Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Plantagenet Legacy Paved Over??? Presidents, Christianity, And Hidden History.

page: 1
23
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Hints of King Richard III's Grave Found Under Parking Lot




The search for the long-lost remains of King Richard III in Leicester, England, has turned up traces of what may be the church where the slain monarch was buried.

Leicester University archaeologists announced today (Aug. 31) that their excavations in a city council parking lot have turned up medieval window tracery, glazed floor tile fragments and medieval roof tile. The high-quality materials suggest that the team is indeed digging around the Greyfriars church, where Richard III is said to be buried...

...Richard III was King of England from 1483 to 1485. He died during the Battle of Bosworth Field during the War of the Roses, an English civil war between the House of Lancaster and the House of York. Richard III was the last English king to die in battle. Shakespeare penned "Richard III," a play about the tragic king, approximately 100 years later.

After his death, Richard III was buried at the Franciscan Friary in Leicester, known as Greyfriars. But the grave — and the church itself — was eventually forgotten. Interest in the infamous king meant various tales sprouted up about where his grave was located, with some far-fetched grave tales including the idea the bones were thrown into the river Soar. "Other fables, equally discredited, claimed that his coffin was used as a horse-trough," Philippa Langley, a Richard III Society member, said in a statement...

...Finding Richard III's body is still a "long shot," Buckley said. If he is found, the dead king will be reinterred inside the Leicester Cathedral. If not, Buckley said, the excavation is still an exciting find.

Source

For those who aren't familiar with the Plantagenet dynasty... here is a brief synopsis:


The House of Plantagenet ( /plænˈtædʒənət/ plan-TAJ-ə-nət) is the name given the dynasty of 14 kings that ruled England for the 331 years from 1154 until 1485.

The dynasty is also known as the Angevins ( /ændʒvɪns/) or the First House of Anjou, due to its origins in the County of Anjou and its capital Angers. Their paternal ancestors originated in the French province of Gâtinais and gained Anjou through marriage during the 11th century. Following a twenty year civil war called The Anarchy they acquired the English crown by Treaty of Winchester in 1153 when Henry II, son of dynasty namesake Geoffrey 'Plantagenet', Count of Anjou and maternal grandson of Henry I of England was named heir of King Stephen of England, being crowned following his predecessor's death the next year. The dynasty accumulated a vast and complex feudal holding that at its peak stretched from the Pyrenees to Ireland and the border with Scotland...

...Some of the Plantagenets were renowned as warriors. Richard I of England had distinguished himself in the Third Crusade and was later romanticised as an iconic figure in English folklore. Edward, the Black Prince gained fame at the fields of Crécy and Poitiers, but died on campaign before succeeding to the crown. Henry V of England left his mark with a famous victory against larger numbers at the Battle of Agincourt.

The eventful political climate of the day saw the Hundred Years' War, where the Plantagenets battled with the House of Valois for control of the Kingdom of France, and the Wars of the Roses, in which two branches of the family, the House of Lancaster and the House of York, contested for the throne in a conflict that would end with the demise of the Plantagenet royal dynasty and the advent of the House of Tudor. Richard III, the last Plantagenet King was killed in the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485...

Popular legends surrounding the Angevins suggested that they had corrupt or demonic origins. The chronicler Gerald of Wales is the key contemporaneous source for these stories, which often borrowed elements of the wider Melusine legend. For example, Gerald wrote in his De instructione principis of "a certain countess of Anjou" who rarely attended mass and one day flew away, never to be seen again. A similar story was attached to Eleanor of Aquitaine in the 13th century romance Richard Coeur-de-lion.[ Gerald also presents a list of sins committed by Geoffrey V and Henry II as further evidence of their "corrupt" origins.

According to Gerald these legends were not always discouraged by the Angevins. Richard I was said to have often remarked of his family that they "come of the devil, and to the devil they would go." A similar statement is attributed to St Bernard regarding Henry II. Henry II's sons reportedly defended their frequent infighting by saying "Do not deprive us of our heritage; we cannot help acting like devils." The legends surrounding the Angevins grew into English folklore and led some historians to give them the epithet "The Devil's Brood".


Source

And now for the tantalizing ATS based kind of stuff... It is said that all but one of the US Presidents come from this bloodline!


Twelve-year-old BridgeAnne D’Avignon of Monte Vista Christian School in Watsonville has created a family tree linking all U.S. presidents but one (Martin Van Buren) to a common ancestor: John Plantagenet, the fabled “King John” from the Robin Hood tales and signer of the Magna Carta.

While several reports of U.S. presidents sharing a common ancestry have been published before hers, D’Avignon’s work is the first to link them to a single and (genealogically speaking) recent relative. She began the project last summer as the result of personal curiosity.


And, additionally, one out of three of all of US might also share these genes...


Some websites have already cited her work as evidence of a conspiratorial, Illuminati-type machination to rule the world (or at least the United States). However, D’Avignon’s father, Brock D’Avignon, estimates that, “about one-third of all Americans would probably link up to Plantagenet” if they spent the time researching all possible lines of their own family, which suggests less of a vanguard of the elite influencing our presidents than a history of prejudice toward mostly Anglo-Saxon presidential candidates.


Source

Oh... and did I mention that the Plantagenet dynasty is also rumored to have descended from the Merovingian bloodline? A bloodline that some insist actually springs from Jesus Christ himself?

So... could a man who possibly is related to 1/3 of us all, representing two major historical dynasties, and possibly the descendant of Christ himself be buried under a parking lot??? What could the implications of this find be?

And, of course, some information about King Richard III himself. This wouldn't be a proper thread if I didn't offer that.

Definitely an exciting find, a fascinating dynasty, a historically relevant topic, and possibly clues to some of the biggest conspiracies in human history! WSY ATS?
edit on 8/31/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
So then, at least 1 out of every three candidates for the presidency is related to this bloodline each election, but only one president in history isn't related to this bloodline.

Right. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
edit on 8/31/2012 by Klassified because: Formatting



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Thank you, sir, for this fine post. On a positive note, at least it was just a parking lot, a relatively thin layer of asphalt or concrete obscuring the site - and not a shopping mall which would have eradicated history (not that they would ever build a mall in historic Leicester). Unfortunately I don't think Richard III tomb/grave was simply "lost", Henry VII led a rebellion against Richard III during his rule and may have destroyed his grave site after his death.
edit on 31-8-2012 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 

Actually, you're probably related to the Plantagenets, too. My husband is. So are millions of others.

My family, however, seems to be farmers and laborers and Native Americans -- and I'm actually not related to any nobles (at least, as far back as we can trace it... which isn't that far.)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Some more information on Richard III - the more I read the more interesting this man becomes to me. I've discovered that there is a play by Shakespeare entitled "Richard III" - which I will research later ( I know, inexcusable that I'm not very literate about Shakespeare... I went to public school! ) but I've also been reading some opinions that Richard III might have inspired Machiavelli to write "The Prince" - though this seems doubtful from the evidence I've so far seen.

Anyway - a brief snippet to help provide context to who Richard III was...


On Friday, June 13, 1483, William Hastings walked into what he thought was a routine council meeting called by Richard, Duke of Gloucester. When Hastings left the chamber a few hours later, it was as a prisoner being hustled out to execution.

No trial was given to Hastings, whose death on Tower Green was such a hasty affair that no scaffold had been erected. He was the first of the four men who would die violently before Gloucester, who had been serving as protector of England during the minority of Edward V, took the throne as Richard III.

As with so much involving Richard III, there are conflicting theories as to why William Hastings, probably the most loyal friend Edward IV ever had, met his death at the hands of Richard, Edward IV’s supposedly devoted brother. Richard himself claimed that Hastings had been plotting against him, though he never produced any proof to substantiate his claims. Those defenders of Richard who have taken him at his word suggest that Hastings was driven into conspiracy by concerns that under the protectorate, he would lose the power and prestige he had enjoyed during Edward IV’s reign or by his suspicion that Richard meant to take the throne for himself.


Source

Murdering ones best friend to attain the crown... all of these intrigues for a man who began his reign with a profound intrigue. History is fun!

~Heff



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Oh, and in case you're hoping for change this election season, a detour from the Plantagenet dynasty in American politics... Tough luck. Both President Obama and Mitt Romney seem to share common ancestry as shown here. This genealogy article is about Sarah Palin ( Yes, her too ) but it mentions the following:


Sarah Palin shares ancestor John Lathrop with presidents Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt and both Bush presidents. Lathrop descendants have earned fame in many ways. In addition to Revolutionary War traitor Benedict Arnold, the list includes Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon religion, poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Dr. Benjamin Spock, financier John Pierpoint Morgan and the original fuller brush man, Alfred Fuller.

Tumbling out of the list of politicians who descend from Lathrop are Adlai Stevenson, John Foster Dulles, Thomas Dewey and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.


If I'd have known this I'd have a LOT more flags because I'd have titled this thread "OBAMA, ROMNEY, AND PALIN - ALL BLOOD RELATIVES!!!"




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
reply to post by Klassified
 

Actually, you're probably related to the Plantagenets, too. My husband is. So are millions of others.

My family, however, seems to be farmers and laborers and Native Americans -- and I'm actually not related to any nobles (at least, as far back as we can trace it... which isn't that far.)


You're probably right. My genealogy seems to indicate ties to nobility starting in Wales, and coming up through Ireland and England. But I have yet to confirm some of those connections.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
From a Biblical perspective, we're all related.


From a scientific perspective, that's pretty making that 1/3rd of the world has the same general lineage.

As an aside, Martin Van Buren may not have had the bloodline, but his presidency is often considered a direct extension of the Jackson presidency until things went to crap and then Van Buren became the fall guy.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Considering the sheer number of "wrong side of the blankets" children some of these royals had, it's a wonder we aren't all related, those of us with primarily European ancestry...

My own family has definite links to the Plantagenet lineage, though it's through one of the bastard lines...so utterly without relevance.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Heff, you *have* to read Josephine Tey's Daughter of Time. It's a fascinating book and the one that began the rehabilitation of Richard's history. Once published as fiction, a lot of the ideas are now considered to be close to the truth.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 

Aha! You're heir to the Illuminati Empire! I just KNEW it!!!! It was that evil smirk your cat wears that gave me the clue!

(and back on topic -- I think that the reason these people had advantages was the position of their ancestors. Think of the ones of mine who were poor, illiterate, and laborers -- their children were not likely to be elected officials (they'd be lucky to not get hung), were not likely to become wealthy, were not likely to get any sort of education and were not likely to be in a position to receive any sort of social advantage.

My dad pulled himself up from the grinding poverty of "hick hillbilly" childhood by joining the Army and eventually getting his Bachelors'. If it hadn't been for that, my brother would never have had the powerful positions and friends that he has. My brother's children have a lot of advantages (as children and now adults) that mine never did have (my husband and I were poor.)

I'm not surprised that people of influence have wealthy and powerful and influential people in their backgrounds. I'm more surprised when someone like that does NOT have any sort of advantage.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
edit on 9/1/2012 by gemineye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Yes, yes. And sheep and goats as well. But that part isn't mentioned so much.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Thanks Byrd!!! This is definitely a book I will be adding to my library!


~Heff



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


I'll have to give that a look see... Sound very interesting.

The images of historical figures are often less than accurate, especially when several centuries have passed, and there are no more living memories of the person. So it wouldn't be too surprising if Richard III was less of a monster than the Tudors, who wrote the history, make him out to be...



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Richard III was England's only ever northern King.

When he assumed the throne he appointed many of his northern friends etc to positions of authority, much to the disgust and annoyance of the established southern nobles who viewed those from the north as somewhat uncouth, (nothing much has changed).

Richard III was actually looked upon with much respect and fondness by the common man of the age, something of a rarity.

Resentment against him grew amongst the ruling elite and eventually after much intrigue etc a revolt led to his overthrow, the end of The Plantagenents and the start of the Tudor dynasty.

Richard III was much maligned by subsequent historians who sought to both legitamise The Tudors and to seek favour with them.

When I was very young Richard III was always portrayed as an evil, despotic King.
This image is enforced by Shakespeare's hunchbacked Richard.
However, over the last few decades a more genuine picture of Richard III is beginning to emerge.

There is much we know about Richard, but there is much more we don't know.

The Plantagenants were indeed of The House Of Anjou who also became The Kings Of Jerusalem and had links with The Knights Templar and possibly had their origins in The Merovignians.
edit on 1/9/12 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Keep in mind that the way dna is transmitted from parents to progeny causes about a 50 50 split between mother and father. So on can readily see that 1/2 to the n number of generations corresponds to the amount of original dna of the original progenitor to exist in the last generation.
after 10 generations only 1/1024 of the original parents dna is left.
and there is no way to predict what that dna code is for. might be for hair growing on your ears.

so there.

but if you allow for serious inbreeding, that could be a larger percentage.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



Oh, and in case you're hoping for change this election season, a detour from the Plantagenet dynasty in American politics... Tough luck. Both President Obama and Mitt Romney seem to share common ancestry as shown here.


Guess what? We ALL share common ancestry.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
This is not surprising for a species that has a penchant for breeding like rabbits
I myself have genetic roots in several royal families, most of my ancestors were no higher on the power chain than Dukes/Duchesses, and some lines were bastard lines, but whatever. I'm probably related to more people than most, too---I have a Mongolian ancestor to boot, so that means I'm probably related to the Khans, and the majority of Asia.

Now. Where do I apply to assume global power over humanity?






top topics



 
23
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join