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

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

when speaking genealogy, you have to be very careful about using the term "direct lineage". this is pretty roundabout and in no way direct.

And probably most of us could find a connection if we had enough time to look. Like the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon.

Maybe. Maybe not.
Can you show any examples of this?

You are wrong about the term "direct lineage".
Direct lineage means through Paternal or Maternal connections.
Indirect lineage is through other means, such as cousins, etc.

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
reply to post by SweetKarma

 

Wiki facts is your source? Seriously???

A tomb means nothing. Anyone could be in there. Maybe nobody is. Charlemagne regularly had breakfast in Paris, lunch in Rome, tea in London, diner in Kiev, then back in bed in Paris. All the while personally visiting everybody in and outside of his kingdom...

He signed a treaty with the Sultan of Arabia who was so impressed by him that he gave him an elephant. There is no mention of such an event in the Sultan's archives.

And these are just a few items. Many, many scholars, those willing to research rather than blindly accept everything fed to them, consider him a myth, a concotion made of several kings. And their research is much more thorough than "mainstream" research is.

Wikipedia is one of the better sources on the Internet, as they have a system of verification and disputation. If you are so well defended in your position, I highly suggest you dispute things properly and have Wikipedia change their articles accordingly.

Anyone can come along and claim everything is fake, it's all legends and fiction, etc. But if you would think about things realistically for a minute, you would realize that someone had to be king, it couldn't have been no-body. I will not disagree that there are exaggerations or misunderstandings involved with any ancient history research, but at the same time I find your disputation exaggerated as well.

I would be very happy if you were willing to invest 10minutes into digging up a few random authors who dispute the existence of Charlemagne in a concrete manner so that I may review them in further detail as that would be an interesting read, true or not.

There simply could not have been no one in that spot though, as the entire chain of history is connected each step of the way logically speaking. Someone had to have existed in that role to some extent. Are we entirely wrong about who that person was? Perhaps. But I would like to see adequate reasoning to justify taking such a position very seriously as well. You have provided me with no sources yet so I am unable to be convinced of this perspective just yet, if you won't mind forgiving my skepticism.

Originally posted by avatar01
I'm also a descendant of Fredrik. If you go back far enough...

What conspiracy? You craaaaazy. Eat my almonds.

There are a thousand guys named Fredrick. Which one?
Where was he from?

reply to post by xuenchen


Remember the research about the legendary Excalibur sword of King Arthur being in reality Julius Caesar's sword. The last ' supposted ' Roman Emperor is a '' 13 '' years old kid who secretly symbolised the begining of a new era and strangely his name is, Augustus Romulus Caesar, a composed name of 3 names of the most important figure in the founding of the Roman Empire.

In my opinion, it is a secret message to insiders to prove that secretly, the Roman Empire went underground and that it never fell...The British Empire, the American Empire and the French Empire are all Roman Legions..!

Originally posted by MegasAlexandros
And I'm a blood line descendent of Alexander through one of his mistresses. Does that mean I'm conspiring with royalty to rule the world?

I would be more inclined to believe that you are just making that up to be sarcastic.

But if you are indeed not full of it, I would love to see your lineage and review it if you don't mind. It would make a wonderful addition to the thread.

Also did you know if you can prove you are related to royalty that you can claim heir to part of the family estate in many cases? If you were related and knew it, why wouldn't you want to get your hands on something like that?

Just food for thought.

very good post muzzleflash.. looks like you put some bloody hard work into it.. for that i applaud you sir.. (with a star and a flag)

If what you have uncovered is accurate it certainly adds weight the whole bloodline's theory.. caesar and the queen huh? who would have thought it..

Absolutely fabulous thread with heaps of information and links to follow up on. Thanks.

Did I ever mention that my maternal grandfather was the illegitimate son (confirmed) of the danish king Christian the 10th?
My paternal grandmother always claimed to be related (unconfirmed) to Johan 1st of Hungary.

So I have royal blood running through my veins. You can clearly see the bluish tint on my ankles

reply to post by muzzleflash


It's ATS members like you my friend who makes this site one of the most interesting conspiracy site on the internet. There is always once in a while, a great new thread to motivate us to investigate TPTB even more.

Great work indeed..!

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Genealogy is meaningless. If you go back about 500 years, you become related to everyone on Earth. Look at the math. Go back 11 generations and you have over 20,000 relatives that it took to make you. Those are also related to everyone on Earth. You are at least a 6th cousin to everyone, of all races and nations on this planet.
That includes murderers, horse thiefs, assassins, etc.

The math clearly indicates you are entirely wrong.

Maybe if we went back 5,000 to 10,000 years, your claim would be more reasonable.

But 500 years? Impossible.

I am related to Eskimos and Easter Islanders but not by 6th cousin status. More like 600th or 2000th cousin.

Originally posted by Essan

Anyway, the upshot is that about 90% of Britons - along with a great many Americans, Canadians and Australians - are in direct line to the throne. And if 85,890,100 of your all suddenly die, then I become king

Oh, and my great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather was Julius Ceasar. As was yours. And yours And yours. And yours. And ......

edit on 26-11-2011 by Essan because: (no reason given)

You are correct in the first statement I quote. Indeed if 90 million people died, our chance to inherit the throne would be significantly better. This is a great point and it's true to an extent.

However claiming that you are related to someone from 2000 years ago is rather tenuous and would have to be supported with documented facts to be considered reasonable.

There were well over a few million Europeans back in that period, and any one of those people could have been our particular ancestor, so it wouldn't necessarily be the Caesars. In fact the odds of you being directly related to them are quite small, because it was the 1% back then, and today it would be at best the a very small percentage as well. This is an important consideration to take into account.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
***snip***

This thread has taken me 2+ days to create as I had to conduct over
30+hours of mind bending research. Every two or three steps in the family
trees they switch the names up to make it even more difficult to keep on
track, and they twist things around a bit and use the same few names over
and over and it gets REALLY hard to conceptualize.

***snip***

Many hours indeed.

I do not concur with your claim that "they switch the names up to make it even more difficult to keep on
track".

It is rather the result of namechanges for political reasons and because they change the language and spelling. Now we speak Latin, now French, now German, now Italian etc.
Each language has its own way of spelling.

Think about how english speaking people cannot seem to figure out that it is spelled München - NOT Munich.
It is "I couldn't care less" - NOT "I could care less".
Colour - NOT color.
Bum is not a tramp - or is it?
Fanny is not your bum - or is it?

The list goes on.

So the queen is related to ceaser, why does it matter? The way these royal's inbred with eachother in the middle ages i think you'll find that they are all related in one way or another.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

I don't think this conclusion still stands, muzzleflash. AND, I'm very glad about that as this was the most disturbing part of your thread to me.

en.wikipedia.org...

During the reign of Edward III six measures were passed between 1331 and 1369 which were later known as the 'Six Statutes'. They sought to clarify certain parts of the Charters. In particular, the third statute, of 1354, redefined clause 29, with 'free man' becoming "no man, of whatever estate or condition he may be", and introduced the phrase "due process of law" for 'lawful judgement of his peers or the law of the land'.

edit on 26/11/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)

Thank you for being the first person to properly dispute a claim I made in my post. I will research this matter more closely and either find a counter-claim to bring forth or I will concede to your discovery as overriding the original terminology. Good work, that's what I am looking for.

But at the same time, I do not know if this clause is fully binding to all other sections. I will find out more and respond with whatever I can determine. I do not know if this applies to everything else or if it only applies to 'due process' that all peoples are entitled to.

Plus I am not saying that these documents are fully binding because indeed we have many modern cases of people having their liberties and freehold being trampled or taken without a judgement of their peers. A lot of legal framework has been established to skirt around this system of due process so that will be taken into account as well.

But I do indeed commend you for aiding me in pinpointing this particular controversy and why it is being called into question. If I cannot find anything to refute or side-skirt this, or if I can properly dispute it with references I will do so, but I need more time to research this and make a valid determination. Thank you very much for the contribution.

Originally posted by mick1423
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Remember the research about the legendary Excalibur sword of King Arthur being in reality Julius Caesar's sword.

That is very interesting you say that.

I have never heard such a claim ever before, but you know what? It makes perfect sense considering the overall context.

I am defiantly going to go look into this today as well. Thanks for bringing it up and compelling me to delve deeper into this. I would really like to know more.

Originally posted by lokdog
So the queen is related to ceaser, why does it matter? .

It's even more than a great discovery because it prove the conspiracy theory that there is a secret power that rules the world since 2 thousand years, Since Julius Caesar.. ! TPTB is the Roman Empire !

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane

Colour - NOT color.

You are correct about your examples of proper English but you are wrong here about this particular one.

The etymological source of the word color is indeed spelled correctly as "Color".

source dictionary

early 13c., "skin color, complexion," from O.Fr. color "color, complexion, appearance" (Mod.Fr. couleur), from L. color "color of the skin; color in general, hue; appearance," from Old L. colos, originally "a covering" (akin to celare "to hide, conceal"), from PIE base *kel- "to cover, conceal" (see cell). For sense evolution, cf. Skt. varnah "covering, color," related to vrnoti "covers," and cf. chroma. Meaning "visible color, color of something" is attested in English from c.1300. As "color as a property of things," from late 14c. O.E. words for "color" were hiw, bleo. The verb is from late 14c.; earliest use is figurative.

The Latin has no "u" in it.
I apologize for getting off track there but it does sort of apply because we are talking about Rome and the Latin language and the origins of our modern contemporary existence after all. And the very language we use is a big part of that.

Originally posted by mick1423

Originally posted by lokdog
So the queen is related to ceaser, why does it matter? .

It's even more than a great discovery because it prove the conspiracy theory that there is a secret power that rules the world since 2 thousand years, Since Julius Caesar.. ! TPTB is the Roman Empire !

Bulls-eye. Thank you for understanding why I am so exited about this subject. That is one of the reasons I was looking into such things in the first place.

I just wanted to know, is it really true after all? The road signs are pointing directly to --- Yes!

um...it makes no sense...!!

!) ceaser was never an emperor...he was a senator in the roman republic.
his ADOPTED son...octavious/augustus....was the first emperor!

2) so are you saying theyr sitting on the usurped throne of the pharaoh???

peace

reply to post by muzzleflash


Thanks, I have been researching these lineages for over 25 years. Between other family members and myself, we all have done alot of work to get these lineages verified and find the records that pertain to them, which isn't always easy to do. Yes, it involved alot of travelling over the years, both in the USA and out of course. If you want any other information on these lineages, just speak up and I'll be happy to provide you with whatever information I can. The disc I have is of course hand made, and contains close to 10,000 individuals, and 7.75 megs of space, with references and stories about the people involved. Amazing what one can find if you dig deep enough. Personally, I think the skeletons in the closet are more fun to dig up than the regular royalty stuff.

Good luck on your search and let me know if I can help you out in any way! I'd be more than happy to assist you.

Peace friend!
SK

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by sensfan
I guess this might be news to Americans, or anyone else not part of the commonwealth, but here in Canada, we were taught all this in grade school. Where's the conspiracy?

I seriously doubt it.

Show me a single school textbook that lays it out plainly in a straight-forward one paragraph or less claim that "The current royalty are directly and provably connected to the Caesars of Rome."

You have to actually provide a reference to a grade school textbook since that is your claim.

Otherwise I will be forced to assume you are embellishing a bit, as I have many doubts as to the veracity of your claims.

I haven't seen it in school. However, to throw Canada into this conspiracy of yours....most of our French and some of our non-French Prime Minister apparently can trace back to the family of Sun King Louis XIV.