2023-05-04
Coronations are rare events of singular importance in legal religious traditional and indeed even revolutionary terms.
But simple it isn't - every one of us may have a view, sincerely held, based upon different aspects of the historical viewpoint, that essentially may range from "history is bunk" to "history is the final arbiter". But - whose version of history is to be believed?!
So by way of illustration (and it should be noted, a measure of light entertainment), we investigate the rather limiting viewpoint that a successful coronation MUST be based upon the use of a "genuine" biblical relic that, given the passage of time and the consequent opportunity for corruption of both the message and the relic itself (not to mention the acknowledged inclination of humanity toward both mischief and error), a sane person might reasonably conclude that the genuineness of both the message and the relic cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt.
That being the case, a reasonable person may conclude that no monarch could be considered to be genuine or otherwise merely because of the part played (or not) by the relic. Such a position would open the way for legal chaos should the genuineness of the relic in question somehow be disproven ....
(16 minutes)
Like / Dislike this video here.
So you've heard it all now, right?
Wrong! Very wrong! There is more! Much more!
"Charles refused to be crowned on the real coronation stone as that would [confirm] other prophesies that the British Crown has been illegitimate for 440 years ... "
(13 minutes)
Like / Dislike this video here.
Yes, there is more still ...
(26 minutes)
Like / Dislike this video here.
