It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Queen Elizabeth II Is Not The Rightful Heir To The Throne

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Arken
Has someone noticed a strange likeness?

No.




posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Except you... Phage man



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I agree they don't look alike but...it seems they may very well be related.
This was just the top result there were plenty more:
Geni.com

Title:

Barack H. Obama, 44th President of the USA is Queen Elizabeth II's 10th cousin thrice removed!


I didn't check the tree by hand personally so anyone who can confirm or deny that info go for it.
It seems possible but I don't know for sure.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 




We've had Germans on the throne for the past 300 years.


So Germans who've lived in the UK for 300 years are still German......but, purely as an example, a second generation Pakistani is British?

Kings and Queens come and go, dynasty's rise and fall - but there is a bloodline that can be traced right back to The Anglo-Saxons, who themselves were invaders and as has been pointed out already quite ironically came from Germany.
And nearly every single ruling monarch has had a bastard or two who could have contended the throne, in fact some have done so.

Rightful heir?
Who really cares? - as long as they keep their noses out of the governing of this country I couldn't really give a toss.

For the record, all my Grandparents came to the UK from Ireland approximately 100 years or so ago, am I Irish?



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 05:36 AM
link   
The point is that they have been actively hiding their identities since King George of Germany annexed the throne in 1760.

Don't you find it strange that everyone on the planet knows about the British Royal Family.... yet almost nobody knows what their last name is? That's because in 1917 they hid themselves behind the title of "The House of Windsor" in order to quell anti-german sentiment and have since paid out of their pockets to keep it from public knowledge.

It's Sachs-Cobourg-Gothas, and through those names you can trace all the families they are associated with. I love the articles posted last week on the MSM about how Queen Elizabeth is going "broke"... but let's not talk about how the Royal's true wealth is in fact a state secret.
edit on 12-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Me neither...the colouring job on the queen is rubbish...you don't really think they have anything to do with each other do you? I mean it was a joke post wasn't it? or....I weep.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Not this old chestnut again!
To be honest, I see them as an irrelevance, and couldn't care less about them and their privileged lives as they play no part in my life. Don't know them, don't want to know them and don't suppose I will ever have the need to interact with them in any way at all.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Konduit
The point is that they have been actively hiding their identities since King George of Germany annexed the throne in 1760.

1713 (you're thinking of the wrong George).
They came over at the invitation of the political Establishment because they had already been nominated by Act of Parilament. That is not exactly "annexing".
The George who came to the throne in 1760 just inherited.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Tbh tis all old news. I just like the idea - every X years I get a day or two off of work paid due to something, when ones dies +1 day off then new one steps up +1 day off.

Now... back to watching women's snowboarding



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 


It does affect us though especially when her cousin Cam just gives her an extra 47 million quid for her bits and pieces out of our taxes etc. (Although naturally we must applaud his advisers for making him promise that money is no problem to the areas hit by flood even if they are actually seats he must win in the next election ho-hum!)

I as an Englishg man resent having to have some antiquated institution such as royalty who have the best of everything whilst the rest of us get less and less as time goes by. We even have to pay to keep the Commonwealth for the royals to have something to do; but if people don't object to their increasingly hard earned tax money going to keep two lots of beaucracy - being part of the commonwealth and EU and foreign aid going fine for them, I thinks its mad.

I also resent that other countries such as France, Germany etc earn so much towards their country's coffers from tourism at their fantastic palaces. These places earn billions of Euros for their exchequers, and I wonder what exactly our Queen actually earns. I know we have massaged figures but… dead monarch' palacess make huge profits for their countries, whilst Buck House earns a pittance in comparison.

Also I think they have a corrupting influence on people visiting from poorer nations. When the leaders of countries come and are banqueted by queenie, they see the most lavish lifestyle imaginable. They then go home and whoosh their lifestyle blooms along with their waistlines and personal coffers, royalty is not altruistic.

Currently we are being wooed by the media to 'love' the new royal couple. Sure they are a sweet pair and their baby is gorgeous but their baby is the fourth generation sitting about not to mention the other siblings and their financial needs.

How many of them actually have jobs that are self-supporting? Also its often forgotten that the fantastic jewels and gifts given to the royals are not personal for them but really from one country to the other, yet the public rarely get to see what they are actually own and have one way or another paid for. People bitterly complain about keeping the unemployed on a pittance but many kept stun about the wealthy living on public money and not spending any of their own income from their rents etc, just accumulation after accumulation. If Scotland takes her independence they are welcome to the royals as far as I am concerned.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Since it's been a few years, here is an old thread:
Queen Elizabeth II lineage

There are at least 6 routes to research that I am aware of, I did one of them by hand to see if it worked out.

All of these avenues for research should be looked into, because they are really informative about history and other topics.

A lot of the information in that thread is 'outdated' as in, I could outargue myself today if I went back.
The first post is the one that is important because I link the family tree by each individual.

Anyways, figured someone here may be interested to learn about it.
If anyone has questions just let me know.
edit on 12-2-2014 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Konduit
 




The point is that they have been actively hiding their identities since King George of Germany annexed the throne in 1760.


Err, this is wrong in every aspect.

There was nothing remotely resembling Germany until the forming of The German Confederation in 1815.
Prior to that what we now know as Germany was a group of semi-independent German speaking states / Duchies / Principalities most of which had been part of The Holy Roman Empire in one shape or form - there was absolutely no such thing as The King Of Germany.

As pointed out previously 'the Germans' gained the British throne in 1714 when George I was appointed King in accordance with The Act Of Settlement of 1701 which decreed that Catholics could not become monarch.
George I was the first King of The House Of Hanover.
The Hanoverians were monarchs until Victoria who married a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, thus their children assumed that surname.
There was never any annexation.

As I'm sure you're aware WWI saw the UK at war with Germany.
Anti-German sentiment in the UK was running very high, as I'm sure you can understand.
In an attempt to show their unconditional support etc of the British war effort and to completely dissociate themselves from Germany George V changed his surname to Windsor.
This was done by a very transparent Royal Proclamation in 1917 and received wide support from within the UK.

There was nothing secretive or underhand and the Royal Family certainly haven't tried to 'actively hide their identity'.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   
It's not my country but I admit that I hope Charles and Camella don't get anywhere near the throne.
I admit it ... I liked Diana. (well, as much as anyone can 'like' a royal)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Anglo Saxons are not the original English people, they were the angles and the Saxons, if I recall my basic history correctly, the English were celts and picts.

Due to the tradition of royalty marrying royalty for centuries, I would be shocked if there is or has been a royal house who's members were actually true blood of their country.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


My sympathy was always with Diana but it looks as though Charles and Camilly are happy.

My Mother always use to say to my criticism of the royals "Oh! but they do so much for you!" but when I asked her what, for an intelligent lady and business woman, she couldn't think of a thing, we always use to laugh and beg to disagree, however I resent all the money and the unearned respect they get from the wannabee poshe. Howevwere, ideas of old royal bloodlines which actually means tosh to me, is a step too far. Tony Robinson was right about his research the current ones are there purely by the elite imposed Act because of their wanting a figurehead group behind which to hide and would do anything for prestige and unearned dosh. How hard is it to go out on visits, sit at the best seat at the opera and race track - gee your heart bleeds for the hard work imposed on royals.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Shiloh7
 


I wouldn't want to be one not in a million years. They are our slaves, the British peoples, they can not do what they want to do, they can't go down the pub and have a pint, the Queen does over 280 public engagements which she does because it is her duty to do so.
They cost the taxpayer nothing because they bring in much more than they cost. Public opinion has never been higher for our queen, she has sent her own kin in harms way like any other Mother and I respect her for the service she has given us all for so many years.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Shiloh7
 


I understand why many have anti-monarchy sentiments, and to a large extent I agree with them.

But when reading the OP I understood this thread to be about the ancestry of the current ruling house, the legitimacy of their succession, the validity of other claims and not a pro - anti monarchy debate. (Got to say you do however make some valid points)

Either way, you'd expect people to get at least the basic, historical facts right wouldn't you?

reply to post by eccentriclady
 




Anglo Saxons are not the original English people, they were the angles and the Saxons, if I recall my basic history correctly, the English were celts and picts.


Whilst its true that the Picts and Celts certainly pre-date the Angles and Saxons in the UK they were not however the original inhabitants of The British Isles after the last Ice Age.
The Beaker people were considered the first Celtic peoples here but their origins are now disputed.
People were here well before them as well.



Due to the tradition of royalty marrying royalty for centuries, I would be shocked if there is or has been a royal house who's members were actually true blood of their country.


Indeed.
And they've been interbreeding for so long now that it has become a genuine concern and most European Royal families are now 'welcoming' the introduction of new bloodlines, hence the Middletons etc.
edit on 12/2/14 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Spiro

AngryCymraeg

DJW001
reply to post by DrunkYogi
 


James the Pretender made a right mess of it. Looks like Britain just needs to get used to bloody Germans on the throne.


We've had Germans on the throne for the past 300 years. I think that we've gotten used to it by now.


Not entirely true my friend, A HUGE percentage of people in the UK believe the royalty are English decent. Honestly, My wife is a teacher and they don't even teach this in mainstream!

Spiro
yet they supported a Spanish Queen and rejected Ann Boleyn, one of their own?



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   

FlyersFan
It's not my country but I admit that I hope Charles and Camella don't get anywhere near the throne.
I admit it ... I liked Diana. (well, as much as anyone can 'like' a royal)


I am convinced that Charles is going to be a total disaster as king. He's a meddler.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg

FlyersFan
It's not my country but I admit that I hope Charles and Camella don't get anywhere near the throne.
I admit it ... I liked Diana. (well, as much as anyone can 'like' a royal)


I am convinced that Charles is going to be a total disaster as king. He's a meddler.


Pretty sure the London Eye will be toast if he gets the throne.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join