[LouieFisk]

"Houghton M. - - LouieFisk; A newspaper article from the Times of London, Oct. 9, 1963, using the term Republic of Kenya."

I was addressing the WND article's lack of information on what "appeared to be" identical. If WND has Kenyan BCs from that time, even give or take a month, which makes usage of "Republic Of Kenya" it would solidly address the question in specific due it's singular nature.

Whether this document is authentic or not, we still do not know,

Yeah, I'm taking a wait & see view, the facts will come out sooner or later. Interesting to kick around in the meantime, tho.

but the use of “Republic” does not prove it false.

On the other hand, if it's the only BC in the history of Kenya using the "Republic Of Kenya" at that time, it's my thinking it should be considered quite suspect.

[LouieFisk]

Oops that last comment should read "if it's one-of-a-kind with 'The Republic Of Kenya', then it's singular nature should be suspect".

[Mount Athos]

Actually if you check Houghton M.’s source, there is a small error in his representation of it.

The Times of London does not call kenya the “Republic of Kenya”, and that term isn’t in the article. It said that the opposition leaders were announcing their intent to form a “Kenyan Republic”, and they would summon a leader to become its president.
Which they didn’t...

3 months later, they passed a constitution that made the Queen of England their head of state. They didn’t become a republic, nor have a president, until 15 months after this article was published.

It doesn’t matter really, because BP found that a seperate territory of Kenya outside of Kenyan territorial bounds (coastal province, leased from zanzibar?) considered itself a republic before the country did, and that’s the one in question for this document. Confused yet?