Part of Notre Dame on fire.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Actually, the Crown was alluded to as a physically persevered relic as early as the third century.

I don't believe that the Crown at Notre Dame (or any of its various fragments scattered here and there) is genuine.  But there's no real evidence that it isn't genuine.

Boru

So a few hundred years. Still suspect enough for me, but I do agree we can't disprove any of it.

THANK YOU! That's all I've been saying.  I don't think the Crown is any more authentic than the Shroud of Turin (which we know is a fraud).  I suspect the early Church fathers - Clement, Origen, a few others - who wrote about the Crown (never first hand) laid a nice foundation for later confidence tricksters to put together a Crown (or Crowns) and make a few fast drachmas.  I can't prove any of this, but based on the history of other religious relics, it's a pretty safe assumption.

Boru