Hillary, Bush, and Queen Elizabeth II are all related!!

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Is any of this incest…I mean…. bloodlines and all….. the royals do it all the time…lol




posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Not that I know of, or at least not that the records show. The usual evidence of incest in genealogy is that a whole section of the bloodline simply drops off or repeats because the lineage is the same. I did not notice any such missing lines in the relationships posted.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rilence
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Dont worry about a certain resident troll getting under your skin, you just post what you think the rest of us might be interested in, and you nailed it big time



Are you implying I'm a troll? And on what basis? Because *gasp* I'm daring to say this matters a hill of beans?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
Is any of this incest…I mean…. bloodlines and all….. the royals do it all the time…lol


It's about the same type of incest all humans engage in; we are all distantly related to some degree, I think we're all, at most, be 60th cousins. And even though the Rodhams and the Pierce families are distantly related, they are so genetically disimiliar if George and Chelsea were to have an affair, it wouldn't be incest.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by yankeerose
 


where in the hell did bill clinton come from. i heard he was the illegitimate child of rock'o'fella. inquiring mind want to know and would appreciate your expertise on this pretty please.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 



It doesn't prove anything, other than the fact if you go back far enough, you'll find a lot of people are "relate"... the significance is diminished once you realize how many people "common" people are related to them, people who lived and died without becoming a significant player in even the local level of politics.


There is some truth to what you are saying here. I happen to be decended from Kings of France, and am also descended from the Dutch settlers who came to America in the 1600's. At present, my home happens to be a piece of floor in a basement hallway. You would think that someone with "noble" blood would be doing a little better off. So yes, there are many people who are "bloodline" that no longer have any grasp on power.

However, you also have to consider that those who do retain the power are much more closely related than you will generally find in common resources. The truth in this case, as in so many others, is hidden. The British Royals in particular, even up to the modern day, seem to prefer second-cousins as spouses. Not quite incest, but close.

Now you have to consider that while there are indeed many of us "commoners" with royal blood, we are simply the losers in the selection process. Our lines were shut out of from the pool of blood power where someone in our family tree made a bad choice, didn't marry properly, was unable to care for their young, etc. The break from the "family of power" may have been intentional, accidental, or even unavoidable.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Has anyone seen the speculation that Barbara Bush's mother was involved with some folks who hung out with Alister Crowley and that she was at his home right around the time she became pregnant with Barbara?

It is worth googling just to read up on the case the author makes.

I will get a link in a bit, busy right now.

Edit to add link

flux64.wordpress.com...

[edit on 21-1-2008 by interestedalways]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
So is this how the phrase "Keep it in the family" was coined?

Well it's nice to know their's at least one family on earth that cares about the planet. Glad to see they're taking charge in perserving this beautiful planet.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Obama Cheney and Bush are related



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by andre18
I could be wrong but….doesn’t this help David Ickes credibility…..?


Not in the least. It doesn't prove anything, other than the fact if you go back far enough, you'll find a lot of people are "related."


yes, but if those relatives are also of royal blood, it's a bit different than just being a normal relative.

Fascinating find, OP!



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Thank you, yankeerose, for a very imformative post! Makes me wanna go poking around for further tidbits.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roland Deschain
So is this how the phrase "Keep it in the family" was coined?


this was also used heavily by the Rothschilds, no joke.

en.wikipedia.org...



Mayer Rothschild successfully kept the fortune in the family with carefully arranged marriages between closely related family members.


they also created their own language to speak and write to each other in.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Great topic OP... If anybody doesn't think there is an elite control group, look at these famous names.

Excerpt from the genealogy page @ about.com



"important individuals in the Bush family tree include the Spencer family that produced Diana, Princess of Wales, which makes George W. Bush a 17th cousin to Prince William of Wales. The great great great grandmother of President George W. Bush, Harriet Smith (wife of Obidiah Newcomb Bush's wife) and her descendants, are distant cousins of John Kerry."


Also wikipedia



Samuel P. Bush through his mother Harriet Fay.The same family line makes the Bushes distant cousins of Presidents George Washington, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge. George Bush (1796-1859), a biblical scholar who wrote a book Life of Mohammed, was a cousin of Obadiah Bush. First Lady Barbara Bush mother of George W. Bush is related to Franklin Pierce the14th president.


[edit on 21-1-2008 by METACOMET]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I have heard it all before but one important thing is and what I have been saying for a long time is that the US is controlled by Europeans and their decendants.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Let's play with some numbers. If I read correctly, we're going back 14 generations to Margaret De Clare. Lets say that each child born to a parent had an average of 3 children. So if Margaret De Clare had 3 children, and each of those children had 3 children, and so on for 14 generations (3^14). That's 4,782,969 people in the 14th generation. If we also assume that people in the 13th generation (which would be made up of 1,594,323 people) are still alive, that's a possible 6,377,292 descendants of Margaret De Clare that may be around right now. So it's no huge statistical anomaly that we find 3 well-known people among those descendants.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


let's not say each person has 3 children, because that's under the assumption each person lived long enough to have children, and was either a woman, or a hermaphrodite (which I guess would have made the incest much easier).



unless I am missing something from that equation?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


Well, I said on average we could say people had three children. Sure, some didn't have any because they dies young or didn't marry or what have you. But I'm sure some had many more than 3 children, as was the custom hundreds of years ago. And the further back you go with people having more than 3 kids, the greater the affect on the current population. And it doesn't matter if the children were male or female. I'm assuming each married and had, on average, 3 kids.

I don;t think my assumptions are unreasonable. It's at least enough to be within an order of magnitude, meaning a total number of current living descendants being between 600,000 and 60,000,000.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Awesome find .... but "we" already know this
Great to see someone else discover this on their own investigating. And yep the same trolls come up again and again, in each of any threads like this that expose the NWO and the elite in control.

To the trolls, I say, quit while you're behind, perhaps change your nicks and start your disinfo cause, and maybe try a different tact. As the people in the know about such things now can pick you guys up a mile away.
Bravo OP!
Love to everyone


watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by scientist
 


I don;t think my assumptions are unreasonable. ...
being between 600,000 and 60,000,000.


i call a gap of 59,400,000 people extremely unreasonable, especially considering your second figure is 10,000% higher than your first. That's a statistical disaster. I understand your point, but you are going about it in the wrong way. I suggest you pick another, like trying to find someone who is obviously polar in beliefs to bush, and showing the same lineage - to prove that it's pointless.

Personally, I think having royal blood is a very big deal - and the purity of that blood is an even bigger deal. Someone with very weak links to a bloodline is not the same as a "purebred." Hence all the inner-relations.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 

The 10,000% difference is what "an order of magnitude" means. There are likely at least 600,000 direct descendants of Margaret De Clare out there. They can't all be world leaders or people in power or part of the "NWO." And the fact that 3 of them are isn't at all surprising.





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join