The video(s) comes after a long process of study, and is not a scholarship work by itself. It intends to just bring images matching the characters and the historical periods for the laymen in a time as short as possible. Look, the three first beasts of Daniel 7 are described in just one verse each, despite there are many details to decode. Evidence can be discussed in a forum, not in a video covering the whole end times calendar (about 60 years + 1,000 years) with so numerous details.
But again, put your feet in the shoes of the prophets for a while. They are not provided with a course in 'future' history (lol), just glimpses of situations, events and characters. Visions are extremely short.
FIRST DANIEL'S BEAST
Dan 2:4
“The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a human being, and the mind of a human was given to it.
The Duchy of Britanny (or Brittany) coat of Arms comes from here:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duché_de_Bretagne
File:Ardamez Dukelezh Vreizh.jpg — Wikimedia Commons
This is the first coat of Arms of the Duchy of Britanny, as far as I know. Why is this specific coat of Arms showed to Daniel? Because the angel wants us to link Britanny to Britannia due to the root of the name of the kingdom the angel wants to speak about (GB), even if the dates are not accurately matching, and even if the Duke of Normandy (future William I) temporarily owned this Duchy through alliances. What matters here are the strong links between France and UK. So, this coat of Arms is a masterpiece because it unveils the starting point in history of the four beasts, just at the beginning of the second
'Day of God' (beyond the year 1,000), and because Britanny was really lost before the end of the full Norman / Plantagenet dynasty period
(I watched until...), the (use of) coat of Arms of which perfectly corresponds to the period before the Hundred Years War.
If you check many works in heraldry in wikimedia commons there are a lot (~95%) of
'own works'. This doesn't mean that they are the figments of the authors' imagination. For example Mael Vreizh,
'author' of the Duchy of Britanny reproduction, is a specialist of old monuments and Arms in Britanny:
Mael vreizh 1
Mael vreizh 2
Look at this coat of Arms of Princess Diana (again:
'own work'):
Princess Diana' coat of Arms
The griffin is on the right side and is full of the specific Britanny' s ermines. The official British royal coat of Arms of the present monarch has
Britanny's ermines (also called
'fleurs de lys') in the mantling:
British royal coat of Arms
In this page, it is also specified:
'own work'.
SECOND DANIEL'S BEAST
Dan 7:5
“And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, ‘Get up and eat your fill of flesh!’
Coat of Arms of Henry VIII:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Henry_VIII_of_England_(1509-1547).svg
You certainly noticed that the dog on the right side of this coat of Arms is not the bear describing Henry VIII. The bear was the closest animal looking like his appearance and behavior. This is the only exception among the four beasts of Dan 7 because THIS king got back the King David's supreme spiritual authority over his people in UK, due to his direct bloodline link to him. This move (making himself the Head of the Anglican Church) was a milestone for the following British kings (and queens) who remained the Heads of that specific church until today (what was not obvious at the scale of history).
The very point of the
'ribs' is their biblical meaning. The ONLY reference is in Genesis where
'rib' means
'woman'. In the Henry VIII's case, the three ribs are in the bear's mouth, between his teeth. This supports the idea of death rather than birth. There have been ONLY three wives, among six, who brutally died (as if eaten by the bear) while STILL being married to him, and due to his orders (coming from the mouth: two executions, one reckless birth follow up).
Regarding the
'flesh', the end of the verse says: '
It was told, ‘Get up and eat your fill of flesh!'
What matters here is
'GET UP' as in
'RAISE'...as
'HEAD of your own church'! What, precisely, makes him different from the other beasts, hence the second beast depicting the man (bear) rather than the dynasty. That is even why his father (Henry VII) is mentioned as
'one of its sides', hence ONLY one king before the bear. Again,
'eat' is related to death, not birth. So, to raise as the head of his church, he had to make war against the Catholics who plotted against him. He and his descent survived as a third dynasty thanks to this move, what was a key point, of course, for the whole future of the British royal destiny. Hence the personification of the bear.
THIRD DANIEL'S BEAST
Dan 7:6
“After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.
Coat of Arms of the Stuart - Scottish kings of UK (1603-1649):
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Scotland_(1603-1649).svg
The same (Britanny's ermines and
'own work') for the Scottish version.
I started with wikipedia and ended with several books speaking about heraldry, all confirming that the difference between lion and leopard FIRST comes from the position of the head.
Leopard in heraldry
The leopard in heraldry is traditionally depicted the same as a lion, but in a walking position with its head turned to full face, thus it is also known as a lion passant guardant in some texts, though leopards more naturally depicted make some appearances in modern heraldry. The Oxford Guide to Heraldry makes little mention of leopards but glosses leopard as a "term used in medieval heraldry for lion passant guardant. Now used for the natural beast."
In the same link:
the distinction between lions (which were constantly rampant) and leopards (which were necessarily walking) originated in French heraldry and was brought into English heraldry along with so much else of English language and custom deriving from French traditions.
So, the French tradition says:
Leopard in French heraldry
En héraldique, le lion et le léopard désignent le même animal, mais avec une position de tête différente.
- Avec la tête de profil, c'est un lion.
- Avec la tête de face, c'est un léopard. [with a head turned to full face, it is a leopard]
La position du corps n'influe pas sur le nom [the position of the body does not influence the name], mais les deux « jumeaux » ont des positions préférées [preferred positions]:
ainsi le lion est « rampant » (debout), le léopard est « passant » (allongé).
In other words,
only the position of the face matters between lion and leopard. Nevertheless:
Le léopard rampant (c’est-à-dire regardant de face, mais en position dressée) peut être blasonné léopard lionné.
So, the
'lioned leopard' is a leopard in a walking position.
The Stuart dynasty has had only four legit kings (four heads).
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 ).
The four wings on the leopard's back are the four hairs on the tail behind its back, looking like those of a small bird.
At last, Scottish kings UNEXPECTEDLY ruled over England
(authority to rule).
.png "Sad :sad1:")
I will refrain from using enlarged red texts. .png "Feeling Weird :feelweird:")
Tell me if I need to re-post the red parts. .png "Ok :ok:")
