Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Girl discovers royal blood runs deep with U.S. presidents

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by blood0fheroes
 

Because they mostly all have some english blood in them. According to many professional genealogists all english english people are related. Several ways. I would not tell the scots and welsh this, but most of them have a bit of english ancestry too, if only because of all that raping and pillaging that the sassanachs did, so they are also mostly in the family.

Counting 25 years as a generation, and the amount of ancestors doubling every 25 years, after 800 years you have 4 billion ancestors. There weren't 4 billion people on the face of the earth 800 years ago. So everybody who lived in England then who managed to have descendents who themselves had descendents is an ancestor of everybody who lives in England now, and that several ways.

The same applies to everywhere. We're all one big family.

And as far as Martin van Buren goes, I don't think that they know the names of all 4 billion of his ancestors who lived 800 years ago, but the Netherlands is just across the channel from England so they odds are good that they just don't KNOW how he is related to King John. One bastard in his family line and all possibilities are open.




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by christianpatrick
 

Really? you do realize that the population of the US is approx 308 million people, of which about two thirds are of age to run for president. So the odds that say, this last election, we would "choose" someone who it just so happens is again from the direct line of King John the Lackland was close to 1 in 20,000,000? One in twenty million.....and thats assuming common ancestry with ten percent of the population if my math is on tonight. I am a bit tired. Seems more and more like these choices are given to us to feed us the illusion of free will.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Im sorrybut i just cant believe any of this...And the bit at the end where she claims shes Obamas 18th cousin???? and shes really p'd off because shes only recieving standard whitehouse replies !!

And then the tree behind her has a large, propaganda poster for "where all related.com", whats that...her website??

Just another crock IMHO.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by andy1972]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I don't know why you'd think it crock.

I'm related to Gen./Pres. Grant. I'd have to look for the exact connection - his mother is like a 7th cousin once removed or some such thing.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by blood0fheroes
 

If you were interested in geneology, as I am, you would know that I am speaking the truth. If you wished to google the question, you would know that I am speaking the truth. However, since you don't seem to be interested in researching for yourself, here is a link to an article in "the Atlantic" magazine from May 2002. I do not know how to do it in the approved way so I hope that this is acceptable since I am saying up front that is a link.

www.theatlantic.com...

If he and my other sources are correct, it is close to impossible to find someone of english ancestry who is not descended from King John. And everybody else who was alive in England at that time who had descendents at all.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by christianpatrick
 


Admittedly, genealogy is not my strong suit, hence the asking of questions. The reason the argument seems improbable to me is largely due to the fact my own family line only goes back three generations prior to myself, well traceable anyway. It does indeed seem a foreign idea to me that the odds could be so low as say one in ten, or even one in ten thousand to constantly keep picking someone to run our country from this same family line.

*ETA* While i'm sure that there are really a lot of folks who descend from Johny boy, the idea I am getting at is what really are the odds that we as a nation would invariably, consistently, "pick" someone from this line to be president?

Again, not saying there is or is not some conspiracy here - i'm quite literally trying to figure up the probability of us as a "free" people doing so. In other words, the research im doing is not to prove a conspiracy, but instead to attempt to find out how many really can document a family line to king John, as opposed to those who cannot.

Having read the article from the atlantic that you graciously provided, this stands out to me:




Chang's model incorporates one crucial assumption: random mating in the part of the world under consideration. For example, every person in Europe would have to have an equal chance of marrying every other European of the opposite sex.

In my opinion, an assumption - any assumption - means the probability of a scenario being fact inherently goes down. Other than that, it was a very interesting read.
[edit on 11-8-2010 by blood0fheroes]

[edit on 11-8-2010 by blood0fheroes]

[edit on 11-8-2010 by blood0fheroes]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by blood0fheroes
 

Yes, we don't KNOW the line of everybody, and have to make assumptions, but we are dealing with four billion lines of descent from the four million people who were alive in England at the time of King John. It would be impossible to find someone who knew for a fact that none of his four billion most immediate ancestors was descended from Johnny boy. Statistically there are one thousand lines of descent to every person who was alive at that time. Odds are at least 1000 to one of being descended from him, if you are of english ancestry.

Another example. Male line dna tests show that of all those tested, extrapolated to the whole population of earth, one out of every 25 men is descended from Ghengis Khan. If the men are, so are their sisters, and if the sister is so are all of her children and grandchildren, male and female, forever, but that doesn't show up on that kind of dna test since females don't have y chromosomes. But that means that those men's fathers were. And their father's sisters and all of those sister's descendents, male and female. And all of their father's father's sisters and their descendents, male and female. All the way back. It would be hard to know for a fact that you are not part mongol.


[edit on 11/8/2010 by christianpatrick]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by christianpatrick
 





It would be hard to know for a fact that you are not part mongol.


Agreed! In my particular case there is no information further than three generations prior to myself. So who knows?

More to the point, yes I understand what you are getting at, and having read youre very detailed post a few times now, I think the statistic is going to need a revision. Not so much what the odds are of electing to president 55 out of 56 times someone from this line as stated previously, but rather what the odds are that We the People would fail to do so only once.

Bare in mind though, that it isnt as simple as dna matching, the matter is more convoluted in my opinion as the folks can clearly trace via documentation, their relation to king John. This is the part that to me is suspect. But as stated I am biased when it comes to the ability to trace ones lineage so this many people, all presidents, being able to do so does seem at the very least odd to me.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by blood0fheroes]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by blood0fheroes
 

Most anybody, of whatever station in life, who is able to trace their family back far enough will come to the nobility if not indeed royalty. Until I was 10 I did not live in a house with running water, and I am living now, 40 years later, in a trailer in the rural south, again without running water since the pipes broke and I haven't got $2000 to fix them. And my mother's ancestors, english, fought in the crusades, and have a coat of arms with crescents on it to prove it, and my father's family (me too me too) are hereditary knights of the Holy Roman Empire with female line descent from the Barons Blomberg and Blucher. And while my possible descent from King John is unclear, no idea how, if at all, I am a provable distant cousin to the late Queen Mother, and of course her daughter, The Queen, since one our womenfolk, same coat of arms, married into the Queen Mother's family 400 years ago. And my mother's second husband, my stepfather, was some kind of grandnephew of Thomas Jefferson, who is therefore my step granduncle. I used to have a picture of Montecello hanging with a sign under it saying "Uncle Tom's Cabin". BTW, I learned about the Hemmingses in the 60's. Whatever they say publicly, the Jefferson family KNEW.

You would never suspect any of it by looking at me though.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by blood0fheroes
 


People love who they love. People like what they like. People are crazy and do crazy things. And people # randomly.

Even if you could account for everyone from perfect marriage scenarios - there are still many people whose ancestors don\'t fit that model.

In some areas, 20-30% of women have been prostitutes - yet no one is descended from one. As one example. Not taking into consideration, affairs, intentional trysts, incest, fostering, infertility of the male.....

[edit on 2010/8/16 by Aeons]



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   

blood0fheroes
reply to post by christianpatrick
 

Really? you do realize that the population of the US is approx 308 million people, of which about two thirds are of age to run for president. So the odds that say, this last election, we would "choose" someone who it just so happens is again from the direct line of King John the Lackland was close to 1 in 20,000,000? One in twenty million.....and thats assuming common ancestry with ten percent of the population if my math is on tonight. I am a bit tired. Seems more and more like these choices are given to us to feed us the illusion of free will.


I realize I am late on the subject, (random new thread popped up, subsequently closed, pointing to this one) but… It really isn't a "direct line", in fact it states that the girl used the females in the family to trace the roots while most researchers focus on male bloodlines.

Depending on how the girl used this method, it's quite possible some of these relationships are by marriage only.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   

davids333
Of all the kings for them all to be related to, John "lackland", aka Bad King John. This is the King John who was the younger brother of King Richard the Lion Hearted. John took over the crown after his older brother went to fight in the crusades. When he returned he and his cronies conspired to have Richard the Lion Hearted captured and held ransom. Their mother had to pawn the family jewels to get Richard out of prison. Richard, his brother, forgave John afterworlds though.

He(John) gave the Pope so much authority over England that his Baarons forced him to sign the Magna Carta. Lol, its like tracing one's lineage back to Nero or some other really suspect ruler.



So again all roads lead to Rome. Especially the Jesuit's.





new topics




 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join