::::Great, fine, no problem.  Change the article.  I have no problem should you introduce cited, backed up research.  If Hull is wrong, say so, but back it up with credible sourced material proving your case- don't just blunder in, delete and overwrite valid material in context with insane phrase eg. "King of Britain".  

It is startling however, how having seen the East German files on the matter, you neglected to enter that into the article beforehand.  Instead, you only turned your attention to the article after I had worked on it.  Can you explain your reasons for suddenly remembering this East German material now?  Perhaps to take the heat away from your hack of edits from the edit summary?