Originally posted by Shadowflux
I don't think people are understanding this, or even reading the OP article, everyone is just being smug about their knowledge of genealogy.

So, if we're not understanding it, please impart your wisdom. What am I missing?

It says that Obama is directly related to all but one President and to the old king of England.

Yes. (for example) Obama's mother's, father's, father's, mother's, mother's, father's, mother's, mother's, father's, father's, mother's, mother's, father's, father's, mother, is the daughter of this John Plantagenet, a king of England, born in 1166. Or something like that. Yes, they went back over 800 years. And most of the presidents in the US (as well as 1/3 of the people in the US) have a similar lineage back to this John Plantagenet. Have I got it so far? If not, tell me where I'm mistaken.

In fact, the girl in the article says she is also related to Obama, which makes her related to the other 42 presidents as well.

I know you may be 33rd cousins with Stonewall Jackson but that's not what this article is talking about.

What is this article talking about, then? Spill it. I'm listening...

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
which 1 is he not related to?

Martin Van Buren. It says it right in the article.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

um, this would mean that ALL us presidents are related to each other.

In a big picture genetic model according to the human genome map, we are ALL related to each other going back some 200 generations!

consider this, 2000 years = only 95 generations have come along. a generation being 21 years.

In all of human history there are less than 300 generations in total.

With that info in hand, it seems rather strange that most of us cannot trace our roots back much farther than 4 or 5 generations. Most people don't know many details about their great grandparents.

All of history is like a long game of telephone where the copy of the copy of the copy is degraded further and further until we are in the realm of educated guessing games and empirical data drawn from archaeological evidence etc.

no wonder it's easy to sell spaceman ancients stories and embellish our beliefs etc. lol

we are like germs moving to and fro on a ball. Completely unaware of our purpose or meaning.

Originally posted by Muundoggie

Originally posted by Aberinkula
I mean, Biblically speaking, we all came from the same two people.
Scientifically, we all probably came from the first two...whatever...to evolve.

So, to use your logic, we are all the product of incest. Adam had to father children from his daughters or Eve had to have children fathered by a son or their children had to produce offspring with each other.

yep..and after the flood that sort of thing had to happen again..

anyway..i once read that some geneticist once worked out that we all come from one of 7 women...and that that may explain certain peoples liking of another person..these people come from the same women of the 7 original women..and dislike of others...as these come from a different original 'mother'

[edit on 28-10-2009 by alienesque]

that is a great find....
I guess to the conspiracy theorists (there are none on here, I am sure...)
that makes the big O as deep into it as Bush, no???


I do remember the seven daughters of eve project.
supposedly a person can trace his or her evolutionary history back to the seven ancestral mother groups, also referred to as the Seven Daughters of Eve.
I think it is also tied in with the Genographic project.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by justine093]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

It's actually very common, if people to search back far enough and if their families came over from Europe, to find relations. So, a LOT more of us are related than we think.

My sentiments exactly. If we go back far enough, all of us are related. I'm not sure what the big deal is.

Mathematically, this is not surprising. If you go back a generation, you have two parents, but each of them had 2 parents. That's 4 more and a total of six. Every time you go back a generation, you double the number of ancestors you had. You had eight great grandparents, 16 great grand parents, etc.

The Magna Carta was 1216 -- almost 800 years ago. Assuming 3 generations per century, that's 24 generations - over a million possible relatives in history. All that had to happen is for one of them to be a distant ancestor.

So really, it's no big whoop.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by ClintK]

I heard about Obama & his bloodline before he was elected. There is a connection between those in power and their bloodline. For anyone who thinks its nothing more than coincidence, wake up. The powers that be need to have control & what better way to continue than to ensure they have one of their own in the driver seat.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by washingtonsghost
It makes me wonder if maybe we aren't all related to a King of England?

It's actually very common, if people to search back far enough and if their families came over from Europe, to find relations. So, a LOT more of us are related than we think.

Being "related" and being related to a family that intermarried in order to keep the blood line "pure" are two different things! There are not many who can tie back to the kings and queens of england.

It seems there a lot of you here that think its no big deal to be related to the royal family. Very ordinary if I understand you correctly. So that must mean many of you tie to them. So how many people here on ATS are members of the Royal blood line?

Originally posted by ClintK
Mathematically, this is not surprising.

Exactly. One person (this King John "Lackland" Plantagenet of England for example) could produce two million people in only 9 generations if each generation had 5 children. (5 to the power of 9).

If we figure only 3 generations per century, that's a possible 24 generations in the 800 years between John "Lackland" Plantagenet and Obama. 24 generations of only 2 kids each would produce 16 million people. (2 to the power of 24).

Of course, I could just be being smug...

Originally posted by liveandletlive
Being "related" and being related to a family that intermarried in order to keep the blood line "pure" are two different things!

And what evidence do you have that this has happened? I know it's a conspiracy site and this IS the Secret Societies forum, but we still need to use logic and reason... don't we? Evidence... facts... ring a bell?

Originally posted by liveandletlive
So how many people here on ATS are members of the Royal blood line?

Probably quite a few. As I said, my husband is related to James Buchanan (by blood) but many people (I would guess most) haven't had a genealogy chart done.

i still think it's laughable us americans are so dumb.

Do you have a vote or say who get's to run for democrat or republican?NO

The powers that be HAND PICK who is going to run for us.
then say Vote it's your duty as a american to vote.
But if we didn't pick who was going to run or who they pick as a whole...they have been stacking the deck for there agenda for a long time.

i argue this at everyone..Why vote?
the major political party's pick them for you then say choose which one of these people you like the best...that's a illusion of giving you the power to choose.
But in reality you nothing but a moron.

Common everyone has heard that old joke...
A war vet
A woman
And a black man
run for president...99% of all joke's start like that lol

We'll never really know who Obama is related to until we see an actual real bona-fide birth certificate. Until then all we have is the piece of paper Hawaii is calling a birth certificate, Obama's word (which ain't much), and some hope and change. So until then, Obama is related to no one IMHO.

Originally posted by jam321
True and I read that. But even genealogist makes mistakes.

Fair enough.
Sometimes even I make mistakes. Yes, I know, shocking