It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Amazing Bloodline - Mitt Romney Is Related To Obama & Bush

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:08 PM
I don't buy the argument that most of us are related to British royalty. Even Ghangis Khans bloodline is estimated to be at most 0.5% of the population and his empire included almost all of Asia which is by far the most populous region in the world. China alone accounts for 19.14% of world population, while the US is 4.47% and Britain 0.88%. The British royalty kept their bloodline almost strictly within the royal families of Europe while Khan and his sons had harems with beautiful women from their conquered territories constantly being brought in. Kubilai Khan who established the Yuan Dynasty in China for example was reported to have added 30 virgins to his harem each year.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:10 PM

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



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:26 PM
Perhaps there is some sort of hereditary gene that enhances the desire to be leader. If anything, it would make for a interesting scientific hypothesis

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:15 PM
They are all related? You know what that means right?

Our nation is being controlled by a family.

The rest of us are to take orders I guess.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:23 PM

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by RedmoonMWC

This much is true; is no more reliable as a source than Wikipedia.

Well then how about the New England Historic Genealogical Society founded in 1845?

They draw some of the same connections.

Yes, this would be a much more reliable source than
I wasn't saying the information was false, I was asking for a better source.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:24 PM
If you check my thread : Geneology it has been shown in multiple lineages that the European aristocracy is descendant from the Roman Caesars.

Ok because they are all into inner-breeding within the noble families, that means that a large majority of the family line has stayed within a limited scope. And because our Presidents and wanna-be Presidents are related to these European nobility, that makes them nobility also.

That means that Obama, Bush, and Romney are modern day descendants of the Caesars of Rome.

Why would we elect only Caesar line folks to our highest offices? Are only Caesars good enough for leadership?

Or are we all subservient and the Caesars impose themselves as rulers because they have been in complete control all along?

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:25 PM

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
Well, I'll be a monarch's uncle....that is so weird....But not entirely surprising.

And no, I don't believe that everybody is related to somebody somehow. If you think about all the people that were in Britain, in the late Iron Age (around 1000 BC), the population was estimated to be somewhere between 1 and 1.5 million people. Move that time up two thousand years, and imagine how many more Brits there were. Since there were only a few royals and rulers, what are the odds that all the US presidents, save for one, come from the same lineage?

I do think there is something to this bloodline thing, and I'm pretty darned sure that I am not related to any of those people. So unless I'm vaguely related to Vlad the Impaler, via Slavic blood, I have no ties to the Bushes, and I know, as I have no British blood in me, that I'm not related to any of those people.

Do the math, and you'll start to see that there is something to the idea that certain bloodlines perpetuate themselves and elevate themselves at the cost of others.

You'd only know if you did a DNA test

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:32 PM
Almost none of us are actually related to them in any verified manner.

Sure more than half of the "normal folks" will claim they are also descendant from nobility but their claims are almost entirely transparent because they have no evidence to assert such.

Had they real evidence to prove such a claim, they could legally make claim to family inheritance in some manner and establish themselves as part of the gang. Due to the fact this doesn't happen, I would have to consider the claims of relation by normal people as fallacious.

Sure it may be true in reality genetically, but as a provable fact with evidence it comes up short. And that is what is required for one to rejoin the nobility - proof.

As a result of these circumstances, it is apparent that the vast majority of us are not related directly in any manner to these noble families. Instead, they have been inter-breeding between the other noble families for far longer than centuries, try millennium.

It goes back further than the Caesars, as they were merely nobility of the time that inter-bred with other nobility from other nations such as Greek patrician types.

Although anything before the Caesars gets really clouded and difficult to discern with any certainty, it does appear highly likely that this same group of noble families can be traced all the way back to Egypt, Persia, etc.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:35 PM

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

You'd only know if you did a DNA test

You would need far more than a DNA test.

Try a drop of Bush's blood for a DNA comparison.

I don't know about you, but I have doubts we will be able to get that information for our own mere curiosity.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:36 PM

Yes, this would be a much more reliable source than
I wasn't saying the information was false, I was asking for a better source.

I understand. Here is another source as well. Burkes Peerage confirms the lineage and they are one of the most respected genealogical organizations that documents the royal lineage of the UK.

Burke's Peerage publishes authoritative, in-depth historical guides to the royal and titled families of the United Kingdom, such as Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, and of many other countries.[1] Founded in 1826 by Irish genealogist John Burke, and continued by his son, Bernard Burke.

edit on 10-9-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:13 PM
reply to post by seabag

A brother with an other mother...aren't we all?

Anyways...what is going on here?

People like Brad Pitt move out to Hollywood...showed talent...scouted by the freemasons and checked...and stamped for approval....and when big money is around the corner tapped and initiated? Is that how it works with politicians, businesmen, musicians...ect?

edit on 10/9/2012 by zatara because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:18 PM
reply to post by seabag

Gee What a flipping shock.

Here is another shocker if you do the math and find out who has a lager percentage of the bloodline you will get the presidential winner.

It is a safe bet, might as well make your money now if anyone will take the bet. It is a fairly well known 'secret' wink wink. .

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:20 PM
reply to post by seabag

Some history.

Part too


Part 5 ommitting repetitions in 4

Skip to 007 as there is no 6

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10 skip 1 to 2

Part 10-3

I rarely post scripture as Jesus had little faith in 'words', a human construct, most often lost in translation/transcription, to see/envision the Truth as it is though one will find much truth in the presentation above. Regardless of which 'genome' or shell one has to work with, each Soul has a choice, from what 'I' understand. *
edit on 10-9-2012 by Bluemoonsine because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:14 PM
Whats the odds of this happening? Not bloody likely unless...David Icke is RIGHT and has been RIGHT all along, we are really controlled by Reptillian aliens from the fourth dimension, who give orders to the 1% of 1% that is actually running this insane assylum (our beloved planet Earth)! No I am not joking this time, clearly there are specified bloodlines that run this planet and for a good reason which leads back to Reptillian alien involvement. Well all well and good you say, yes I'll agree with the bloodline bit but it's Rothchilds or Illuminati but Reptillian aliens thats just crazy, right? Why is it crazy and how in the hell would we know? Anything is possible. I think David Icke is right on many counts. What do you think? (and don't parrot back propaganda)

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:34 PM
I still haven't had much free time to really dig, however... this is not terribly shocking or difficult to accept. Y-chromosomal Adam is a known ancestor to all human beings. And he lives somewhere from 60k to 200k years ago ( there is some controversy about which date is correct ).

The notion that if 1/3 of us, or so, came from a common genetic pool - it would mean that we're all entitled to inheritance and royal titles is incorrect. Usually only one line of any family receives primacy in these matters. Even now, there are many offshoots of the House of Windsor line who bear no wealth, station, or title.

Another example, it is estimated that more than 16,000,000 people, today, are direct descendants of Ghengis Khan.

An international group of geneticists studying Y-chromosome data have found that nearly 8 percent of the men living in the region of the former Mongol empire carry y-chromosomes that are nearly identical. That translates to 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants living today.

This is just a case of something seeming incredible - but actually just is the way nature works.


posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:03 PM
reply to post by Hefficide

You mean Adam was actually real?

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:08 PM
reply to post by AfterInfinity

The individual known as Y-chromosomal Adam is not the same as the biblical Adam. There is a much earlier common ancestor to all humans that has been named "mitochondrial Eve". The names are just taken from the bible and used by scientists to describe our most recent common ancestors - male and female.


posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:32 PM
I started a thread back in May about a similar scenario. Picking the next President through Geneaology

Some interesting links on this theory, just not enough time to dig deeper...

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:10 PM
William led the 1066 Norman invasion of England, forever changing the island’s language and genetic makeup. He had nine children, who were married off to European royalty. Due to the restrictive practice of royals only being able to marry other members of their own class, his lineage spread throughout Europe. This started a domino effect, since wealthy members of society had far more children who survived into adulthood than commoners. Today every single family member of a European monarch, and everyone who can claim ancestry to even a minor royal, is descended from William. This includes tens of millions of Europeans, over 1.5 million Americans, and every single U.S. President who ever lived, from Washington to Obama.

Read more:

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:24 PM

Originally posted by randomname
how do you trace your ancestry to the first king of israel.

this is just blatant b.s. to promote

It's absolutely, totally doable...assuming you are descended from medieval royalty or noblemen. The record keeping was positively exquisite for the family lineages for this class of people given that the bloodlines dictated everything from your inheritance and station to where you stood in the line of succession for a whole host of royal titles. These medieval documents were usually kept in multiple places as well. The family usually had their own copies, as well as the royal libraries and (of course) the church.

However...if you are descended from common european peasantry you might as well forget it. You will be lucky if your ancestors learned how to read and write with any degree of proficiency by the start of the 1800's...much less preserve the more complex records involved in tracing ones bloodlines through millennia.

Although, it should be noted that the OP is slightly inaccurate in their post. In a technical sense the first "king of Jerusalem" would allegedly be the quasi-mythological-at-best figure known as "King David", however there is really little to no credible archeological evidence to support the existence of such a figure. However, after close to a millenium of largely euro-centric historical study, the "First King of Jerusalem" is often used to describe the first EUROPEAN "King of Jerusalem" after Pope Urban II initiation of the First Crusade.

It should be noted that Godfroi de Bouillon (aka Godfrey de Bouillon) was a Frankish knight responsible for conquering Jerusalem during the First Crusade (i.e. The People's Crusade) in 1099 A.D.) Even then, Godfrey did not declare himself the "King of Jerusalem" and instead stated something to the affect of "Jerusalem is God's Kingdom", although translations vary. His successor was Baldwin of Boulogne (later to be known as Baldwin of Edessa and ultimately Baldwin I of Jerusalem) who DID, in fact, declare himself the King of Jerusalem.In fairness to the OP, they shouldn't feel too bad about these inaccuracies. I've met tenured professors of medieval history at Big Ten Universities who were not knowledgeable enough to draw the necessary distinctions...assuming OP doesn't have a graduate degree in history I wouldn't really expect them to know such things.

Now for the really cool part...

The reason we should ALL be rather disturbed by the POSSIBILITY of such a common lineage back to Godfroi de Bouillon is because of his other legacy. Godfrey and fellow knight Tancred of Hauteville II (a Norman) excavated beneath the Temple of Solomon upon conquering Jerusalem as it was rumored to hold the Holy Grail. Nobody really knows exactly what Godfrey and company found...but they appear to have found something. Immediately after the excavation they become incredibly wealthy and powerful, begin ignoring the directives of the Catholic Church, and most importantly...begin forming all sorts of little societies.

Godfrey founded The Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem whose symbol was a rose and a cross. This order of knights provided the model (and many of the same knights which were on the First Crusade) upon which the much more widely known orders of the Poor Knights of Christ and the Temple of Solomon and the Order of Hospitallers.

Of course...the Hospitallers would eventually become the Knights of Malta and I'll wager everyone on ATS is probably already aware of the overlapping traditions of the Rosicrucians, Templars, Knights of Malta, and the Freemasons.

So let me ask, now that you know the full story do you find the idea that all these Presidents and presidential candidates have a common ancestral lineage to the Great Grandpappy of the Secret Societies a bit more plausible?

Certainly it's not rock solid "proof" of this...but it's about as uncanny as circumstantial evidence can get.

Personally...I think we should pay attention to this.

new topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in