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

reply to post by muzzleflash

Tsar (Caesar).

Tzar might be of Semitic origin. A prince, or senator, is called a Sar in Hebrew.

Though undoubtedly i agree that Russia is derived from Greco-Roman civilization. The Russian orthodox church in particular reacts with animus towards the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, because it symbolizes the perseverance of the Jewish spirit over the Hellenistic spirit - which to the Russian Orthodox refers to their religion.

Romanov

You know whats interesting about this name? Romanov can be broken down to mean "Of Romans". The Russian suffix "ov" has a possessive connotation, meaning, this particular family is OF Rome...as in Roman lineage.

Link

Originally posted by xuenchen
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 !

hey, they there should be no surprise king arthur legends could in fact be roman ..or early roman knight who helped lead the old british region

there is also this Artognou stone thing in britain ...another variation of the arthur name

Yes another bloke who espouses this view of artorious castus is the same man who provided historical data for the oppenhiemer directed 'king arthur' film

Originally posted by SuperTripps

Originally posted by xuenchen
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 !

Yes another guy who epouses this view of artorious castus is the same man who provided the historical data for the horrendous film flop 'king arthur 'only for Oppenhiemer the director to make a complete hash

hey, they there should be no surprise king arthur legends could in fact be roman ..or early roman knight who helped lead the old british region

there is also this Artognou stone thing in britain ...another variation of the arthur name

Originally posted by dontreally
Tzar might be of Semitic origin. A prince, or senator, is called a Sar in Hebrew.

It is based on the Latin word Caesar as is the word Kaiser.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


And the Latin Caesar could be derived from the Hebrew root Sar - prince, senator, leader. The spiritual head of a nation, for instance, is called a Sar. It's a very lofty idea.

Which part of Caesar and Tzar are present in both words? Sar. That's the root, and it would make total sense to consider Hebrew as the ultimate source.

Unless of course you have a viable alternative.

Philology is a highly political field of research, particularly when it comes to discounting the influence of Hebrew on other languages (beyond the obvious)...

For instance, ABRaCaDaBRa is a Hebrew term for 'I create like i speak", and yet Wikipedia has it as an Aramaic word. Why are they lying about this? Anyone who reads Aramaic (or even Aleister Crowley, who made use of this word) knows that the Aramaic of this term is ABRaHaDaBRa. The heh is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew Kaf, meaning "like, that which"......

So why such a blatant lie? Why are they misleading people??

Must be political...and it is...

Same thing here. They have no legitimate scholarly explanation for the Latin Caesar, and they wont even consider a borrowing from the Hebrew Sar, which means the same thing. As if the Romans weren't completely infatuated with the Hebrews. As if, in the words of Seneca "The conquered have given laws to the conquerors." (De Superstitione) .....

Oh, the Romans truly hated the Jews... One can hardly read Seneca, Tacitus, Cicero, Cassius Dio etc without coming away with a really negative attitude about the Jews. It was uniquitous in the ancient world.

The amoral pagans, the men who built highways in order to procure taxes, and thus control, didn't like the equitable social standards of the Hebrews...And hence, the libelous claims throughout history...

Originally posted by dontreally
And the Latin Caesar could be derived from the Hebrew root Sar - prince, senator, leader. The spiritual head of a nation, for instance, is called a Sar. It's a very lofty idea.

Which part of Caesar and Tzar are present in both words? Sar. That's the root, and it would make total sense to consider Hebrew as the ultimate source.

Unless of course you have a viable alternative.

The word Caesar in Latin did not mean 'prince' or 'leader', it meant either 'baldy' as Gaius Julius had thining hair and the Latin word 'caesaries' means 'hair' and it became an ironic cognomen. Or it could have meant 'cut out' from 'caeseum' owing to his method of birth. There are other lesser-accepted translations (eye color, or having to do with elephants) but the contemporay writers of the time, Festus and Pliny felt it was one of the first two.

It is relevant to note that he had his cognomen before becoming a well known political figure and that its use was the first recorded usage to date.

Originally posted by dontreally
The amoral pagans, the men who built highways in order to procure taxes, and thus control, didn't like the equitable social standards of the Hebrews...And hence, the libelous claims throughout history...

You mean the clannish, patriarchal, slave-owning Jews of the Roman era? Please.

In the early Christian era, the regulations concerning slave-ownership by Jews apparently became the subject of some confusion, and efforts were undertaken to revise the slavery laws.[17] The precise issues that necessitated a revision to the laws is not certain, but it could include factors such as ownership of non-Canaanite slaves, the continuing practice of owning Jewish slaves, or conflicts with Roman slave-ownership laws.[17] Thus, the Talmud (circa 200-500 CE) contains an extensive set of laws governing slavery, which is more detailed, and different than the original laws found in the Jewish Bible. source

Seems like what was good for the goyim was good for the gander.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

The word Caesar in Latin did not mean 'prince' or 'leader', it meant either 'baldy' as Gaius Julius had thining hair and the Latin word 'caesaries' means 'hair' and it became an ironic cognomen

I still doesn't make much sense.

In Hebrew, the word for a lofty place, is "Romot"...And Rome established itself on 7 hills, imitating Jerusalem.

Clearly, the Romans leeched off the Hebrew culture. But no self respecting Roman would ever admit to that. And so, we are forced to speculate.

It's not that i discount the etymology. There may in fact be a metaphysical connection between hairyness and the seat of power. Esau, it should be remembered, was described as 'hairy' in the Bible. And the Rabbis, as is well known, regarded the Romans as the spiritual heirs of Edom - who is Esau, as the Bible emphasizes.

So, in that sense, i get it. But i still think a Hebrew connection should be explored.

Originally posted by dontreally
Clearly, the Romans leeched off the Hebrew culture. But no self respecting Roman would ever admit to that. And so, we are forced to speculate.

Why should they considering it was most likely the Greeks who we owe the founding of Rome to.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
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.

The probelm you are going to run into, at least with the Venus Julia aspect, is the lack of numismatic, epigraphic and stelegraphic evidence to support her existence, let alone her reigning as a monarch. The Romans were quite adept at self-promotion and even the shortest lived reigns and usurpations had numismatic evidence to document their rulers. For the Romans this lent an air of credibility and stability (which often was not very stable depsite the efforts) to the person producing these specimens. The lack of physical evidence, which is available for everyone else and is how many of the reigns are known, puts a serious and fatal flaw into linking Claudius with an unknown daughter and most likely acpocryphal king.

This thread has grown fast, so this may have been brought up, but........

YOU are related to Queen Elizabeth. YOU are also related to Roman emperors. In fact, YOU and I are probably no more than 20th cousins or so. I happen to have a book printed in 1885 that is a genealogy of the Montagu family, which has traced its lineage back to William the Conqueror. My great grandmother is listed in the book. It's unusual that it was traced, but the whole idea is not unusual at all. Through that book I stuck the relevant people in Family Tree Maker and it computed that Prince Charles is my 21st cousin. But that doesn't mean I'm part of the Ruling Elite.

Just do the math. Figure a generation is 25 years, i.e.: Generally speaking a woman will have children by the time she is twenty-five, especially historically. So how many ancestors do you have if you go back a mere 1,000 years? Answer: Over a TRILLION. It's 2 to the 40th power. 4 generations per 100 years, 40 in a thousand. Now there have been only about 100 plus billion people who have lived in the history of the world, so obviously there has been some significant overlap, but the thing is--all you need is one guy in a very foreign place and suddenly you are also related to Ghengis Khan. Marco Polo goes to China, sows his wild oats, and his genes (as well as yours) are now a part of the Chinese DNA stream. Same with Dr. Livingstone in Africa.

Of course few of us have absolutely documented our ancestry. We simply are not important enough, but those who do pick and choose to meet their own needs. Still, it is a statistical certainloity that you and I are related to Queen Elizabeth, to Caesar, and to each other. You really don't have to go back very far to see it.

reply to post by schuyler


Ok....But that's not whats being discussed in this thread.

There is a enormous gap between the average person who is a 20th some odd cousin of prince William, and a Prince, whose father was a prince, whose father was a duke, continuing like this, for thousands of years.

THIS INDIVIDUAL ^^ Is absolutely noble, and they would be quite proud of their 'royal blood'. What you're saying here would make them scoff in indifference.

Yes, the entirety of humanity is related. We are all aware of that. That's not what's relevant here. What's relevant is that only a select group of families, maybe a few thousand, have from generation to generation, intermarried with only other noble families.

The fact that some of these groups go back into Roman times must mean they have a fairly deep reservoir in which they draw their power. One could only reason - if he were a sensible man - that such men must be the rulers acting behind the scenes today. And that 'democracy' in the sense that it's usually understood, is a cosmic joke.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by schuyler

 

Ok....But that's not whats being discussed in this thread.

Yes, it is. If you follow the links you will find that this is exactly what these people have been doing, following the links that make their story be bigger than it is. If you have ever studied genealogy, you come across this all the time. Someone has submitted a genealogical record back to Charlamagne and voila! Suddenly you are related to Charlamagne. Start actually folloowing the references and you will see they lead down blinbd alleys. The records that purport to "prove" all this are mostly not there. Gaps and supposition are everywhere. Cartainity is not. Queen Elizabeth is no more closely related to Julius Caesar than you or I are. Add what you don't even know into the mix, descendents born on the wrong side of the blanket, and it gets even more convoluted. The genealogical tree is one you can always navigate to your advantage to get where you want to go, because it goes everywhere. That's all this little parlor game is.

Certainly more recent cases of royal marriage have been problematical because of 1st cousin marriages (Hemophilia in the Romanovs, for example) for the long term the DNA of a person of "royal blood" is indistinguishable from yours or mine. Physicallyk there's no difference. There may be in the eye of the beholder, but such beholders are working from woefully inadequate resources that are likely so far divorced from reality as to be mere fantasy.

More proof that proves how far back The SCUM really date to.

reply to post by schuyler


So you don't find anything particularly special about this:

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 -

43 generations of DIRECT father-son lineage? Every individual in the line being a noble? This isn't special? It can be explained by your 'navigation through genealogy' theory?

It cannot be explained by your genealogy theory, and if you maintain it can - in the face of sheer the impossibility of it - then you're acting as an apologist. Not to mention, showing no respect for the intelligence of other posters, who are not children, and can understand the difference between the 'navigation through genealogy" and a generational handing down of Noble status.

Your theory only works in the case of a break between themselves and nobility - where there are generations of common folk in between. This doesn't exist for a Queen Elizabeth, or a Otto Von Habsburg, or a Henri, Duke of Luxembourg. There is a DIRECT passing on, a passage from generation to generation, from father to son, of Nobility. There is no gaps in between. There is no break in the line. There is no ending of this familial lineage. If you can't see this, then i have nothing else to say.

Originally posted by cuchullainuk777
Yes another bloke who espouses this view of artorious castus is the same man who provided historical data for the oppenhiemer directed 'king arthur' film

Originally posted by SuperTripps

Originally posted by xuenchen
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 !

Yes another guy who epouses this view of artorious castus is the same man who provided the historical data for the horrendous film flop 'king arthur 'only for Oppenhiemer the director to make a complete hash

hey, they there should be no surprise king arthur legends could in fact be roman ..or early roman knight who helped lead the old british region

there is also this Artognou stone thing in britain ...another variation of the arthur name

edit on 30-11-2011 by cuchullainuk777 because: (no reason given)

lol i have made no such claim. others do. take your attitude and control it..because you know as i do ...all roads DO lead to ROME ...and from there further up the chain

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by muzzleflash
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.

The probelm you are going to run into, at least with the Venus Julia aspect, is the lack of numismatic, epigraphic and stelegraphic evidence to support her existence, let alone her reigning as a monarch. The Romans were quite adept at self-promotion and even the shortest lived reigns and usurpations had numismatic evidence to document their rulers. For the Romans this lent an air of credibility and stability (which often was not very stable depsite the efforts) to the person producing these specimens. The lack of physical evidence, which is available for everyone else and is how many of the reigns are known, puts a serious and fatal flaw into linking Claudius with an unknown daughter and most likely acpocryphal king.

edit on 30-11-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer.

The Venus Julia aspect is the very nexus upon which hangs the validity of the OP( queen liz related to ceasarsproven fact) and yes as you say apart from the complete lack of numismatic,epigraphic evidence the ONLY known account is Geoffrey of Monmouths 'Historia Regum Britanniae ' and Muzzlefish knows that it is baciscally like defending the flat earth society defending Geoffreys account.Muzzlefishs incorrigability is fascile ive not even bothered myself responding to his pedantic ad nauseum absurd rebuttal of my post.If Muzzelfish is following the holocaust denial school of reasoning then honestly whats the point?
Trying to defend the Geoffrey of Monmouths pseudohistory is sad .ITS ACCEPTED UNIVERSALLY IN THE ACADEMIC FRATERNITY the validity of his claims have about as much plausibility as THE EARTH BEING FLAT.It really is puerile to defend an OP,dear me on top of that to defend it by suggesting it had validty 500 years after the event .MUZZLEFISH YEAH THE EARTH WAS FLAT AND THE SUN ORBITED THE EARTH TILL WE KNEW BETTER .

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by thePharaoh
he couldnt of been emperor untill cleoatra and her son ceaserian (ceasors son!), lost their throne.
THEN , the empire started,
ceaserian died 44 bc.......!!

roman empire = usurpers of the pharaohs throne

Egypt became a prefecture of Rome in 30BC when Octavian defeated Mark Antony who was co-ruling with Cleopatra at the time.

yes but ceaserian was still alive....he was the first real emperor, well should of been....but his father chose octavious, adopted son....augustus/octavoious line is new

so ceasers and cleopatras lineage was usurped...in the end wasnt it..well cleopatras was i know that

peace

Originally posted by muzzleflash
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.

Look Muzzle do you understand the information upon which you base your OP conclusion 'PROVEN FACT' is NOT proven and is NOT fact.i have got you in a neck choke here because the only source of the information upon which you have based your wildly inaccurate claim comes from Geoffrey's Historia Regum Britanniae .Firstly i want you to DISPROVE that assertion incidentley you will not but try by all means.Secondly once youve established Historia Regum Britanniae is THE one and only source of VENUS JULIA'S LINK TO BRITISH ROYALS then i would like you contend with almost 99% of historians that Geoffreys work Historia Regum Britanniae (in particular the crux of your op Venus Julia relationsIS1,authenticated historical evidence 2.proof with of any other Roman or otherwise documentry evidence that authenticates Geoffrey's Venus Julia aspect?Did you know if you have actually read any of Geoffrey's work he also states Arthur fought the king of the huns above the river Humber in England mmmmmmm no what i mean? also that Arthur retook Rome after an epic journey over gaul ,europe and finally Rome ,now this guy is obviously a fabulist there is nooooooooooooooooooooo way that is true but geoffrey swore it was and that is the BLOKE YOU ARE DEFENDING YOUR VERY SHAKY OP ON .Please read your research before making exotic claims