Hmmm. I think there may be a difference between french and english terminology in heraldry. I will look futher into it. Heraldry is fast becoming my new big thing.
As far as I can make out, lions have manes and leopards don"t. Or at least that's what the pictures seem to show.
Have you seen a book called The Art of Heraldry? Its available on archive.com. Very beautiful, lots of illustrations. Worth a look.
Good for you to continue your research in heraldry. Nevertheless, what I said is still true.
I know someone who is descended from the tudor, Henry vii, even, maybe Henry viii (if you count catherine carey). So if they turn out to be descended from the biblical kings that would be fascinating.
Sure! Maybe I will have time to address that topic. Maybe not.
Regarding the ribs, it could be argued that the instruction in older sources 'arise and devour much flesh' is given to the ribs, the children of the beast. And of course they did, as these were the monarchs who lit the pyres of the heretics.
One can argue about a lot of things. I gave my interpretation...which perfectly matches the second beast's description. Rib = woman is Genesis. 'Rib' is provided nowhere else. And the three ribs are in the mouth of the bear. That's a given.
I am not impugning Mael Vreizh in any way, but without a source that image is meaningless. If it exists it must be sourced somewhere.
Sure, it should be sourced somewhere. Like all the other coats of Arms with the mention
'own work', that is 90 to 95% of the files in wikimedia commons. At least, this griffin is the best interpretation of the first beast's initial symbol with a creature being a lion AND an eagle (which is not the case of the 'usual' Babylonian creature often people serve us), for which a reason exist for the wings of the eagle to be torn off (unlike the Babylonian creature) since the lion remained in the English and British royal coat of Arms, the name of the country (Britannia / Britain) of which derived from.the name of the Duchy (Britanny) from which is the said griffin.
My 'research' (if you can call it that) did not confirm yours, in any great way. It simply showed that H8 used his fathers coat of arms, and that his own, when he took them, were different. No dog. Lion instead.
Dogs are quite rare in heraldry.
You are just reading into the facts what you want to hear. This is a flaw that runs through all of your work that I have seen. You give over proportionate weight to small things becaue the fit your theory, and ignore labe ones that don't. This cherry picking of history is bad practice.
Not a lion, a red dragon instead. The lion is on the left side, replacing the red dragon (remember that all the supports used for the beasts descriptions are all on the right side). I used the coat of Arms with the Greyhound (
Coat of Arms of Henry VIII ) to link the son (Henry VIII, the bear) to the father (Henry VII). It doesn't matter if Henry VIII changed his' since he, himself, is the bear I said to be the closest animal creature describing him, physically and psychologically. This is not cherry picking at all.
Otherwise, you also have these ones:
Coat of Arms of the kingdom of England used by Henry VIII
Coat of Arms of Henry VIII of England
These other coats of Arms could also explain why the bear is the man himself, and not one of the supports of those coats of Arms.
Why doesnt your theory use an actual bear? I would have thought that the badge of Warwick The Kingmaker was perfect. And of course that was such a trerribly turbulent time, that led, eventually, to the reign of the tudors.
Because:
Daniel 7:17
‘The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth.
Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, the kingmaker, never was king. That's why. In addition, the four beasts are THE FOUR UNINTERRUPTED British royal dynasties.
Poor Prince Harry... He gets a raw deal, but he has a better head of hair than his brother.
Well, this doesn't change the prophecies. Note that the souls switch with Satan will be a last minute change in late 2022. Harry will be a good person until then.
With regard to the second half of the 1/5 video, regarding the 4 broken off horns. These you say depict the break up of the british empire. You seem to just pick 4 arbitary countries that suit you best. You ignore all the other countries we won and lost because they do not suit your
theory. Again, the cherry picking. What about Egypt for instance?
Your video shows the African colonies, simply (it seems) for the purposes if a visual similarity with a picture that you chose BECAUSE of its visual similarity.
Again just more cherry picking..
Maybe you were not attentive enough when you watched the video. I explained that these four Nations (UK, India, Pakistan and Israel) are also called
'horns' from the main
'horn between the eyes' which broke off because THEY DID NOT EXIST BEFORE the splitting of the British Empire, UNLIKE the other countries, hence the four winds of heaven, aka the four religions of these four countries (note that even the NEW UK changed due to the splitting of Ireland). Again, this is not cherry picking. THIS IS STICKING THE THE LEAST DETAILS.
And by the way, what is this weird obsession with the royal family? Your country could have had one too, but you decided to kill them instead.
Just people. heads come off like anyone elses. Your country proved it.
I am not the one who decided UK to be the 'New Israel' where come Daniel's four beasts, the Two Witnesses, Christ (and his parents the woman giving birth and the red dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns, linked to John's FIRST beast) and the antichrist, aka Satan incarnated, linked to John's SECOND beast. So, there is no obsession but a PROPHECY...which is not mine.
Oh! and whats the problem with William iii? You just cast him aside as 'not legit' without any reasoning. Is there a reason? or did he just get left out because he doesnt fit?
William III was not a legit king. He just married Mary, the legit queen. But queens are never mentioned in the prophecies. The texts are clear. THIS IS JUST ABOUT KINGS, the legit kings from an uninterrupted royal dynasty (even if there were family leaps between dynasties, the very reason of those different dynasties:
British royal family tree ).
Will try and look at the 2/5 today, if I have time.
I see you once had all this as a book, but it is no longer avaliable. What a shame!
THE BIBLE PROPHECIES EXPLAINED AT LAST
ERIC JULIEN
What happened? Did your prophesies fail to come true?
Thanks to continue to proceed with the video(s). The book, like I said, is not properly finalized. The prophecies are still valid...MORE THAN EVER...