@ Jack, Ohio, This came from an article in the UK Independant newspaper 2004 "Victor Rothschild, third baron and former chairman of the London bank, N M Rothschild, always maintained that Nathan had made a killing by encouraging rumours that Wellington had lost when he knew he had won, though the historian Niall Ferguson in his magisterial history of the family recently disputed that." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-rothschild-story-a-golden-era-ends-for-a-secretive-dynasty-756388.html Now why would Niall Ferguson dispute that when the information supposedly came from a Rothschild?