Amazing Bloodline - Mitt Romney Is Related To Obama & Bush

Covered this in a thread recently and it's true. All but one POTUS shares a Plantagenet ancestor.

The caveat, however, is that 1/3 of the people in the western world also share the same ancestor.

~Heff

My auntie did a family tree bizzo and apparently im a 3rd/4th cousin to David Beckham.....

... the way i figure it, he has 28yrs of backdated birthday presents to cough up! cheap B@stard.

S n F Woa I always heard about the "ruling bloodlines" but that was nice to put it in perspective. I wonder where the rocerfelas rothshills fit in

But in all seriousness could someone please explain; What does it mean when they say ( ) removed?

For example thats his 4th cousins twice removed?

What does the removed stuff mean?

reply to post by Hefficide

The caveat, however, is that 1/3 of the people in the western world also share the same ancestor.

So you’re saying 1/3 of people in the western world are related to ALL BUT ONE POTUS?

I’d like to see the research behind that finding.

Do you have a link to that thread?

reply to post by HumanitiesLastHope


I had to look it up!

When the word "removed" is used to describe a relationship, it indicates that the two people are from different generations. You and your first cousins are in the same generation (two generations younger than your grandparents), so the word "removed" is not used to describe your relationship.

The words "once removed" mean that there is a difference of one generation. For example, your mother's first cousin is your first cousin, once removed. This is because your mother's first cousin is one generation younger than your grandparents and you are two generations younger than your grandparents. This one-generation difference equals "once removed."

Twice removed means that there is a two-generation difference. You are two generations younger than a first cousin of your grandmother, so you and your grandmother's first cousin are first cousins, twice removed.

www.genealogy.com...

There is a striking resemblance

Not only physically, but politically as well.

Originally posted by Signals
But aren't we ALL related to one common ancestor?

yup, a tadpole!

reply to post by jacobe001

There is a striking resemblance

Not only physically, but politically as well.

I was waiting for that!

NICE!

reply to post by seabag


This thread is where it came up. I can dig through my browser history for the links that I used in researching what was being said - but will have to do so later. Right now R/L has me barely here and preoccupied.

~Heff

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by jude11

 

6 degrees of separation law connects us all.

Peace

So you’re saying I have a shot at being POTUS???

Wait a minute….are you saying I’m related to OBAMA???

I know what you mean but I know people (OK…one person) who have traced their genealogy and they’re not related to former Presidents. This still seems a bit strange to me. I don’t think the unproven theory of 6 degrees of separation can explain away all of these connections, that is if they’re accurate.

Yeah it's a theory and an interesting one at that.

I surely do hope that I don't find this creature in my family tree.



Peace

reply to post by seabag


I didn't mean your genealogy, I meant step out of the political forums and explore what this site has to offer

But in the mean time, keep the genealogy thing on the back burner for poops and giggles. And I missed that last sentence in your OP talking about the NWO conspiracy. So there ya go, it's exactly what helps feed said conspiracy

reply to post by FissionSurplus


I do agree with you on all that, including that some bloodlines do perpetuate themselves at the expense of others. (voted for you on the most valuable member thread!)

I haven't examined the actual details of this presidential bloodline thing, but I doubt it's a close-knit relationship of the kind that would actually amount to a conscious power dynasty. Most people are aware of relations only about as far as second or perhaps a third cousin. Some of the old blue blood families are aware of kinships going beyond that, but they wouldn't necessarily be pushing the careers of a distant relation while their closer kin go begging, A close examination of the same bloodlines would probably find far more kin in trailer parks and unemployment lines than in the corridors of power. I doubt that most of the presidents got where they did because of a distant family connection unless they actually inherited wealth from them or something.

A true dynasty would be more of a direct line progression. There have been a few of those- Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Bush.

My relatives do trace easily back to the Mayflower an other early English colonists- so I'm probably in the bloodline of the bloodsuckers in politics (ugh), but I gain no benefit from it whatsoever and am not NWO material in the least.

(by the way- love your remark about Vlad the Impaler!

reply to post by HumanitiesLastHope

I wonder where the rocerfelas rothshills fit in

There are some very interesting threads on the topic.

Check out this one by wonderworld.

The people who run the world starting from the illuminati at the top, going down down down all the way to leaders of countries are all one family. (or a few families) it's all interbreading that dates back thousands of years. You can't rule a country without being part of the family. Kinda like the moffia. Really no different at all. They think there some kind of a royal bloodline. They think that interbreeding keeps some kind of power within the human. And over time as they interbreed they get more of this internal power or chi energy so to speak. Very sick people no doubt.

Wait a second here. You and I are cousins, too. Do the math. With 4 generations per century, which is being a bit miserly since it could easily be five, by the time you get back a mere 1,000 years, you have over a TRILLION ancestors. 2-3-8-16-32-1 trillion. Obviously, 1,000 years ago there were way less than a billion people on Earth. In fact, it was somewhere between 300 and 400 million. Given how genes disseminate, you're just as related to Emperor Ching in China s you are an African potentate because all it takes is ONE guy to kind of get lost, get married, and spread his genes.

In other words, we're all related to William the Conqueror, even though few of us can prove it. I can through the Montague line, but so can you if you worked at it. Everyone here is related to Chalamagne. Absolutely staistically guaranteed.

SO, everyone reading this except, perhaps a genuine Native American with ancestry on this continent back 12,000 years pure, is a cousin to Bush, a cousin to Blair, a cousin to Romney, and a cousin to Obama.

A child could do the math. This is no big deal. "Bloodlines" be damned. It's a false issue. Get over it.

Originally posted by r2d246
The people who run the world starting from the illuminati at the top, going down down down all the way to leaders of countries are all one family. (or a few families) it's all interbreading that dates back thousands of years. You can't rule a country without being part of the family. Kinda like the moffia. Really no different at all. They think there some kind of a royal bloodline. They think that interbreeding keeps some kind of power within the human. And over time as they interbreed they get more of this internal power or chi energy so to speak. Very sick people no doubt.

I read about 13 ruling family's that have held power for millenia, here is the list.

1 The Astor Bloodline

2 The Bundy Bloodline

3 The Collins Bloodline

4 The DuPont Bloodline

5 The Freeman Bloodline

6 The Kennedy Bloodline

7 The Li Bloodline

8 The Onassis Bloodline

9 The Reynolds Bloodline

10 The Rockefeller Bloodline

11 The Rothschild Bloodline

12 The Russell Bloodline

13 The Van Duyn Bloodline

"It’s a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in The big club"

Originally posted by schuyler
Wait a second here. You and I are cousins, too. Do the math. With 4 generations per century, which is being a bit miserly since it could easily be five, by the time you get back a mere 1,000 years, you have over a TRILLION ancestors. 2-3-8-16-32-1 trillion. Obviously, 1,000 years ago there were way less than a billion people on Earth. In fact, it was somewhere between 300 and 400 million. Given how genes disseminate, you're just as related to Emperor Ching in China s you are an African potentate because all it takes is ONE guy to kind of get lost, get married, and spread his genes.

In other words, we're all related to William the Conqueror, even though few of us can prove it. I can through the Montague line, but so can you if you worked at it. Everyone here is related to Chalamagne. Absolutely staistically guaranteed.

SO, everyone reading this except, perhaps a genuine Native American with ancestry on this continent back 12,000 years pure, is a cousin to Bush, a cousin to Blair, a cousin to Romney, and a cousin to Obama.

A child could do the math. This is no big deal. "Bloodlines" be damned. It's a false issue. Get over it.

If any of what you said were true then there would be no study of genealogy, would there? We’d just say, “We’re all related” and that would be that.

reply to post by Pedro4077


You're right, there's is a club and we ain't in it.

George Carlin on the American Dream

reply to post by seabag


Thank you thank thank you so much. I appreciate your quick and insightful reply. Most people on here are rude and don't answer but I appreciate you taking the time to teach me.

Thanks again

The truth is that just about everyone is related to a large group of other people, so everyone is probably related in some way. It just depends on how far back one looks into history. Of course more recent relations are more interesting, and mean more in the sense we are discussing, but I just thought I would mention that little gem of information.

I will not accept that the claim is true unless shown concrete evidence. I believe I watched that video with the girl about the US presidents, but I do not recall any specific, concrete evidence being offered. I cannot watch the video in the OP right now, but I have a feeling it is not going to offer anything definitive. Anyone can make a video and claim anything, as we all know, so one has to be careful.

I do not know how accurate the ancestry website is, or if an actual concrete case will be made in the video. I have a feeling that certain jumps may be made, or assumptions, in this video. The reason I am so critical of something I haven't even watched is that I understand how difficult it would be to accurately prove these relationships. There would be many, many people involved, and there are different types of relationships as well...ie marriage and blood. I will see when I get a chance to watch it though.