Look, Tissie, you'd be well advised to leave this side-show and concentrate on your main thrust because I am an old dog who can't leave even an irrelevant bone alone in case it is the anomaly that blows the whole thing open. Please don't encourage me.
Points 1 and 2 are probably correct. The Royal Mint was in the process of inventing a united Kingdom
The United Kingdom had been around since 1603 or 1707 so I don't think 'inventing' is quite right. Perhaps you mean a national symbol to counteract the French Revolution's emphasis on the Rights of Man rather than nation states.
and a perfect example to us all would be the figure of Britannia the very personification of the new nation as well as being the Goddess who looks after us.
This is only fifteen years after London was practically destroyed by the Gordon Riots in defence of Protestantism so I would be a little careful in this area.
Which means they were using an image familiar to people of the time. Familiar because it had been around for a very long time. Not only in Britain but in Rome and in other parts of the eastern Mediterranean.
Familiar to seven antiquarian numismatists would, I think you will agree, be nearer the mark.
Like the Union Flag, it is a composite image.
No. not like the union flag which is real composite of (at that time) two other real flags.
It has the union flag image of course on the shield in the later editions but that already existed as we have seen from images of old Hittite sculptures. It is a sun sign.
So the Royal Mint chose Britannia because she had a sign that resembled the new(ish) flag. Or they had chosen the flag because it resembled Hittite sculptures which were in turn adopted by ancient Britannia devotees. But in any case they added the actual flag to the coin later on just in case people didn't get this recondite connection straight off.
All the United Kingdom did was to bring the different varieties of cross together and come up with what we know today.
Now you really are trespassing on my (Meglaithic) teritory. One flag was the red cross on the white background -- an international symbol to be sure but not one recorded as associated with Hittites and Phoenicians. Obviously, for my own Megalithic reasons, I hope you make the link. The saltire and the Irish red cross I don't know about. Obviously, again, I hope you forge that link.
And as Waddell points out the Barats and Catti brought their symbols and religion with them. As opposed to the snake worshippers who already lived in the country. The last to be defeated of course were the Irish when Patrick or perhaps Baratrick (king of the Barats?) went and got rid of the snakes for ever.
You're going back a bit now. The English adopted their flag about a thousand years after these (reported) events. Not sure about the Scots and Irish. But I admit these snake-worshippers are new to me. In passing, I think it is true that no paleontological evidence for there ever being snakes in Ireland has thus far come to light.
One thing we must consider is the language the Phoenicians brought with them. Did it change or did it remain unscathed throughout the centuries?
THOBR states that a) languages hardly ever change much over time and b) foreigners bringing new languages have almost no effect on the local language(s). If that helps.
I will look at your videos and get back to you.