Queen Elizabeth II is Direct Lineage of the Roman Caesars by blood! (Proven Fact)

reply to post by xuenchen
Thanks i dont set out to be a killjoy but to uphold the truth
ps i have actually done archealogical research in my own country for a 5th century figure called artorious castus who led a sarmation cavalry unit based in lancashire .it this bloke probably that the mythical arthur is based upon so i am aquainted with Geoffrey of Monmouth and his nicely written but wildly historically inaccuarte works heres another quote from professor Marler :

"Neither Tacitus, Suetonius, nor Dio Cassius, the Roman historians, have anything at all to say about Genuissa. But Griscom, in his lengthy introduction to the Historia, is much concerned to defend Geoffey's credibility. And, if Geoffrey, who relied upon sources to which we may not now have access, can be believed, then grounds may exist for saying that Genuissa was the daughter of Claudius and the spouse of Arviragus. Thorpe agrees with Griscom that, on the whole, Geoffrey is likely to be something better than a fabulist. "

reply to post by cuchullainuk777


Thanks again.....

I have heard of artorious castus before.

I will shut up now that I have some research to do !

I knew ya had some good points !

reply to post by xuenchen
ok thanks looool appernetly Geoffrey is nothing more than 'FABULIST ' LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL dont ask me what a fabulist is but it sounds cool see my professor Marler quote:

"Neither Tacitus, Suetonius, nor Dio Cassius, the Roman historians, have anything at all to say about Genuissa. But Griscom, in his lengthy introduction to the Historia, is much concerned to defend Geoffey's credibility. And, if Geoffrey, who relied upon sources to which we may not now have access, can be believed, then grounds may exist for saying that Genuissa was the daughter of Claudius and the spouse of Arviragus. Thorpe agrees with Griscom that, on the whole, Geoffrey is likely to be something better than a fabulist. "

This seems to sums up concisley what i was banging on about .In almost evrery single account absolutely anywhere on the net where you see about Arviragus or Marius or Venissa/venus julia or the more britishy celtic sounding Guinissa (wonder who Geoffrey was trying to falter with that last name) it all leads inevitably back to our Geoff of Monmouth i wouldnt be surprised if he didnt have anything to do with the creation of the mystical Prestor John the salvation of the crusaders from the east ? who knows loool

reply to post by cuchullainuk777

Definition of FABULIST

1

: a creator or writer of fables


2

: liar

— fabulist or fab·u·lis·tic adjective


Examples of FABULIST




First Known Use of FABULIST

1593


Related to FABULIST

Synonyms: fabricator, liar, fibber, prevaricator, storyteller

www.merriam-webster.com...


I have read some essays and theories that suggest the Ceasars and most ancient leaders were all fabricated by financial powers .... and not all that long ago either.

Good God !

Then who is The Queen really related to?

reply to post by muzzleflash




Great thread OP.


Although not surprising...... the leaders have always been the leaders and always will be the leaders until people stand up and take back what is rightfully theirs and take control.

But then that wont happen... because that is just asking for free stuff and causing a fuss.

reply to post by blupblup


The Nobility have always controlled things.

Even today, in our "democratic" and "republican" societies, the Noble houses of prominence, the house of Borbon, Habsburg, etc, stay behind the scenes. It's the ultimate form of control. A philosopher class put in front of them a 'democratic' apparatus, which gives the people a sense of self determination, and also allows them many more freedoms then in non-republican eras (i.e. monachial) but it doesn't change the simple, irrefutable reality that a small group of men rule the world.

Henri, the Grand duke of Luxembourg, like Queen Elizabeth, has a father and a father, each a Noble, Count, Duke, Mayor, Prince, etc all the way back to the 4th century CE. And this can be traced back using wikipedia. That's 1700 years! I'm sure it goes further then that as well!

Same with the late head of the house of Habsburg, Otto Von Habsburg. These men are the DE-FACTO powers behind the scenes. They are the ones, who in their terminology, "have been invested with the powers of God on earth". In biblical terms, they could be called the 'men of renown', the giants of society. Impossible to cut down. They are always a step ahead.

They use occultism, are steeped in a world of metaphysical, and philosophical significance. We are sheep compared to them. It's sad, but it's true. We can't help doing what they expect us to do, because they are more sophisticated.

Thus, there's no escaping their power. There's only one way, a different, antithetical theological-sociological model that contradicts their own pagan, relativistic, Hellenistic model. And they are in the process of eliminating that threat because we, the ignorant public, do exactly that which they want us to do.

If it wasn't so evil it would be hilarious

its pretty common knowledge, royalty even over time tends to stay.... Well royal. It would be uncivilized to think otherwise chaps.

For today's supposed rulers to be dominantly descendant from the Holy Roman Emperors, in addition to the Romanesque government buildings and symbols used all over the place in our society, is sufficient evidence for me that their Empire didn't fall. It just gets a facelift every so often and updates its methods of control.

To debate a single point (the last link in the chain as a matter of fact) and the somewhat sensational title is simply nitpicky. It doesn't dispute the main point at all.

Although most of us (perhaps with the exception of Japan, China, the Pacific islands, and some of India) have Roman blood, we are not all descendants of Caesars and Emperors. That claim is ridiculous. They have been inbreeding within their own family and interbreeding with other royal family lines for centuries, even those on the outer rims of nobility take their family titles very seriously.

ok heres a tip for all responders to any post

1.Dont take on board ad verbatim what any body says as TRUTH because it appears legitmate because it carries the words 'PROVEN FACT' in the title like this post.
2.Do some of your own research,it makes me laugh when i see the amount of posters lyonizing the poster of this Ltopic because his work seems painstaking and erudite.Like the author from whom he/she derives thier information the info is wildly innaccurate.
3 Elucidate information and make sure youve got your story together dont just pluck any old crap of the internet and fumble it together and break to the world ..fOR GOODNESS SAKE THIS MUZZLE GUY IS JUST WRONG people who are backslapping and eulogising his post are obviuosly seduced by his in depth research(bs) its a ton of crap trust me i challenge this muzzle guy to have open forum with me on any point he wishes to raise regarding the falsity the assertion he makes in his title or my rebuttal of his flaky claims .
4.DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH its easy peasy british king linage is a dime a dozen cut n paste
5.FOR THE LOVE OF GOD ITS NOT A GOOD POST ITS WRONG AND I CHALLENGE ANYBODY DEFEND THE AUTHENTICITY OF THEW CLAIMS AND ASSERTION MUZZLE MAKES RE QUEEN LIZ CONNECTION TO ROME based upon on fabulist romantascist medieval author

reply to post by eMachine
The whole premise of the title of this posts assertion (QUEEN LIZ LINKED TO ROME PROVEN FACT)lies on the shaky point that venus julia is mixed in with the brits its a vaccuous claim based upon a flight of fancy NOT ONE ACADEMIC OR HISTORIAN YOU WILL FIND TO VINDICATE THIS CLAIM there may be 1000's of sources on the net showing royal geneologay when they dip into pre roman territory re brit kings it comes from one man and one man only geoffrey of monmouth a medieval billy liar so the whole title and posts becomes discredited as far as im concerned

Julius Caesar actually set foot in Britain.

What IF he had children there?

Now What?

An excerpt from Muzzleflashs OP

"whose father was "Old King" Coel, whose father was Marius King of Britain, whose mother was Venus Julia Claudius, whose father was Tiberius" actually according to Historia Regum Britanniae Venus julia is the consort of on Arvarigus a British king all fictional of course dreamed up in the 11th century .Back to reality checks>
Venissa cannot be considered historical. She is not mentioned in authentic Roman history; her supposed husband Arvirargus is known only from a cryptic reference in a 2nd century satirical poem by Juvenal; and it is in any case inconceivable that a daughter, even an illegitimate daughter, of a Roman emperor could be given in marriage to a barbarian without attracting comment.

reply to post by xuenchen

Well didnt Genghis Khan's offspring of which there were droves contribute to an amzing statistic something along the lines of 12% of worlds population are related to Genghis,so yeah ive no doubt a Rman leader may have fathered children but with barbarians mmm a bit dodgy Romans were elitist and snobby buggers so i imagine it would have been hushe up roman style he give Cleopatra a good goin over but then again she was civillised in Roman eyes.But also its fair share of satirists radical poets and detratcers ready to jump on any morsel of scandal ,how do you think we know so much about Roman public life ?looooool Roman writers are credited with being pretty darn accurate not much gets swept under the carpet .After all like i said theres monumental mounds of archeaology all over Gaul Germany and britain to verify Tacitus's accounts so its doubtful inthe extreme Tacitus would have way laid any info about inter marraiges between brits and Rome theres absolutely bugger all i have an old collectors item book about Joseph of Arimetheas sojourn into britain and his being leased land in GlASTONBURY by the then king Arviragus its a nice story theres even a thorn tree that only flowers at Christmas that was supposed to be the staff of St Josp[eh lovelyu story but like Marvel comics makes a great comic and film but its a STORY

Originally posted by xuenchen
I have read some essays and theories that suggest the Ceasars and most ancient leaders were all fabricated by financial powers .... and not all that long ago either.

Then they did a great job hiding that cache of Early Principate denari we found on our property in Italy.

Originally posted by dontreally
Henri, the Grand duke of Luxembourg, like Queen Elizabeth, has a father and a father, each a Noble, Count, Duke, Mayor, Prince, etc all the way back to the 4th century CE. And this can be traced back using wikipedia. That's 1700 years! I'm sure it goes further then that as well!

I find that claim to be a bit specious, please post the list.

reply to post by xuenchen
Gotta give the Brits credit though they were tough as nails Gaul 3 times the size of Britain with way more people was sundued by cesar in 2 YEARS!!!!!!.ROME SENT THE CREAM OF ITS CROP CEASAR,SEUTONIOUS,VESPASIAN,AGRICOLA ETC ETC to quell the Brits because they give the Romans hell it took 20 years to get from south east england just up to where manchester is now by the time theye built the wall they were consolidating .The only ever black Roman emperor forgot his name lol sent 40,000 crack troops to subdue scotland once and for all one if not the largest ever roman overseas deployments they got bogged down in a messy guerilla campaign because the caledonians wouldnt engage in open war but after a while ro,me were losing 1,000s they made a tactical face saving retreat because a it wasnt worth it b it was identical to usa in vietnam overwhelming military superioroty but an in winable bogged down hellish conflict NICE PONE BRITS

Originally posted by cuchullainuk777
After all like i said theres monumental mounds of archeaology all over Gaul Germany and britain to verify Tacitus's accounts so its doubtful inthe extreme Tacitus would have way laid any info about inter marraiges between brits and Rome...

Not to mention the same account also makes reference to two more children of Claudius which history has also overlooked. One mistake I can see, but three children of an Emperor with no numismatic or epigraphic evidence? Not even remotely likely.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
No sweet fanny adams not a jot ive seen British royal coins from that period no kids, and theres swat all inscriptions even of Arthur the most widely known British myth ok a fleeting mention on a grave stone,But it is interesting Excalibur does sound a little like 'Calybes' Sarmation black smiths, wasnt there a sarmation unit barracked in Bremetennacum uk?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
Was he so ashmaed of his 3 iilegitimate little blond brits ?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
There was a fantastic house for sale in mid 2000's in Sardinia complete with Roman courtyard toilets and side rooms with origional tiled floor it was archaeologists wet dream and this stupid brit couple rejected it for a dour villa on the mountainside i still fantasize about that house being on the market it was being sold at a price i could afford if i sold up here but the progarmme was a year old at the time .to me thats what i call a dream home .The biulders were running amok in the place i could have cried but alas que sera,sera'