Originally posted by randomname
how do you trace your ancestry to the first king of israel.
this is just blatant b.s. to promote ancestry.com
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
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.