Kate Middleton: Not so common, after all

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Kate Middleton: Not so common, after all


www.smh.com.au

Research undertaken by a Melbourne school teacher and his senior students has found that the Berkshire-bred wife of Prince William, second-in-line to the throne, is related to one of Britain's oldest and grandest families.

The 30-year-old is related to William Petty FitzMaurice, the 1st Marquess of Lansdowne, who was prime minister from 1782 to 1783.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   

The ancestral connection is born from Catherine's second cousin three times removed, Lady Barbara Bullock. In 1917, Lady Bullock - nee Lupton - married a descendant of Petty FitzMaurice, Sir Christopher Bullock. Principal private secretary to Winston Churchill in 1919, Bullock went on to become permanent under-secretary at the British Air Ministry from 1931 to 1936.


Well, does this really surprise anyone?


It has emerged that Kate Middleton is actually of noble lineage, having descended from a line of Earls and a Prime Minister. To most of us here, this news would come as no surprise, considering the royal family is not the type to marry the average commoner.

www.smh.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Interesting. I find genetics and family history intriguing. This compels me to do more research on my own British history...



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Personally, I feel any British Citizen would be hard pressed to not find some sort of "royal blood" in their family. A lot of "royals" had problems keeping their sword sheathed. Not a surprise at all.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital



The ancestral connection is born from Catherine's second cousin three times removed, Lady Barbara Bullock. In 1917, Lady Bullock - nee Lupton - married a descendant of Petty FitzMaurice, Sir Christopher Bullock. Principal private secretary to Winston Churchill in 1919, Bullock went on to become permanent under-secretary at the British Air Ministry from 1931 to 1936.


Well, does this really surprise anyone?


It has emerged that Kate Middleton is actually of noble lineage, having descended from a line of Earls and a Prime Minister. To most of us here, this news would come as no surprise, considering the royal family is not the type to marry the average commoner.

www.smh.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)


I am descended from royalty as well. So are you. So is every 'commoner'. So you display your ignorance with your post, he did exactly what you claimed a royal would not do.

Genealogist: Almost Everyone on Earth Descended From Royalty



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Only one of the ruling classes own is fit for the throne.

No way they'd let a pleb become royalty, pretentious leaches are rather exclusive.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
I'm a fan of the royal couple myself, but I don't think any news about them is "alternative"! This is mainstream tabloid, not BAN, IMO.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 



second cousin three times removed,
= grasping at straws



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   
I guess her real name is Kate Upperton also?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
It has emerged that Kate Middleton is actually of noble lineage, having descended from a line of Earls and a Prime Minister. To most of us here, this news would come as no surprise, considering the royal family is not the type to marry the average commoner.


They have to marry their own bloodline, that is pretty common knowledge these days.

I laughed when they called her a "commoner". That was so funny! Having mere millions and not billions makes you a peasant in the eyes of these rich reptiles!



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Her family is not aristocratic in itself. Her ancestors are aristocrats - huge difference in that respect.

However, she went to Marlborough College - the most exclusive school in the UK (forget Eton or Harrow) so everyone already knew which circles she moved in. That makes this not so surprising (but still interesting).



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
They have to marry their own bloodline, that is pretty common knowledge these days.

That's why most of them look inbred and hideous.

Take Charles for example. Had he put on some blue overalls and abstained from washing his hair for a fortnight, he could have had a role in the movie Deliverance.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xaphan

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
They have to marry their own bloodline, that is pretty common knowledge these days.

That's why most of them look inbred and hideous.

Take Charles for example. Had he put on some blue overalls and abstained from washing his hair for a fortnight, he could have had a role in the movie Deliverance.


I actually see him on Green Acres
or as the Mad Magazine boy!



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOtter

Originally posted by Xaphan

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
They have to marry their own bloodline, that is pretty common knowledge these days.

That's why most of them look inbred and hideous.

Take Charles for example. Had he put on some blue overalls and abstained from washing his hair for a fortnight, he could have had a role in the movie Deliverance.


I actually see him on Green Acres
or as the Mad Magazine boy!

lol
media.tumblr.com...





top topics
 
3

log in

join