the site features two ancient steles, as well as groundwork and the bases of several pillars. The steles date to the Liao and Yuan dynasties, but their inscriptions were tampered with during the Ming. During the early 20th century, two stone blocks carved with crosses and other patterns were also discovered at the site, with one of them also bearing an inscription in Syriac. The blocks are presently on display at the Nanjing Museum.


According to a Liao dynasty (916–1125) stele at the temple site, a Buddhist monk named Huijing (惠靜) began building the temple in 317—the first year of the reign of Emperor Yuan, founder of the Eastern Jin dynasty (317–420). In 639, during the Tang dynasty (618–907), a monk named Yiduan (義端) re-furnished the temple. The scholar Wang Xiaojing proposed that the author of the Liao stele was mistaken, and the temple was actually built during the Later Jin dynasty (936–947). The monastery's name during the Jin and Tang periods is not known.


After the Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, his followers went into the Sasanian Empire and joined the Church of the East. The Church of the East later sent missionaries into Central Asia, Arabia, and India, and established metropolitan bishoprics along important cities along the Silk Road leading to China. In 635, the Christian monk Alopen reached Chang'an (modern Xi'an), the Tang capital. According to the scholar Nicolas Standaert, Nestorian Christian communities were "relatively numerous" during the Tang dynasty, particularly in cities with much foreign trade, but these communities were "probably not extremely important". In 845, Emperor Wuzong of Tang initiated the Huichang persecution of Buddhism. Although the emperor mainly intended to suppress Buddhism, he ordered monks of all foreign religions, including Nestorian Christianity, to return to laity. Around the same time, the Tang lost control over modern northwestern China and the routes between China and Central Asia were severed. Although Buddhism rebounded from the persecution, the Church of the East in China disappeared from China along with most other foreign religions.
One of the primary sources of Nestorian Christianity in the Tang dynasty is the Xi'an Stele. It was made around 781 with its text written by the Nestorian monk Adam. The text contains Christian doctrines, a history of the Church of the East in China since 635, various praises, and a list of members of the clergy in China. It was discovered near Xi'an in the 1620s.
Central Asian Nestorian Christians moved to northern China during the 12th and 13th centuries, although it is unlikely that they had any connection with the Tang dynasty Nestorian Christians. In the early 13th century, when the Mongols conquered northern China, some of these Nestorian Christians took administrative positions. In the same time period, the Church of the East also established new metropolitan provinces along the trade routes to China. The Mongol-ruled Yuan dynasty (1271–1368) put Nestorian churches and hierarchy under its governmental administration: the office of Chongfu Si (崇福司; 'Administration of Honoured Blessing') was established in 1289 to oversee Nestorian clergy and practices, and its inaugural administrator was a Nestorian Arab named Isa. Christianity in China declined again after the fall of the Yuan dynasty. The Nestorian missionaries in China probably departed together with the former Mongol rulers, converted foreigners and foreign traders, when they were expelled from China. The records of the following Ming dynasty (1368–1644) do not mention any descendants of Yuan Christians. According to the scholar Qiu Shusen, most Yuan-era Nestorians were Central Asians of the Semu caste, who later assimilated into the dominant Han culture during the Ming and no longer practised their western religions. This ultimately led to the disappearance of Nestorian Christianity in China.


Some scholars suggested that the Cross Temple may have belonged to the Church of the East in China during the Tang dynasty (618–907). The Japanese scholar P. Y. Saeki speculated that believers fleeing from the Tang capital of Chang'an (modern Xi'an) to Youzhou and Liaodong during the 9th-century Huichang persecution began using the temple. Tang Xiaofeng pointed to inscriptions on the Liao stele as an indication that Christian crosses were present at the temple prior to the Liao dynasty. In addition, Tang claimed that another text written by Li Zhongxuan in 987 indicated a Nestorian presence in Youzhou. However, British sinologist Arthur Christopher Moule believed that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Church of the East in China reached Beijing before the 13th century.


During the Liao dynasty (916–1125), the Cross Temple was called "Chongsheng Yuan" (崇聖院; 'Hall of the Honoured Saint'). Buddhists rebuilt it during the reign of Emperor Muzong of Liao, but the exact date of rebuilding is unclear. The Liao stele on site refers to the tenth year of Emperor Yuan's reign, which corresponds to 960. However, it also states "Bingzi" (丙子) as the year's sexagenary cycle—an ancient Chinese system of recording years. These two statements do not align, differing by a span of 16 years. The Liao stele does not indicate any relationship between the site and Christianity, and it is believed that Chongsheng Yuan was a Buddhist temple. The scholar Xu Pingfang held that Nestorian activities at the site commenced only after Buddhist activity had ended. Xu also believed that the errors in the stele text were not likely made by the original authors, but by Ming people who re-carved the steles.


Nestorian Christianity spread throughout the area after the Mongol capture of the Jurchen Jin capital of Zhongdu (near modern Beijing) in 1215. Under the Mongol-Yuan regime, Beijing had a metropolitan bishop. There are several theories on how the Cross Temple, located outside of Beijing, came into Christian use during the Yuan dynasty. Wang hypothesized that a Nestorian passed by Fangshan, discovered the abandoned temple, and turned it into a monastic retreat. Tang Xiaofeng and Zhang Yingying suggested it is also possible that the Cross Temple was rebuilt during this period.
Rabban Sauma (c. 1220 – 1294) was a Uyghur Nestorian Christian monk born in Beijing during the Yuan, who travelled from China to Baghdad. According to a contemporary record, the young Sauma became an ascetic for seven years on a mountain a day's journey outside of Beijing. Moule conjectured that the Cross Temple was probably near Sauma's hermitage. Shi Mingpei argued that the description of Rabban Sauma's hermitage is "extremely similar" to the Cross Temple and its surrounding terrain "according to records", and in 2011 Tang Li asserted that Rabban Sauma came from the site.
Wang estimated that Nestorian Christians had abandoned the site before 1358. This was the date when Buddhist monks began rebuilding the temple, a project which was completed in 1365. According to the Yuan stele, a Buddhist monk named Jingshan (淨善) initiated the reconstruction because he dreamed of a deity in his meditation, and then saw a shining cross on top of an ancient dhvaja at the temple site. The stele gives the names of the temple's major benefactors as the prince of Huai Temür Bukha, the eunuch-official Zhao Bayan Bukha (趙伯顏不花), and the minister Qingtong, with the inscription itself being made by Huang Jin. In 1992, Xu Pingfang suggested that Temür Bukha would have been familiar with Nestorian practices because his grandmother Sorghaghtani Beki was a Nestorian. He might have requested that the Buddhist temple continue to use the name "Cross Temple" when it was rebuilt, and that its Nestorian artefacts be preserved. However, modern scholars generally consider that the inscription on the Yuan stele is a forgery done during the Ming dynasty, and that the information regarding the Yuan benefactors is false.
Wang suggested that the official name of the temple during the Yuan period was "Chongsheng Yuan". She further argued that the Han Chinese population at the time used the term "cross temple" to refer to Nestorian churches in general, and that Nestorians at the time would not have called it "Cross Temple". However, because the name "Cross Temple" was simple and direct, local residents began to use it after the arrival of the Nestorians.


Nestorian Christians continued to have a presence in northern China during the early Ming dynasty. Around 1437, some Nestorian monks visited the Yunju Temple, which is also in Fangshan, and left a record. The Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci (fl. 1582–1610) was told by a Jewish informant that there was a Nestorian population in northern China during the early Ming. Ricci was told that the Chinese Nestorians were keeping their religious identity a secret, but they still referred to a former Nestorian church as the "Cross Church".
In 1535, the site was rebuilt by a Buddhist monk named Dejing (德景), supported by local villagers and the family of Gao Rong (高榮), a nephew of the powerful Ming eunuch official Gao Feng. During reconstruction, the inscriptions of the Liao and Yuan steles were altered—with the building officially known as the "Cross Temple" by this time.
During the Qing dynasty (1644–1912), in the History of Fangshan County (房山縣誌) compiled around 1664, the Cross Temple was briefly mentioned. It was listed along with other Buddhist temples in the county. In his Yifengtang Jinshi Wenzi Mu (藝風堂金石文字目; 'Index of Texts of Bronze and Stone Inscriptions by Yifengtang') written in 1897, Miao Quansun included the text of the Liao stele. Around 1911, the Buddhist monks sold the temple and the surrounding lands.


An early mention of the Cross Temple in Western academic context appeared in The New China Review in July 1919, where H. I. Harding noted the temple's existence near Beijing and that its name could have potential links with Christianity. In the same year, the Scottish diplomat Reginald Johnston discovered the site while seeking shelter from a thunderstorm. In October 1919, Johnston published an article about the site entitled "A Chinese Temple of the Cross", writing under the pseudonym "Christopher Irving".
The scholar P. Y. Saeki visited the site in 1931, and recorded that most of the site's buildings still existed at that time. Saeki noted that there was a Shanmen entry (a type of entry hall of Buddhist temples), followed by the Hall of Four Heavenly Kings. Beyond the hall, there was a courtyard with two gingko trees, and the Liao and Yuan steles were next to each tree. The courtyard had a kitchen and a dormitory for the monks to its right and another dormitory to its left. The Main Hall of the temple was at the end of the courtyard, and it contained three statues of the Buddha. A 21st-century study stated that the Shanmen building was 17.5 m (57 ft) south of the Main Hall, with dimensions 7.08 m × 11.24 m (23.2 ft × 36.9 ft).


During the Cultural Revolution, the two steles were knocked down and broken into pieces. In the 1990s, the Beijing branches of the China Christian Council (CCC) and the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) rebuilt the site's walls. In 2006, its ruins were designated as a Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level.


Some scholars consider the Cross Temple to be the only place of worship of the Church of the East discovered in China. It is located near Chechang Village (车厂村) in the Zhoukoudian Area, Fangshan District, to the southwest of Beijing City. Its grounds are 50 m (160 ft) across from east to west, and 45 m (148 ft) across from north to south. It is surrounded by walls on four sides, with entrances in the north and south. After severe rain in 2012 damaged the site and the walls, gutters and surveillance cameras were added.
No buildings remain standing at the site of the Cross Temple. There is some groundwork at the north and west parts of the site, where the Main Hall and the dormitory of the Buddhist monks once stood. The Main Hall site has dimensions 11.32 m (37.1 ft) from north to south, and 19.6 m (64 ft) from east to west. There are pillar bases scattered the ruins of the Main Hall, and remnants of stairs in front. In front of the Main Hall, there are two ginkgo trees: one ancient and one new. The newer tree was planted to replace another ancient one, which was destroyed by fire. There is a footpath between the trees. On the southern part of the path, there is a Yuan dynasty stele, and a Liao dynasty stele is to its east. To the south of the Yuan stele, there are some hardly noticeable marks of the Shanmen building. A replica of the Xi'an Stele was added to the site during the early 21st century, placed in front of the north wall.