“THE ANTICHRIST AND A CUP OF TEA”
AN HONEST EVALUATION OF THE BOOK BY TIM COHEN
By: Stephen J. Spykerman
MOUNT EPHRAIM PUBLISHING
Is Prince Charles ‘REALLY’ the Anti-Christ?
When I first heard the premise that Prince Charles was the anti-Christ, I laughed my head off at the ridiculous suggestion. He thus joins an illustrious band of people starting with Benito Mussolini and Adolph Hitler, Henry Kissinger, Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole and Bill Gates to mention just a few. A more recent candidate was George W. Bush, whilst the very latest figure reputedly is Barack Hussein Obama. Then as time went on to my utter astonishment I kept coming across people who actually believed Prince Charles might be the one. The premise of Prince Charles’ candidature was first popularized in Tim Cohen’s book titled somewhat facetiously: “The Anti-Christ and a Cup of Tea!”
Some time ago I had a brief glance at Tim Cohen’s book on Monte Judah’s Lion and Lamb Ministries Messianic website. I immediately noticed some glaring inaccuracies such as the statement that Prince Charles controlled the agricultural food supplies throughout Europe. The truth is that Prince Charles owns the Duchy of Cornwall, a large agricultural estate of some 128,000 acres spread variously over the counties of Cornwall, Devon and Dorset in the South West of England. His annual income from this agricultural holding is a matter for public record and is some $21,000,000, upon which he has to pay tax like any other citizen. In effect it is a most puny and paltry sum compared to the mega-sized food and agricultural industry of Europe, which is measured in multiples of hundreds of billions per year. Prince Charles’ effect upon European agriculture is precisely nil comma nil, as he is merely one amongst millions of European farmers, the only difference being that he has more land than most of them. That said, there are still individual farmers, as well as farming combines in Europe with far greater landholdings than Prince Charles. Other glaring factual inaccuracies were statements that Rome was the parliamentary headquarters of the European Union, when every European citizen full well knows the EU Parliament is based in Strasbourg, France. Another glaring mistake was to refer to the European Common Currency as the Euro Dollar, when the whole world knows it’s simply called the EURO.
Recently, I received an email on the subject from a dear brother who seemed confused about the issue, which prompted me to have another look at Tim Cohen’s sensational claims against a man who by his very position is not able to defend himself. The truth is that anyone saying or even implying that Prince Charles IS the anti-Christ is guilty of outright slander. Therefore, I decided to have a look this time at some of Cohen’s claims on the heraldry of the Coat-of-Arms of the Prince of Wales, on which he puts such a high store in his book. Once again I found his work to be littered with inaccuracies, so much so, as to leave his claim totally discredited. Below is a list of some of the more glaring inaccuracies (blatant lies), as well as misquotes of Scripture which I found in his presentation on the Arms of the Prince of Wales.
1st lnaccuracy: Tim Cohen states that the lion in the Coat-of-Arms (C-o-A) is totally unique in heraldry, even differing from that of his mother Queen Elizabeth II in that his Lion has four claws. The truth is that there is nothing unique about the Prince’s lion having four claws because the Royal Arms of his mother the Queen shows the same lion also with four claws.
(Coat of Arms of Prince Charles of Wales)
(Royal Regiment of Wales)
2nd lnaccuracy: Tim Cohen states that Charles’ lion has the mouth of a lion, the body of a leopard and the feet of a bear and he then connects this to the scripture about the anti-Christ in Revelations 13:2. The irony is that both lions featured in both the Coat-of-Arm’s, of Charles’ and his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, are identical. It is farcical to say that Charles’ lion has the body of a leopard, as what you see is the representation of a lion and nothing else. To use Rev. 13:2 in this context is a blatant misuse of Scripture.
3rd lnaccuracy: Tim Cohen interprets the standard heraldic device for “the eldest son,” as being a representation of “three horns, “plucked up by the roots” (i.e. turned upside down). Here he is either betraying his absolute ignorance, or he is deliberately twisting the facts to fit his warped premise, as in heraldry this device DOES NOT REPRESENT THREE UPTURNED HORNS, as in this particular case it simply represents ‘the eldest son’ and nothing else. The principle behind the mark in heraldry is called cadency, which is concerned with succession, and this symbol or label is used to mark the Arms of the ‘Heir Apparent.’ To quote Daniel 7:8 in this context is pushing credulity beyond reason. It is dishonest to give this symbol any other meaning than that accorded to it through nearly a thousand years of heraldic practice.
4th lnaccuracy: Tim Cohen states that the golden Helm at the top of the Prince’s Coat-of-Arms is made up of seven gold bars or “horns.” He goes on to say that; “These seven horns, along with the three horns from the ‘eldest son’ label make a total of ten horns in the head region of the Arms.” Cohen then connects his premise with the prophecy in Daniel 7:20. This nonsense is easily repudiated by the fact that the Golden Helm on Queen Elizabeth’s Royal Arms has the identical seven bars and no-one is saying she might be the anti-Christ! The seven bars in the visor of the Golden Helm by no stretch of the imagination can be considered to be horns, instead they are simply there to allow the Knight in Armor, which is what the helm actually represents, to breathe and to see, and they have absolutely no connection whatsoever with horns. Thus once again we see the Scriptures being misapplied to help underpin a totally spurious claim. Furthermore, Tim Cohen misquotes Scripture by using a loose interpretation of his own that he claims is based on the original Greek. For example, on page 125, he renders Revelation 12:3 as follows: “And another sign appeared in heaven. And, behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns ‘in a head’, and seven diadems near ‘his heads’.......” Here he is adding to the scripture in order to connect the unicorn on Prince Charles’ Coat-of-Arms to this verse, in order to establish that the horns are all on a single head, e.g. the head of Prince Charles.
5th lnaccuracy: Tim Cohen claims that the eyes of the unicorn in Prince Charles’ Arms are different from the representation of the unicorn in the Royal Arms of his mother, the Queen. Based upon this exceedingly weak premise he goes on to connect it with the words in Daniel 7:8 “And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.” Whereas, I dare say Prince Charles has on occasion undoubtedly been guilty of speaking pompous words (haven’t we all?), this does not mean he is the anti-Christ. In this ‘eyes of the unicorn’ statement we have uncovered yet another falsehood that is easily dismissed, as a customary glance at both the Prince’s and the Queen’s Arms will show that the eyes of both unicorns in any case are the same. In order to fit his wacky theory Mr. Cohen has also added to the previous verse (Daniel 7:7), as on page 189 of his book he quotes as follows: “Behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying....and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns in its head.” The final line of the text actually reads: “and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.” Cohen feloniously uses his ‘additions’ to Scripture to imply that both the Apocalypse and Daniel portray the anti-Christ as a unicorn having human eyes. (Note statement to that effect on page 190).
6th lnaccuracy: Tim Cohen sees great significance in the fact that Prince Charles’ Arms portray a Red Dragon which he immediately connects with Satan. The truth is that the dragon has been the official symbol of the principality of Wales for many centuries, and it is claimed to be the oldest national flag still in use. The Prince of Wales is obliged to carry that uniquely Welsh symbol on his Coat-of-Arms. To try and infer any other meaning is simply twisting the facts. The red dragon symbol was the ancient sign of a Roman legion with the “Draco symbol as their standard.” For a time this legion was stationed in England during the Roman occupation of the island. It is believed that the Romans in turn pinched the symbol from the ancient Parthians in their frequent wars against the Parthian Empire. Legend has it that the red dragon represents ancient warriors and the ancient Great Chiefs and High Kings of Wales were referred to as the Pendragon. In today’s parlance you might refer to those great military chieftains as “top guns.”
7th lnaccuracy: The badge of three ostrich feathers surrounded by a crown and the motto “ICH DIEN,” has been the symbol of every Prince of Wales since the black Prince (1330-1376). Thus one would expect this emblem to show up in the Arms of the present incumbent of that royal office. The attempt to make the motto “Ich Dien” mean anything other than “I SERVE” is dishonest and beyond contempt.
(Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom Queen Elizabeth II)
(Coat of Arms of Prince Charles of Wales)
Prince Charles of Wales: Apparently when Charles’ title and name are placed in this order you can get 666, the infamous number of the beast by using the first 22 letters of the English alphabet, once each letter is given a numeric value. However, the last four letters are given a value of zero. You might well ask why? If you want to cook the books it is ever so handy if you can simply make up your own rules as you go along. The big stumbling block for the premise that the Prince of Wales is the anti-Christ is that Wales starts with a W, and if its advocates were to include it in their calculation it would ruin their theory, as the Hebrew equivalent W (sheen) has a value of 300, thus by apportioning a zero to the W, they are able to come up with the desired 666 number. Of course it helps if you can be creative like this, and by using this kind of creativity you can make almost any name amount to the number of the beast.
I trust the points above will put Mr. Tim Cohen’s book in its proper context and it is a great shame his work has led so many people up the proverbial garden path away from the ‘straight and narrow’ way as found in the Word of YHVH.
(Tomb of the Black Prince - Canterbury Cathedral)
Note: the Triple Feathers of the Prince of Wales on the side of the Tomb