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

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Sorry. 1400 years. As if that makes much a difference.

1. Robert or Radon, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia in 613
2. Robert, Referendary in 629 and Duke in 631
3. Erlebert, Noble of Therouanne
4. Robert, Mayor of the Palace of Neustria in 653, Referendary in 658 and Count in Alsace in 673
5. Robert I of Worms and Rheingau, d. 764
6. Thuringbert of Worms and Rheingau
7. Robert II of Worms and Rheingau (Robert of Hesbaye), 770 - 807
8. Robert III of Worms and Rheingau, 808 - 834
9. Robert IV the Strong, 820 - 866
10. Robert I of France, 866 - 923
11. Hugh the Great, 895 - 956
12. Hugh Capet, 941 - 996
13. Robert II of France, 972 - 1031
14. Henry I of France, 1008–1060
15. Philip I of France, 1053–1108
16. Louis VI of France, 1081–1137
17. Louis VII of France, 1120–1180
18. Philip II of France, 1165–1223
19. Louis VIII of France, 1187–1226
20. Louis IX of France, 1215–1270
21. Robert, Count of Clermont, 1256–1317
22. Louis I, Duke of Bourbon, 1279–1342
23. James I, Count of La Marche, 1319–1362
24. John I, Count of La Marche, 1344–1393
25. Louis, Count of Vendôme, 1376–1446
26. Jean VIII, Count of Vendôme, 1428–1478
27. François, Count of Vendôme, 1470–1495
28. Charles de Bourbon, Duke of Vendôme, 1489–1537
29. Antoine of Navarre, 1518–1562
30. Henry IV of France, 1553–1610
31. Louis XIII of France, 1601–1643
32. Louis XIV of France, 1638–1715
33. Louis, Dauphin of France (1661-1711), 1661–1711
34. Philip V of Spain, 1683–1746
35. Philip, Duke of Parma, 1720–1765
36. Ferdinand, Duke of Parma, 1751–1802
37. Louis of Etruria, 1773–1803
38. Charles II, Duke of Parma, 1799–1883
39. Charles III, Duke of Parma, 1823–1854
40. Robert I, Duke of Parma, 1848–1907
41. Felix of Bourbon-Parma, 1893–1970
42. Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, 1921 -
43. Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, 1955 -

They make a big thing about the male liniage like as if it really matters but in the light of the science of DNA genetics it would appear that actually only the feminine line counts as anything. Since no one has been recording the feminine liniage no one will ever be able to know anything about the real roots of our existence. Thus the rush to study DNA genetics. We simply exist. Here we are. Who are we ? Nothings in the broader perspective. The universe is so vaste and we are nothing compared to it all. Why worry about where you're coming from ? Surely what really should worry you is where are you going ? I could pretend to be this or that but instead I simply prefer to ignor all of that who are my ancestors crap. In a sense we are all descended from such royalty it is just that we are generally not of the line of the first born sons who for obvious reasons were the ones to inherit what ever fortune was theirs to inherit. Leaving the rest to live out their existence in abject poverty. Here we are living in such abject poverty. Why bother to exist ? Why have children ? The children will have no future because obviously the rich will make sure that such children will have no future. Why do you think they [the rich] build weapons of mass destruction ? Probably for the purpose of getting rid of all of the smelly poor people swarming around them. They are rich people so that they are just lying when they make out that they are descended from this famous person or that famous person. For example the former King of Rumania was writing that he is descended from Jesus. As if that is true ? The British Royal family are just as full of it as is the now nearly in the grave former King of Rumania. Just give them a wide berth as they say. My own opinion is that only GOD is the genuine royalty. GOD alone is royalty there be no other royalty.

The law that I live by and which is holding us all bonded is called PRAECEPTAE CAELENIUM (tm). I did not read it in a book. You will not find it in any book. It was revealed to me by audio clairvoyance during the celebrations of the New Millennium in 2000. Summed up it basically means no sex no drugs and no violence. (1) From eternity to eternity, infinity to infinity, there be the one absolute. The One True God. Her names are many but she be the one true God there be no other God. The one judge there be no other judge. (2) La Deus Nostra, Notre Dame, Our Lady, The Holy Spirit, the cause the maker Cosmica. (3) Angelic powers of truth and beauty and righteousness be sure to be loving Her Holiness Above with all your mind and with all your heart and with all your strength. (4) So as to be pleasing to Her Holiness Above therefore do not be serving the masculine. (5) Do not be and do not allow masculinity into positions of government. (6) Honour and respect the virgin pureness of the christae. (7) Honour and respect the Immaculate Conception [parthenogenesis] reproductive process of the christae. (8) Do not fornicate or adulterate or sodomize. (9) Do not bully or torture or murder. (10) Do not lie. (11) Do not steal. (12) Do not be covetous. (13) Do not be jealous. Copyright NGL(c)2000.

He who trusts in violence to be his security cannot speak that he trusts in God to be his security.

AVE RAEGINA CAELINA LA DEUS NOSTRA CAELI LA VERA DEUS

reply to post by CAELENIUM


I agree that God alone is royalty, and the royalty that has ruled the world for the last 4000 years, at least, rules in Gods absence i.e. their form of rule displaces Gods role as King.

What does God say to Samuel the prophet when the Israelites go to Samuel because they want to elect a king like the rest of the nations? He says: "And the LORD said unto Samuel: 'Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not be king over them. "

Indeed, divine monarchy is an incestuous process, because the King rules for the SAKE OF THE KING, and not for God, and thus, not for the people..

Only in the Israelite model, is the King shown to be a man of poverty. A simple Shepherd, who cares to take care of the people (the shepherd follows in the tracks of his herd i.e. he doesn't compel them, but grants them free direction) as opposed to the ruthless pagan model, where the monarch becomes identified completely with the divine principle, as in Pharoah (which in Hebrew, actually means 'nape' of the neck, in the sense that Pharoahs rule hides the front - presence - of God)....

lets take it a step further and trace all of the current descendants and guess at the next world leaders identitys??If this is genetic wouldnt it be cool to let people know they were related to humaniies history directly??

At least they would know who was compatible for an organ transplant,and theres probably a LOT of descendants carrying those bloodlines today,wouldnt you think,I mean I know they were only a few original families but they must have produced literally millions of blood relatives today,maybe.

How many surnames connect to today listed in a-z order just to see who has blue blood?Could be any of us.

hey good point,if it is the girls that carry the seed then,there must be even more millions of relatives then,maybe=eh,does this take us right to eve or the first woman,this lineage??

Would it shock you to hear that it has always been the women who have chosen or been sent to the men of these lines that carry the gift and that they are part of a global cabal of women who run the planet??Atlantus was a femdom society.

Originally posted by CAELENIUM
. My own opinion is that only GOD is the genuine royalty. GOD alone is royalty there be no other royalty.

Its in the Bible. The Royal DNA was made unique by God Himself and is the seed of God.
Read the Kings chapter in the KJV.
Rulers were chosen by God.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

I'm sure King James approved that message...

Originally posted by one4all
lets take it a step further and trace all of the current descendants and guess at the next world leaders identitys??If this is genetic wouldnt it be cool to let people know they were related to humaniies history directly??

At least they would know who was compatible for an organ transplant,and theres probably a LOT of descendants carrying those bloodlines today,wouldnt you think,I mean I know they were only a few original families but they must have produced literally millions of blood relatives today,maybe.

How many surnames connect to today listed in a-z order just to see who has blue blood?Could be any of us.

Great idea !!

But they say each elected POTUS has been a closer relative of Royal than each opponent.

Obama closer than McCain.

Bush closer than Kerry.

Bush closer than Gore.

etc. etc.

Find the one who is closer of all current candidates, and we find the next POTUS.

All according to theory naturally.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by CAELENIUM
. My own opinion is that only GOD is the genuine royalty. GOD alone is royalty there be no other royalty.

Its in the Bible. The Royal DNA was made unique by God Himself and is the seed of God.
Read the Kings chapter in the KJV.
Rulers were chosen by God.

Is there a DNA Haplogroup for this?

Where in the Bible?

Originally posted by cuchullainuk777
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. "

Did you even read your own quote?
Griscom, Thorpe, and Marler are open to the very likely possibility that he is "likely to be something better than a fabulist." But none of your posts reflect this position. You claim it's all fake, which is silly considering you post little reference other than your personal opinions.

Geoffrey of Monmouth

He is best known for his chronicle Historia Regum Britanniae ("History of the Kings of Britain"), which was widely popular in its day and was credited uncritically well into the 16th century,[1] being translated into various other languages from its original Latin.

So for 500 years roughly, everyone who could read (Vatican monks) took this work seriously and as a legitimate historical source of information. Why would they do that?

Geoffrey claims in his dedication that the book is a translation of an "ancient book in the British language that told in orderly fashion the deeds of all the kings of Britain", given to him by Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford.

But for some reason a few contemporary historians dismiss this claim, why? Because the 'ancient book' is not available, dare I say lost somewhere deep within the Vatican Secret Archives?

There is no generic browsing, and researchers must ask for the precise document they wish to see, identifying it either by consulting the indices and must be granted an expressed written permission authorized by a ranking prelate for perusement. Even then, not many requests are granted entrance as the application process is long and rigorous.

So if you do not know the exact identification of a work, you cannot possibly find it or gain access to it, and alas we don't know the exact identification of one of Geoffrey's sources, so it would be impossible to gain access to it for review *unless you know the exact name of it*. You can't just go browsing through this library.

It is, however, likely that the Archdeacon furnished Geoffrey with some materials in the Welsh language that helped inspire his work, as Geoffrey's position and acquaintance with the Archdeacon would not have afforded him the luxury of fabricating such a claim outright.

The even admit that it was very unlikely that he fabricated the claim that he got sources from this Archdeacon.

Much of it is based on the Historia Britonum, a 9th century Welsh-Latin historical compilation, Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum and Gildas's sixth-century polemic De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae expanded with material from Bardic oral tradition, genealogical tracts,

Much of the work appears to be derived from Gildas's 6th century polemic The Ruin of Britain, Bede's 8th century Ecclesiastical History of the English People, the 9th century History of the Britons ascribed to Nennius, the 10th century Welsh Annals, medieval Welsh genealogies (such as the Harleian Genealogies) and king-lists, the poems of Taliesin, the Welsh tale Culhwch and Olwen, and some of the medieval Welsh Saint's Lives

I suppose you will claim all of these other sources are fabrications as well.

Historia Regum Britanniae

He follows this with a dedication to Robert, earl of Gloucester and Waleran, count of Meulan, whom he enjoins to use their knowledge and wisdom to improve his tale.

Matter of Britain

The Matter of Britain is a name given collectively to the body of literature and legendary material associated with Great Britain and its legendary kings, particularly King Arthur. Together with the Matter of France, which concerned the legends of Charlemagne, and the Matter of Rome, which included material derived from or inspired by classical mythology, it was one of the three great literary cycles recalled repeatedly in medieval literature.

Essentially there is far more to this than mere fables, and much of it may indeed be very accurate. However in the last few hundred years (coincidentally around the time the Royals wanted to distance themselves from being known as Caesar's lineage - Era of Revolutions, Age of Enlightenment, etc) is when it was first started to be disputed.

This is quite an astonishing coincidence, because that is the very time that royalty became a target for the angry masses and revolutionaries.

There is a reason why people considered these accounts as mostly fact based and legitimate history for over a thousand years, and that is because it was chronicled and written down by the Vatican's monks who were keeping records for the establishment in order to retain a record of legitimate descent for the purpose of determining who was the heir to these illustrious families' spoils/plunder acquired over millennium of conquest.

How do the royals know that they are royal anyways? You really need to question these things deeper.

You can tell me to go join some club where I have to invest money into doing "real research" with a special 'official group' that supposedly knows everything about all of this, but that is essentially making an argument from authority and pointing me to a source that is certainly not Independent and could easily have an agenda to downplay all of this compelling information and relegate it as 'myth'.

Why don't they photo-copy this information database and put it on the Internet for us to review? Oh because it would be far too easy for us to debunk and question? Because it would reveal them to be inadequate at best? Because it would make illegitimate their frivolous claims of "authority" on the subject?

Look if you want to debate the subject that's fine, that is the purpose of the thread. But if all you have is a endless series of logical fallacies to rely upon than I won't really waste my time with it.

Ad hominems, arguments from authority, presenting speculation without any source or reference and claiming it at the ultimate reality are absolutely fanciful at best. Getting super-angry and freaking out in all caps only reveals the true nature of the situation.

reply to post by dontreally


Interesting research. We can do this with all of the nobility for the most part.

Princess Diana for example:

Diana Princess of Wales Ancestry wiki

Diana by birth is a member of the Spencer family, one of the oldest and most prominent noble families in Britain which currently holds the titles of Duke of Marborough, Earl Spencer and Viscount Churchill. The Spencers claimed to have descended from a cadet branch of the powerful medieval Despenser family, but its validity is still being questioned. Diana's noble ancestors include the legendary John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough and Prince of Mindelheim, his equally famous wife, the powerful and influential Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, Britain's first Prime Minister, Robert Walpole, 1st Earl of Orford, Fadrique Álvarez de Toledo, 2nd Duke of Alba, one of the most powerful men of his era, Maria, Duchess of Gloucester and Edinburgh, and Henry Paget, 1st Marquess of Anglesey. She is also a distant relative of the dukes of Abercorn, Bedford, Richmond, Devonshire, Gordon and most of the members of the British aristocracy.

Diana's ancestry also connects her with most of Europe's royal houses. Diana is five times descended from the House of Stuart from Charles II's four illegitimate sons James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Grafton, Charles Beauclerk, 1st Duke of St Albans and Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond, and from James II's daughter, Henrietta FitzJames, Countess of Newcastle, an ancestry she shares with the current Dukes of Alba. From the House of Stuart, Diana is a descendant of the House of Bourbon from the line Henry IV of France and of the House of Medici from the line of Marie de' Medici. She is also a descendant of powerful Italian noble families such as that of the House of Sforza who ruled as the Dukes of Milan from the line of the legendary Caterina Sforza, Countess of Forlì. Diana also descends from the House of Wittelsbach via morganatic line from Frederick V, Elector Palatine and of the House of Hanover via Sophia von Platen und Hallermund, Countess of Leinster and Darlington, the illegitimate daughter of Ernest Augustus, Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg and the half sister of George I. Diana also descends from the House of Toledo of the original dukes of Alba and Medina Sidonia.

Hey look it's the House of Medici!

Diana sure was a Commoner now wasn't she? /sarcasm

And look at Kate Middleton, the new "Commoner" to become Princess.

Kate's ancestry wiki

In a study of the ancestry of Catherine, William Addams Reitwiesner uncovered that she shares ancestors with her husband Prince William; the closest relationship is via Prince William's mother and Catherine's father through a common descent from Sir Thomas Fairfax and his wife Agnes (or Anne) Gascoigne, daughter of Sir William Gascoigne and his wife, née Lady Margaret Percy.[82] This makes the couple fifteenth cousins.[83] Sir Thomas Fairfax and Agnes Gascoigne are through Catherine's great-grandmother Olive Lupton, daughter of a Leeds cloth merchant Francis Lupton and his wife Harriet (née Davis) – Fairfax being an ancestor of Lupton.[84] In turn Lady Margaret Percy[85] is descended from Edward III.

Middleton's maternal great-great-grandfather John Goldsmith was married to Esther Jones at St John's Hoxton in 1850.

In his original publication of Middleton's ancestry, Reitwiesner uncovered circumstantial evidence, that has since been disproved, suggesting that Catherine and William were twelfth cousins once removed with common descent from Sir Thomas Leighton and Elizabeth Knollys, the latter a cousin once removed of Elizabeth I.

Rather than a commoner, it would be more accurate to use the terminology "Common Nobility", since this is more like one of the outer-shells of the noble houses. It is still patrician hereditary family lineage, with a bit of equestrian mixed in for good measure.

Just to show how far reaching this stuff really became, let's look at the House of Romanov also referred to as the "House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov" . Hey that's funny, their name is actually "Roman" with 'ov' added to the end. And the monarch was called the Tsar (Caesar).

Look closely at their "Coat of Arms", it actually has a reference to Malta (and the Order of the Knights Hospitaller) on it. Malta? Gotta be kidding me!
Plus that Coat of Arms is mighty similar symbolically to the other empires throughout the ages such as the HRE

Here are more very interesting wiki's that help connect the dots.

House of Oldenburg

This is rather interesting because it includes more than just the Emperor of Russia, but the Kings of Greece and even Iceland. Quite dispersed geographically.

These connections become quite blatant the deeper one digs into this stuff.




Since my edit window is still open I will piggyback some more links onto this other side-post. I am currently trying to find an English translation of this ancient Latin text:
Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII , or "Seven Books of History Against the Pagans".

Written by Paulus Orosius Wiki 1600 years ago roughly.

n 410 A.D. the Goths captured the city of Rome - an event which made a profound impression on writers of the time. Pagan writers were quick to blame the disaster on the spread of Christianity: the old gods no longer protected the city.

In response to these accusations, Augustine wrote his City of God; and at the same time he asked Orosius, a Spanish presbyter, to write a companion work, which would show that similar disasters had afflicted mankind since the earliest times. In fulfilling this request, Orosius produced the longest surviving summary of the whole range of ancient Roman history, covering over eleven centuries from before the foundation of the city up until Orosius' own time.

Orosius followed Livy in placing the foundation of Rome in 751 B.C. He used the era from the foundation of the city ("Ab Urbe Condita") to date all subsequent years, although he included frequent digressions about Greek history, which could not usually be dated in this way.

So it's actually a very important work. Translating things these days is so easy with translation programs that you could just copy paste a paragraph in there and hit translate, it would provide at least a basic template to read in whatever language you are comfortable with.



Here is the full "The Ruin of Britain", De Excidio Britanniae written by Gildas 1500 years ago roughly.

Bede (wiki)s "The Ecclesiastical History of the English People", Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (Old English translation by Miller).

Nennius's "History of the Britons" Historia Brittonum.

Other info:
The "Harleian Genealogies", which is a list of Welsh noble families. Also check out the other texts on that website if you can.

The British Chronicles

Also check out the related monks and resources available on those wiki's. All of this stuff is just barely scratching the surface of an immense iceberg.

Originally posted by Subterranean7
What an utterly terrible post by someone with no knowledge of simple statistical analysis. Of course the Queen is related to the Roman emporers. So is virtually every white european or european descendent (white american). The classic case always given is Charlamagne (google "related to charlemagne") and he lived around 900 years later.

Muzzleflash, your posts are consistantly total and utter drivel, attempting to look like you've put a lot of effort into them, when a simple google search could have shown you the truth.

PLEASE do some thinking before making any more!

Strange. I checked your 13 post history and half of them are attacks on me.
Very strange.

Originally posted by Strype


I found this thread to be very informative, even if the OP's conclusion cannot be proven. Most of the information is valid, and for those of us who actually appreciate gaining knowledge and insight, this thread was incredibly helpful. Thank you muzzle, for a well prepared presentation. Unfortunately some people have no desire to learn new things and would rather aimlessly talk down on people. Just ignore them.


Cheers,
Strype

Well, I said "proven" because the only available historical sources actually cite this as being the case. It was demonstrated and verified.
Also considering that this information was accepted as historical fact by the 'authorities' up until just a few hundred years ago should also cause one to look at it more closely.

The main angle of argument standing against it are very emotional rants of opinion.

Also there have been a few reasonable and accepted philosophical arguments from the adept thinkers, but that would devolve this into an 'ergo cogito sum' debate which I hope to avoid since that should be considered about virtually everything in existence. It's way beside the point.

I am sorry but I suppose I must 'prove' what "proven fact" means.

"Proven Fact":

Proven.

prov·en (prvn) v. A past tense and a past participle of prove.
adj. Having been demonstrated or verified without doubt

free dictionary

ver·i·fy (vr-f) tr.v. ver·i·fied, ver·i·fy·ing, ver·i·fies
1. To prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony; substantiate.
2. To determine or test the truth or accuracy of, as by comparison, investigation, or reference:

dem·on·strate (dmn-strt) v. dem·on·strat·ed, dem·on·strat·ing, dem·on·strates v.tr.
1. To show clearly and deliberately; manifest:
2. To show to be true by reasoning or adducing evidence; prove:
3. To present by experiments, examples, or practical application; explain and illustrate:
v.intr.
1. To give a demonstration:
2. To participate in a public display of opinion:

fact (fkt) n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences:
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed:
b. A real occurrence; an event:
c. Something believed to be true or real:
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime:
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence:

ev·i·dence (v-dns) n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
2. Something indicative; an outward sign:
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.

doubt (dout) v. doubt·ed, doubt·ing, doubts
v.tr. 1. To be undecided or skeptical about:
2. To tend to disbelieve; distrust:
3. To regard as unlikely:
4. Archaic To suspect; fear.
v.intr.
To be undecided or skeptical.
n.
1. A lack of certainty that often leads to irresolution. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
2. A lack of trust.
3. A point about which one is uncertain or skeptical:
4. The condition of being unsettled or unresolved:
Idioms:
beyond/without doubt
Without question; certainly; definitely.
no doubt
1. Certainly.
2. Probably.

What is Circumstantial Evidence? Legal Dictionary

Circumstantial Evidence Definition: Evidence which may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts which have been proven.

"When one or more things are proved, from which our experience enables us to ascertain that another, not proved, must have happened, we presume that it did happen, as well in criminal as in civil cases."

A presumption of fact. In some cases, there can be some evidence that can not be proven directly, such as with an eye-witness (known as direct evidence). And yet that evidence may be essential to completely prove a case. In these instances, the lawyer will complete the evidence by providing the judge or juror with evidence of circumstances from which a juror or judge can logically deduct, or reasonably infer, the fact that cannot be proven directly; it is proven by the evidence of the circumstances; hence, "circumstantial" evidence. Fingerprints are an example of circumstantial evidence: while there may be no witness to a person’s presence in a certain place, or contact with a certain object, the scientific evidence of someone’s fingerprints is persuasive proof of a person’s presence or contact with an object on which the fingerprint was found.

And then it shows a very funny example from a 1854 ruling:

In 1854, Justice Maule gave this example in R v Burton: "If a man go into the London Docks sober without means of getting drunk, and comes out of one of the wine cellars very drunk ... I think it would be reasonable evidence that he had stolen some of the wine in that cellar...."

Another link on Evidence.

I realize that as the prosecutor in the debate, the burden of proof is upon me to establish a chain of "evidence" to tie everything together into a working argument. To 'prove' it I established 'facts' through 'demonstrations' of "evidence".

But there has to be rules of evidence or else each trial becomes a free-for-all. As Justice Thurlow said in Fox v Mackreth: "It is of very little consequence to the public to lay down definite rules of law if you have indefinite rules of evidence."

The best and most common method of presenting evidence to a Court of law is by document. (eg. a signed contract). This is an example of direct evidence, sometimes called "real evidence." Documents are frozen in time as of their creation and present their facts without the weaknesses and distractions of human emotion.

The second best method is by oral or viva voce testimony; where you have an eye-witness swear to tell the truth and to then relate to the court (or jury) their experience.

Proving a fact does not entail that it is the ultimate eventual truth of reality, it only means that all of the available evidence proves to be factual.

To disprove a fact you must have proven facts which disprove it, and you cannot disprove unless it were considered fact in the first place.

I will utilize various dictionaries, and philosophical or logical arguments (and additional wikis) to make arguments and insinuations perhaps, but each person is limited to their own relative positions and potential frames of reference available to choose from, we are all guilty of this.

Perhaps we should examine what "truth" is and what is an "argument from ignorance".

truth (trth) n. pl. truths (trz, trths) 1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5. a. Reality; actuality. b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

truth [truːθ] n 1. the quality of being true, genuine, actual, or factual
2. something that is true as opposed to false
3. a proven or verified principle or statement
4. (usually plural) a system of concepts purporting to represent some aspect of the world
5. fidelity to a required standard or law
6. faithful reproduction or portrayal
7. an obvious fact; truism; platitude
8. honesty, reliability, or veracity

What is Argument from ignorance and why are we all guilty of committing it?

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

However if you look closely at "Fact" n. def 2 "c. Something believed to be true or real: "
It says "Believed to be". That doesn't mean it IS the ultimate truth of reality. I did not say "Proven True", I said "Proven Fact", there is a difference that must be pointed out here.

Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality. That is, whatever the reality is, it does not “wait” upon human logic or analysis to be formulated. Reality exists at all times, and it exists independently of what is in the mind of anyone. And the true thrust of science and rational analysis is to separate preconceived notion(s) of what reality is, and to be open at all times to the observation of nature as it behaves, so as truly to discover reality.

Veracity means "truth" and it's reference to "fact" is through "conformity to fact". Our 'insinuations' or 'assumptions' based upon 'facts' are not 'facts' themselves but may be 'true' in the ultimate scheme of things, or they might not be 'true'.

This is hardly earth shattering news. Considering how much these menfolk of the nobility got around, it's would be more shocking if many weren't related, however distantly.

My own family traces its roots back to Charlemagne himself. Which, while totally cool, is utterly meaningless. Folks of European descent have the blood of Caesar's in their veins.

Still and all, great opening thread, and very, very interesting. Well done.

reply to post by muzzleflash


I know!

Doesn't that irritate you? That's what we always hear "Princess Diana was an average girl"...Which, of course, is complete hogwash.....Pathetically untrue image of her. She was as much a noble as the rest of them. As is Kate Middleton.

Nobody marries into the royal family without carrying royal blood.