I'm sure the people that built Stonehenge would have been happy to see the monarch installed by a religion that vilified and criminalised Celtic pagans projected on their monuments.
I'm not sure that's a historical analysis that makes sense the monarchy was installed by William the conqueror on an already Christian country and he did it by killing anyone who disrespected him.
another point is that the Britons (who were as much Romans as Celts at that point) were Christians when the Anglo-Saxons took over with the Saxons being norse pagans at the time
Christianity and colonialism weren't aquainted just yet and Christianity did not spread to the Roman world the way it did Africa
Why is Britain so complicated :meow-tableflip: (But also thank you)
That Island is a shit show lmao. Its been invaded and settled by so many different groups, from the Romans to the Anglos to the Vikings to the Normans. Shits wild
Its been invaded
Sure you know this, but pushing back on the "Anglo-Saxon invasion" idea. Lotta scholarship argues that it was a haphazard migration and not a coordinated invasion like Rome or the Normans.
I did also say and settled there, but yes you're right the Anglo-Saxon migration wasn't really invasion. Its funnier to pretend Britain was invaded 4 seperate times in the span of 1000 years though
Remind me to tell ya about the migrations and settlements of the Irish in west Scotland and Wales and their relationship with Picts in Ulster, and Saxon kings sometime
Calling the Anglo-Saxons "Norse Pagans" is a bit misleading. The Germanic religions were definitely all related, but the Norse branch was distinct from the Anglo-Saxon branch.
Not that this really changes your point, just being a bit pedantic.
Yeah, the Norse kingdoms in the UK were competing with the Christianized Saxons.
Tbf, the "western tradition" holds anglo christians to be the ideological descendents of the romans.
Maybe but I would take it more seriously if it was pasted onto a Hindu temple or a Mosque as the Celtic religion was more or less killed off by the Romans
Tbf Stonehenge is like 5000-3600 years old between its different iterations. The religion of the people who built it is long dead even if modern pagans use it. Its far more of a collective cultural site that no one group can lay claim to.
Still stupid to put the queens face on it to be sure
Not to make this seem like a history gang-up, but Celts also didn't build Stonehenge. The site in part dates back around 3,100 BCE, at the latest the last parts added 2,000 BCE. So this thing predates not just Christianity, but the Romans, and the Celts presence in the area. The British Iron Age is around when Celts arrived, earliest 800 BCE.
Just wanted to make clear the sheer ancientness of the site, it not only doesn't belong to the Crown (well literally it does but you know what I mean), it has no direct heir. Not the druids, not the Romans, not any neo-pagans, it is sorta everyone's and no one's
This is how they start the rites to extend her lifespan, again, right? First this, then the human sacrifices.
So they're just using Stonehenge as a funnel to get all that 'rona extracted life energy into her. Got it!
@corgiwithalaptop is that you in the 4th image from the left? :scared:
That is one of my comrades! Come join my PPW against the queen and we will liberate the corgi brethren!
Yes, the time has come to free the corgis! They have been captive for far too long.
:loads-rifle-with-corgi-intent:
The Yakubian extraterrestrials who built that really aren't gonna be happy
