Yes, very true!

Genuine question: how do we know it WAS meant to represent a human rather than, say, a bear, or some mythical creature?

I suppose trees and plants aren’t safe for kids in certain situations (like eating them or falling out of them - most learn not to do these things), they could chop/dig things that really bothered them? But I admit I am on the side of trees, and think they’re nice things for children to be around!

Personally I would very much rather a garden with trees, privacy and places for wildlife! Besides, if someone wants to buy your house they can easily change the garden to lawn, but it would take a long time to recreate what you have if that’s what they prefer.

I worked for the BBC about 20 years ago. One of the sessions in the induction was on how we needed to appeal not just to Guardian readers but also to Daily Mail readers. They’ve certainly gone above and beyond their ambitions in the last two decades.

I saw the Romance of Alexander manuscript today in the brilliant Bodleian Treasures exhibition - open on a different page (I didn’t notice any fish) but just stunning.

This podcast covers it in more detail, across several episodes: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/t...

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b...

It is excellent. I picked up a copy a few years ago quite by chance, from a second-hand bookshop in a cafe in a plant nursery in a tiny village in the English countryside. An entirely unexpected, happy discovery!