Neque enim secuta est coronatio reginae, nisi post duos annos, postquam scilicet pericula regi pro praeceptis fuerunt quid agendum sibi esset edocentia.
It's from postquam onwards that I'm a bit puzzled, particularly about what exactly regī and prō praeceptīs might mean. Here's my attempt to render it in something approaching readable English:
And in fact the queen’s coronation didn’t come about until two years later, when the king had dangers to guide him, clearly teaching him what he had to do.
That is, I take regī to be a possessive use of the dative, and prō to mean something like 'in place of'. So, in translationese: 'for the king there were dangers in place of instructions'. But for some reason this seems to me an eccentric reading. Could prō have one of its myriad other meanings here? Could they be 'dangers to the king' (i.e., 'to his life')? Or is regī instead the indirect object of the participle ēdocentia? And can scīlicet go with ēdocentia, as I have it, or does it mean 'namely' here?
I'm not sure what to make of Bacon's very terse English version, which goes as follows:
...for the coronation of her was not till almost two years after, when danger had taught him what to do.
The real problem is that I'm supposed to be guiding a beginning student through this text, and so ambiguity, which I'm usually comfortable with, is unwelcome; I don't want to present her with six possible interpretations of the sentence unless it's absolutely necessary.
Thanks in advance.