Which potential Republican Presidential candidates have British royal blood and which have not?

Taking in consideration that:

- ALL the US Presidents in History, except JFK, had some blood link to some old British king.

- In 2008, both candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, were descendents of King William I of Scotland.


The question arises:

Among the potential Republican Presidential candidates for 2012 elections, which have British royal blood and which have not?

I bet that the one who will win the nomination is one that is part of some British royal lineage. Those who don't have any British royal ancestry have no chances of being choosen.

reply to post by GLontra


well rothschild is the royal family since 1806,
google this its a pdf: The Queen Victoria Con

I bet that Herman Cain isn't a descendent of any king, so, he will never be nominated...

Barack Obama's mother was of royal lineage, but I don't know anything about any royal lineage in Herman Cain's ancestry.

I always said that the British have controlled Amaruca from day 1, and that the wars were/are fought purely for effect and to profit the elite.

Slavery never ended... it just mutated...

reply to post by GLontra


What about Royal honest blood? That is what Ron Paul has......You think he can win with that?? I hope so!!

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by GLontra

 

What about Royal honest blood? That is what Ron Paul has......You think he can win with that?? I hope so!!

So, you see no problem if one more descendent of British kings becomes the President... You see nothing wrong with it, and you see no signs of conspiracy...Interesting...

Well... I bet that any candidate with no British royal blood won't be nominated.

reply to post by GLontra


Actions speak louder than blood. Insisting that it is wrong for a person of a particular lineage to hold public office is simply a very specific form of racism. When it comes to politics, the ties that bind are ones of ignorance, wealth, party affiliations; not ones of family.

reply to post by GLontra


I understand the question, but I don't get your point. The person who will get the election is the one who is the puppet. It has nothing to do with Royal Blood. Besides what is Royal Blood? The bloodline of those who marry thier family members alot of the time?

Okay, if you think that it's just a "coincidence" that all US Presidents are descendents of British kings, there's nothing that I can do...

The only exception was JFK, and he was murdered.

There is not one link or source in here and we're speculating on which presidents past, present and future have royal blood?

You do realize you actually need blood tests of royalty and presidents to compare right?

Originally posted by GLontra
- In 2008, both candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, were descendents of King William I of Scotland.

The world population was 300 million then, it's 7000 million now. I would certainly wager a lot of people are descendants of famous historical figures.

So, do you want links? Here are the links:

www.atlanteanconspiracy.com...

thecounterpunch.hubpages.com...

www.quintessentialpublications.com...

No need for "blood tests". It's just GENEALOGY.

Now, tell me that you believe the majority of the US population are decendents of at least one British king, and I will laugh. I'm sure that it's not true.

Reply to post by GLontra

I have French, English, and Scottish royal blood.

I should be a shoo-in


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

It's more likely none of the Republican candidates do, which would infer none of them will win. If the plan is to topple the US from withing there is no better person to do that than Obama. He has done an amazing job of destroying the US economy so far, imagine the rubble that would be left if he got another 4 years?

And yes. A great majority of people in the US with European ancestry can claim royal lineage through genealogy. It is simple math.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
And yes. A great majority of people in the US with European ancestry can claim royal lineage through genealogy. It is simple math.

That's a broad claim.

reply to post by GLontra


What is the purpose of this question? Genetics and mathematics would show that most of us from an anglo saxon background have some sort of claim on the throne.........

reply to post by GLontra

Okay, if you think that it's just a "coincidence" that all US Presidents are descendents of British kings, there's nothing that I can do...

The only exception was JFK, and he was murdered.

There have been 20 known assassination attempts on 16 of the 43 Presidents Of The United States Of America.
4 of these assassination attempts have been successful.

In addition it is rumoured that two other Presidents were assassinated but this has never been proven.

en.wikipedia.org...

I think your point about JFK is pretty much moot.

And it's hardly surprising that most US Presidents can trace some lineage back to the British Royal Family given the origins of the American nation.
I dare say that most people with British ancestry will be able to claim some links to the royal line if going back far enough.

I'd suggest that the fact that nearly every POTUS has British royal blood says more about US society, heritage and culture than it does the influence etc of the British Royal Family.

I bet that less than 10 percent of the current population of the UK are descendents of any king. And I'm talking about the UK...

Originally posted by GLontra

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
And yes. A great majority of people in the US with European ancestry can claim royal lineage through genealogy. It is simple math.

That's a broad claim.

Not so much.

It is exponential.

If a king has just two children, those two children have children, etc. etc (and that does not even take into consideration extra-marital children).