Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If Prince Harry's kids more royal blooded then Williams

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I just thought how hilarious it would be if prince Harry upstaged his big brother by having kids with someone who actually had royal blood, technically his kids would be more royal blooded then prince William's.....haha ultimate stitch-up!
edit on 21-12-2013 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 

a)There is no practical difference between royal blood and other kinds.
The ancestors of Prince Charles were German Dukes.

b) There may be, if you think about it, some question as to how royal Prince Harry's blood really is.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
But if Prince Harry isn´t Royal at all ?



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
than*



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 



I'm not talking on a genetic level as we don't know what it means to have royal blood (well I do but don't want to go into that right now). From a genealogy point of view Diana had royal blood in her family and obviously so did Charles therefore William and Harry have royal blood on both sides.

"Diana was born into an aristocratic English family with royal ancestry as The Honourable Diana Spencer. She was the fourth child of John Spencer, Viscount Althorp and his first wife, the Honourable Frances Roche, daughter of the 4th Baron Fermoy."

kate middleton on the other hand has not got a drop of royal blood in her unless you trace her genealogy back to Adam and eve that is. Thats why they had to revamp the middletons family crest to include oak leaves and a chevron because they had a crest of a common person and that simply would not do so they changed it!




posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

DISRAELI
reply to post by LUXUS
 

a)There is no practical difference between royal blood and other kinds.





Yes there is. It's inbred.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CallYourBluff
 

But the whole point of the OP is that Prince William's marriage was outside royal circles.
Anyway, taking history as a whole, the phenomenon of "royals only marrying other royals" was a very temporary phase. It wasn't working like that in medieval times.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

DISRAELI
reply to post by CallYourBluff
 

But the whole point of the OP is that Prince William's marriage was outside royal circles.
Anyway, taking history as a whole, the phenomenon of "royals only marrying other royals" was a very temporary phase. It wasn't working like that in medieval times.



There were tinker kings who were won their place through battle but still it was understood that they had no royal blood.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 

Do you actually KNOW the origins of the royal families of Europe?
All of them, without exception, "rose from out of the ranks" at some earlier phase in history. None of them were "royal" to begin with.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


Oh I don't know about that.
Isn't Harry really some other guys kid?


Anyways, I think the kids need to be born of William because William is Charles' and he's next in line to the throne. They need the heir to the throne to die to inherit it.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   

DISRAELI
reply to post by LUXUS
 

Do you actually KNOW the origins of the royal families of Europe?
All of them, without exception, "rose from out of the ranks" at some earlier phase in history. None of them were "royal" to begin with.


I know. They aren't royal blooded. No such thing really.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


Royal blooded. What they come with papers do they? The days of the ton are dead and gone. Kate is living proof. And even though Diana was Lady Diana Spencer she was also of common blood,so Harry is off his pedigree already. Their blood is only royal if you buy into that whole annointed by god thing when in fact it was who was quicker with a sword back when these blood lines were established that really decided who would sit on the throne. Although Henry the sixth was pretty much a given when the York line died with Richard given that Richards only son died as a child. Even if Richard had lived it was going back to the Lancasters.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by violet
 


Back then it was said that the winner of the battle was the one God wanted on the throne.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

violet
reply to post by LUXUS
 


Oh I don't know about that.
Isn't Harry really some other guys kid?


Anyways, I think the kids need to be born of William because William is Charles' and he's next in line to the throne. They need the heir to the throne to die to inherit it.
some other guys kid? With that Windsor face Charles couldn't deny him. Plus the red hair is strictly of the royal line going all the way back to Elizabeth Woodville.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


I recently watched a video here on ATS that revealed Kate and William to be 1st (2nd?) cousins. Also shed light on the royal inbred handicapped children that basically get abandoned to mental wards by their nefarious family.
edit on 21-12-2013 by Tucket because: (no reason given)


If your interested:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 21-12-2013 by Tucket because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   

DISRAELI
reply to post by LUXUS
 

Do you actually KNOW the origins of the royal families of Europe?
All of them, without exception, "rose from out of the ranks" at some earlier phase in history. None of them were "royal" to begin with.


And that means their position should never be challenged?



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by CallYourBluff
 

I don't understand the connection between what I said and your reply.
How does one lead to the other?



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   
They interbreed more than hillbillies. So how can one have more royal blood than the other?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Tucket
reply to post by LUXUS
 


I recently watched a video here on ATS that revealed Kate and William to be 1st (2nd?) cousins. Also shed light on the royal inbred handicapped children that basically get abandoned to mental wards by their nefarious family.
edit on 21-12-2013 by Tucket because: (no reason given)


If your interested:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 21-12-2013 by Tucket because: (no reason given)


Yes, there is a section in it about who Kate Middleton's, Diana Spencer's and Harry's real parents are and also about the genetically inbred cousins that are abandoned, one looks exactly like her cousin QEII.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   

AutumnWitch657

violet
reply to post by LUXUS
 


Oh I don't know about that.
Isn't Harry really some other guys kid?


Anyways, I think the kids need to be born of William because William is Charles' and he's next in line to the throne. They need the heir to the throne to die to inherit it.
some other guys kid? With that Windsor face Charles couldn't deny him. Plus the red hair is strictly of the royal line going all the way back to Elizabeth Woodville.


Pretty much everyone in England has red hair in their family.
He looks nothing like Charles. He looks like the Hewitt fellow.









 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join