12-Year Old Girl Links All US Presidents to Same Bloodline But One

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Magister
intellihub.com...


All the Pesidents except Van Buren are related to King John of England (Magna Carta 1166). Are we really still under the shadow of the Monarchy? And a 12 Y.O. girl discovered it!

edit on 29-4-2013 by Magister because: (no reason given)

This is one of those things where we are all related to Nero.

If you have half an hour to waste calculate the number of ancestors you have in the direct line. 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 greatgrandparents etc doubling every 25 years for 500 or a thousand years

Btw Magna Carta was 1215 not 1166.

Precisely. Toss in the fact that we the primary population of colonists was quite small. By 1650, there were around 52,000 people living in the US and a portion of that population would've been slaves--individuals through prejudice and position that would've not been considered an appropriate breeding population (even had a law against it particularly for non-slave women). Put it all together and it should be no surprise that a good chunk of the US has aristocratic ancestry because population growth would've been considerable not just through immigration to the US but through the tendency towards larger families (colonial population went from 52,000 to 250,000 in 1700ish).

Yes, going back far enough we're pretty much all related, BUT, this is different, the difference being, they ARE the bloodline while most people with royal blood are just barely related to that bloodline..

If they were preserving some kind of genetic code, their bloodline would be the motherlode while normal people with royal blood would just be related to that bloodline, their genetics being very diluted in comparison.

They might not have the royal titles anymore, but they're still bloodline and they still keep it in the family for the most part, pretty much all presidential candidates are part of this bloodline, and you already know how European royalty still do things.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I don't about now though. Can you really see the sons/daughters of the wealthy elite being among the first people to colonize Mars or the Moon? It'll be expensive just like the American colonies were...

I just don't see the same thing happening again in the future.

Im not surpriced. We are all "cousins" to each others just cant remember how many generations back tho.

Theory

1. Any one of us has two parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 great great grandparents, etc.

2. Following this formula to seven generations back, which takes us approximately to the year 1800 AD, each one of us has 128 ancestors. (2,4,8,16,32,64,128 or 2 to the seventh power)

3. If we extend this logic back to the beginning of the Christian era (1 AD) each of us would need to have had 1 million billion billion (10 to the 24th power) ancestors. If the 5.5. billion people alive today each had a unique set of ancestors, there would have to have been 5.5 million billion billion (10 to the 33rd power) of ancestors for all of us.

Syracuse University

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by Magister

 

at least not every child is getting mentally soft because of gmos, vaccines, A.D.D. pills and facebook. I hope There are more than just her.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

I don't about now though. Can you really see the sons/daughters of the wealthy elite being among the first people to colonize Mars or the Moon? It'll be expensive just like the American colonies were...

I just don't see the same thing happening again in the future.

Probably unlikely but I think that would be mostly due to changes in inheritance. It's more popular to leave something behind for all children instead of an unequal division of property. Secondly, colonizing would most likely be a federal or an international project (kind of like the ISS) and less dependent on private investment like was done with the Virginia Company in the new world. So yeah, very, very unlikely--not to mention the potential hazards are much more severe. However, interest in space tourism as a new field of tourism has been growing over the last few years with tourists spending ungodly sums of money for a jaunt up there.

“If you could say my family came over on the Niña, the Pinta or the Santa Maria, this is the equivalent,” said Mr. Curran, wearing a black Virgin Galactic T-shirt and an enthusiastic smile. “You are part of the birth of an industry.”

travel.nytimes.com...

Not quite the same, Curran...not quite the same at all.... But still a humorous quote in light of the conversation.

Edit:
And for the love of god, Google, stop spying on me. Went to Google News and this was one of the top articles just now:
www.usatoday.com...
Seriously...cry.

This is one of those things where we are all related to Nero.

I disagree, you are not of this bloodline you and yours will not be president unless you marry into this bloodline. Your democracy is broken. This two party system with one family on both sides of the fence getting their sons into the primaries and consistently winning.

Not my government but I am curious to know how many other family members were in the primaries and how many of the second horses were also related.

It is too consistent my guess is that they have covered all the bets with a few family members in the primaries too, through support make the other look good depending on how the wind is blowing. Or they are rigging the vote.

This definitely deserves further investigation - come on all but one president? This is delusional you may as well face facts and dispense with the election. Advertise the family tree before you vote for them. Put someone in who is not beholden to these family loyalties and see what might happen.

If a twelve year old can survive this and get the word out, honour her bravery and make it count.

reply to post by Magister


Would it surprise you to know that you too are probably related to him and many of the folks reading this thread ?

reply to post by skepticconwatcher

with that type of thinking i guess we are all related to SATAN then.
well that explains alot!

reply to post by Peter Brake


The irony is that I am of this purported "bloodline" (and even funnier, somebody on this board told me that I should go into politics once because the country needed me ). Again, you had a founding populous of this country that was predominantly wealthy aristocracy looking to gain their own lands. They were predominantly wealthy aristocracy from the UK. The "habits" of the aristocracy was to marry similarly positioned (in terms of holdings/title) families for the most part. It gets pretty ridiculous to see how much seemingly intermarriage occurred. To give you an idea, however, of the number of descendants for some of the commonly cited individuals in this purported "presidential bloodline" (King John, btw, was descended from William the Conqueror):

Today every single family member of a European monarch, and everyone who can claim ancestry to even a minor royal, is descended from William.

William the Conqueror, had 9 children, 11th century--at least 1.5 million American descendants.
Charlemagne, had 20 children, 8th century--100 million estimated American descendants.
www.toptenz.net...

Originally posted by WhiteAlice
reply to post by Peter Brake

 

Again, you had a founding populous of this country that was predominantly wealthy aristocracy looking to gain their own lands. They were predominantly wealthy aristocracy from the UK. The "habits" of the aristocracy was to marry similarly positioned (in terms of holdings/title) families for the most part. It gets pretty ridiculous to see how much seemingly intermarriage occurred.

Again, your democracy is broken, modern day America has many more family trees outside of the aristocracy. Or do you contend that in a democracy only the aristocrats should have candidates?
Wake up man what are you saying, only relatives of the founding fathers should be in politics? Is that what their constitution was written for?

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by Magister

 

Would it surprise you to know that you too are probably related to him and many of the folks reading this thread ?

Even if I'm chinese? Seriously, my ancestors were shipped over as prisoners, as many were!

reply to post by Peter Brake


Actually, you haven't paid attention to a thing I've said. When 1/3 of your populous is descended from Charlemagne, the odds are 1 in 3 that you will have a president with noble lineage. The other factor is money. I never once said it was right but just stating the facts. Nice try at a straw man though. If you'd like my opinion on the matter, I do not think the bloodline aspect of it is relevant because there are so many Americans with noble ancestors. Using the Charlemagne descendent estimate, we'd be eliminating 2/3rds of our population from eligibility for presidency.

There are three things that basically win presidencies. I call them the 3 M's--money, media, and marriage.
Money--it takes an insane amount of money to run and compete with presidents who a. already have their own money and b. are more likely to receive donations from PACs, corporations, and more. You're looking at competing with individuals that will have tens of millions of dollars at their disposal for campaign advertising, tours, rallies, and more. It wasn't supposed to be this way and there have been attempts in the past to curb campaign donations and limit spending in the past. However, Supreme Court ruled that money is the equivalent of speech and then there was the Citizens United v. FEC court decision that made the money issue/fairness of campaigns go right out the freaking window. This is the number one problem with our "democracy".

Media--If you've got the media on your side, it means you'll get air time. If you don't and are some guy from Montana running for president, it's more likely that most Americans won't even know you exist because the media giants will not pay attention to you. Better yet, you can run but the hosts of whatever presidential debate aren't likely to toss you an invite. Media here in the US tends to side along party lines and that means that those whipper snappers that have the gall to run via a third party or independent are going to be pretty much ignored by the media. Second biggest issue with our democracy.

Marriage--Got to have a classy wife with good lineage and upbringing or else the First Lady won't make you presidential enough. It's also where being able to say that your family has served in every war since the French Indian War or what have you is used as a kind of an All-American "street cred". If you hadn't noticed, a distinct portion of the US population suffers from xenophobia. Look at the fit some people were throwing about Obama's father....This one matters but it's not enough to get a shot at becoming president of the US and doesn't mean jack alone.

So yeah, our democracy is really screwed up. Totally agree but you're all barking up the wrong tree. Money and media--that's how they do it. Well that and make sure the Supreme Court is in their pocket.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Glad that you agree with me (it is obvious) that US democracy is broken, seems to me though your facts and figures do not add up. Your country is filled with immigrants, not related to English royalty, your presidents all are related to one nob, not just royalty. So the family pushes the likely son to office yes using their money and media (of course) bet they also hedge their bets with a couple of family also runs. Weigh public opinion, and get one of the boys in who will not rock the family boat.

"Broken"

You collectively need to change the way the system runs, to get a president to power who is of the people and for the people. Perhaps social media can finally prove the difference and a much needed healthy change can be brought about. Really annoyed that President Obama, who used this media effectively, is one of the boys - I had hope, but look at what is getting signed into law, it's more of the same taken a bit further down a road chosen by the elite.

the presence of agents is strong within this thread...

its well known, obvious and no secret that presidency bloodline is related to the "royal" bloodline of england.

even obama is related to bush and past presidents. this is no secret. this is no conspiracy.

its one bloodline and its either you work how they want you to work within the family or you die just like Diana or Kennedy.

and as for the english "queen" i dont doubt that she is related to aleister crowley. he did have a daughter....

the occultist love that man as a god and his children being in position of high power is no coincidence to me.
nor does it matter. the truth is there is an evil existing in the world... and by your decisions you can stop it.

reply to post by joshuaislord


Who would be consider an agent? I'm curious because I love the diverse views the members of this site! Share please.

reply to post by Peter Brake


Oh for the love of god. I'm an accountant with a heavy streak of statistician (I freaking aced statistics...). The numbers aren't wrong and the incidence and strength is correct. The factors relating to surviving to adulthood for breeding are pretty simple--access to food, medicine, shelter, and more. Basically, families that had a greater confidence in these factors would have had less childhood death and more survival to a breeding age. Families that had poor access to these things would not have thrived nearly as much as families that did (although even wealthy families could still get partially wiped by infectious disease or death in childbirth). That's why you have such a high incidence of the survival of specific familial lines. Look at it this way. The average lifespan for someone living 1000 years ago was around 25-30 years old. Basically, the average person would've had 10 years to procreate. Charlemagne, in contrast, lived to be 72 years old--double the average life expectancy. That allowed him to have 40 years of procreation and his offspring would've had similar life expectancies to Charlemagne because of those same factors--food, medicine, shelter, and etc. Charlemagne's numbers are pretty immense but that is because his line trickled all throughout the royal houses of Europe whereas Genghis Khan's numbers at a paltry estimate of 16 million descendants was trickled out everywhere due to rape. Basically, his kids were born to those who would have had greater access to the necessities of life and those who didn't.

Think about it. Around 70,000 years ago, the survival of the human race was dependent on around 10,000 people. Today, our population sits at 7 billion despite the Ice Age, the Black Death and various other flu pandemics. It's called population growth. If you have a portion of the population that has a distinct advantage over the average population, it's going to mean that those lines will have a higher incidence because of those advantages. In terms of politics, these same lines would still have an advantage because they were the first to arrive.

Yes, we've had immigrant populations. I am that, too. My great grandmother was born in Norway, my grandmother was the first one born in the US and she married another Norwegian. That makes my father to be the first one to marry outside of the Norwegian gene pool and he married into an early American family. So I'm descended from both fairly recent immigrant family (

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by joshuaislord

 

Who would be consider an agent? I'm curious because I love the diverse views the members of this site! Share please.

Bet $10 it's me. I've been accused elsewhere of working for the NSA so it wouldn't surprise me. I find it pretty humorous considering my attitudes on other matters.

Ha, Tony Blair and John Wilkes Booth, that'd make sense. Too insignificant little rats acting on behalf of the banking elite. Like ancestor like descendant's husband I guess.