King Arthur has been depicted for centuries as being bound to his mythical sword, Excalibur

But what if I told you there was more to this story, and that the truth was never hidden from us?

Could Gregory Joseph Hallett be the owner of Excalibur?

We're about to go medieval []

Malory’s 15th-century “Le Morte d’Arthur” reports that King Arthur not only pulls the sword from the stone, he goes on to use the sword in combat against King Pellinore.

It’s often depicted as a two-handed broadsword known as a Claymore. The Claymore is of Scottish origin.

Arthur’s battle against King Pellinore would have been an honorable engagement between only the two combatants, and they would have faced off on even ground, an ideal situation for a King in armor to engage an enemy.

The two handed broadsword shines when you don’t need a shield.

Here’s the part they never told us: Arthur’s sword was broken in the battle with King Pellinore!

Divine right is great and all, but if the true King can only be confirmed through holding the sword in the stone, then a broken sword holds no claim! No sword, no King!

Then I had a moment of clarity and asked myself, “What happened to the Lady of the Lake? Wasn’t she part of Arthur’s story?” Yes she was.

And she turns out to be monumentally important, as well.

Arthur, if real, was King.

And as King it was his duty to not die, if at all possible.

As such, he was unlikely to see any combat aside from honorable duels (like with King Pellinore), or while on horseback on a hilltop a mile away, commanding his troops from afar.

It's more logical for a King on horseback to carry a light, one-handed sword that can be drawn and swung quickly, while still retaining full control of his horse.

That’s when I started to notice depictions of King Arthur from the 1300s have him holding something much different..

These images show something much different than the 4 ft. long, 6 lbs. Claymore he’s typically pictured with today.

Swords with blades so light that even Arthur could lift them one-handed when he was a child!

In these older images he’s holding a thin, short-bladed Cavalry Sword

When Arthur’s sword was destroyed in battle, our mythical Lady of the Lake rushed him a new one - a sword that holds a renewed bond to the holder as rightful King of Britain.

Meet, Excalibur.

King Arthur's SECOND SWORD []

The sword King Arthur pulled from the stone was the Claymore called “Caliburn.”

It was destroyed and replaced by Excalibur.

I was researching medieval swords when I came across a very unique and familiar looking sword called an Old Prussian épée. Prussia being the historical region of Europe that now includes Germany.

Where have I seen that sword before?

This particular sword is eerily similar to Joseph Gregory Hallett’s.

Right down to the notch in the hilt that allows for ornamental sashes to be tied to them!

Even the shape of the hand guard is remarkably similar!

Joseph Gregory Hallett reports that the sword he owns is the “Sword of the Duke of Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha;” a royal house with roots in Germany.

During WWI, George V of England changed the name from “Saxe-Coburg and Gotha” to…

Queen Elizabeth II's House Windsor.

This means that Joseph Gregory Hallett possesses a sword that Queen Elizabeth II of House Windsor does not.

It also likely means that the sword in question was in the hands of Royalty before George V.

Perhaps Queen Victoria held it before him. []

We now have a sword that has been passed down through the ages, and its owner is able to wield divine providence as rightful King of Britain.

Does that remind you of anything?

Joseph Gregory Hallett reports the following:

He “pulled the sword from the stone” and “held it up at Mouros Castle," where he was then made "Lord Chancellor of the Kingdom of England.”

Boy that's one powerful sword.

Almost magical in its own right..

Perhaps Joseph Gregory Hallett didn’t pull the sword from the stone himself.

But this researcher thinks he received the sword that replaced it.

[]