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

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
The question is: why wouldn't they want us to know this?

Descending from Caesar sounds a lot better than descending from a bunch of Germans.

Maybe they dont want it to look like the roman empire still rules the world

S=F btw OP Great find. I knew the royal family's of europe was representatives of rome but never knew any of em was related to the caesars.

Everyone in Europe and the Americas is descendant of the Roman Caesars.

The ancestry lines of everyone in Europe and the Americas merge at some point between 900 and 1100 years ago.


And everyone in present day Egypt is probably a descendant of a Pharaoh.

And everyone in present day China is probably a descendant of an ancient king of the Ming dinasty.

Imagine this situation:


King A has too sons: B and C.

When A dies, B becomes the king. C is not a king, but he is brother of the king.



King B has a son called D, and his brother C has a son called E.

When B dies, D becomes the king. E is not a king, but at least he is the cousin of the king.



King D has a son called F, and his cousin E has a son called G.

When D dies, F becomes the king. G is not a king, G is not a brother of the king, and G is not a cousin of the king. In fact, King D doesn't gives a s*it to G.



G may become an alcohoolic, and die in poverty. The son of G, called M, will be a humble horse keeper, and nobody will give a s*it to him. But M will still be a great-great-grandson of King A. M is a direct descendant of King A, and so will be all of M's descendants, including M's 20 grandsons and 80 great-grandsons.

Yeah thats because they're not [."To the best of my knowledge, everything that can be known about Genuissa (aka Venissa or Venus Julia) is to be found in Geoffrey of Monmouth, the 12th century British chronicler who wrote the Historia regum Brittaniae. " Professor marler St louis university.In otherwords all and any info relating to royal British links with Romans comes from Geoffrey of Monmouth medieval bull5hitter extrordinairre]reply to post by ThePeopleParty

Originally posted by GLontra
Everyone in Europe and the Americas is descendant of the Roman Caesars.

The ancestry lines of everyone in Europe and the Americas merge at some point between 900 and 1100 years ago.


And everyone in present day Egypt is probably a descendant of a Pharaoh.

And everyone in present day China is probably a descendant of an ancient king of the Ming dinasty.

and yet..you ain't in the big club..and they aren't either.

hmmmm

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!

Originally posted by XtraTL
You've never heard of it before because it is made up nonsense. Look at your source for goodness sake! Something is not a "proven fact" just because it is written on the internets, LOL. In fact, it is by definition wrong because it is on ATS!

And even if it did just happen to be true, the significance is what exactly? It has no significance at all.

You probably have Ceasar's blood in you too. Who cares!

edit on 25-11-2011 by XtraTL because: (no reason given)

Troll much?

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

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!

"utterly" terrible? "utter" drivel?

i would think "terrible" and "drivel" would be good enough for you.

the OP info is very good.

this IS a conspiracy site !

what would have been the fun of just a simple google search?

how do we know the "truth" is really truth?

reply to post by muzzleflash


Mods. . .this thread should be up for "thread of the year." Not that it is, but it's one of the most researched, and thought provoking threads I've read since last year.

Major props OP. Insane work.

Originally posted by mick1423
reply to post by thePharaoh

 

Julius Caesar survived the ides of march of 44 BC and ruled over the Empire from Seborga through his adopted son Augustus. Secretly but the real first Emperor of the Roman Empire is Gaius Julius Caesar, The Great Architect of the world and the figure behind TPTB.

Read this thread for mor informations:
All Roads Lead to Rome

edit on 26-11-2011 by mick1423 because: (no reason given)

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

peace

Originally posted by muzzleflash
m
One interesting lead would be Cleopatra VII's connections to all of this. She was a member of the Ptolemaic Dynasty.

She was also married to Julius Caesar, so we have a direct connection here between the Greek royalty descendant from Alexander the Great's time, and the Roman connections.

This would be the direction I would head into at least to test it out and find where it leads. It looks quite daunting though!

Good thread OP.
When I was working in Egypt as an expat, I enquired of her and the Egytians say that Cleopatra was of Pharoan lineage and not of greek blood.
Indeed if she was of macedonian descent, then it may lead to Alexander the Great.

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.

reply to post by Strype

The thread title is completely at odds with the composition of the thread and conclusion therefore a red herring.How you can say its VALID is ridiculous do your OWN research and you will find it is cobblers.for the umpteenth time ANY accounts OF BRITISH KING MARRYING INTO ROMAN ARE BASED UPON THE FAKE AND FANCIFUL DREAMED UP WORK OF ONE GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH.

[wow you must be easily entertained or hoodwinked talk about niave and green .are you kidding me this is one of the most thotoughly researched pieces,its pure cut and paste and as regards researched if muzzle had researched a little he would have found for example typing the words wikipedia on google followed by geoffrey of monmouth in the search bar he would have found that he was the fake behind this complete garbage THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE AT ALL FOR VENUS JULIA BEING MARRIED TO A BRITISH KING ONLY FROM GEOFREYY OF MONMOUTH WHO NEARLY EVRY ACADEMIC DISMISSES AS A BUMBLING FANTASISTi]reply to post by amongus

Exploring nobility can be quite fun.

I've made a few threads on this myself, but you made yours more entertaining to read. Good job.

Also, look up the Massimo family. They claim a few Popes and other major Vatican officials and aristocrats in their lineage, but even more amazing, is that they trace their family back to the Roman Maximi

Massimo

Massimo is the name of a Roman princely family of great age; which by its own tradition descends from the ancient Maximi of republican Rome and from Quintus Fabius Maximus (c. 275 BC – 203 BC), called Cunctator (the Delayer). When asked by Napoleon (with whom he was negotiating the Treaty of Tolentino) whether the family descended from Fabius Maximus, the then Prince Massimo famously replied "I do not know that it is true, but it has been a tradition in the family for some thirteen or fourteen hundred years."[1]. The family genealogical tree starts with a Leone Massimo in the 11th century, but clear records do not begin until the 15th century.[2] The family is generally recognised as one of the oldest noble families in Europe

Also amazing, from a more metaphysical, mystical perspective, is that all the other great noble families of Europe, the borbons, savoy, saxony, hesse, etc appear to give their daughters to the princes of the house of Massimo (which means 'great').....which implies a passivity on their part to the central axis (active) of the house of Massimo...

Many of the Massimo princesses who married into the family were from the most important Royal families of Europe. These included HRH Princess Cristina of Saxony, who married Prince Camillo Massimiliano in 1796; HRH Princess Maria-Gabriella of Savoy, who married Prince Camillo Vittorio in 1827; HRH Princess Beatrice of Borbon, daughter of HRH Don Carlos, Duke of Madrid, the pretender to the Spanish throne who married Prince Fabrizio in 1897; and HRH Princess Maria-Adelaide of Savoy-Genoa, daughter of the Duke of Genoa and niece of King Victor Emmanuel III[6], who married Prince Leone in 1935.

This is all speculation, but it is certainly interesting.

Originally posted by cuchullainuk777
reply to post by Strype

 

The thread title is completely at odds with the composition of the thread and conclusion therefore a red herring.How you can say its VALID is ridiculous do your OWN research and you will find it is cobblers.for the umpteenth time ANY accounts OF BRITISH KING MARRYING INTO ROMAN ARE BASED UPON THE FAKE AND FANCIFUL DREAMED UP WORK OF ONE GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH.

Maybe a post or two with quotes from sources would be in order.

I nominate you.

Who was GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH anyway?

Was he a bartender?

What was his goal in life?

First of all let us deal with the title of this thread in particular the two words that are most irksome to me and have caused me to refute this bollox once and for all.Secondly no Geoffrey of Monmouth wasnt a bartender but he may have had part time employment selling cups of mead who knows.Thirdly i have already quoted in an earlier response (if you had taken the time to check) b8ut so as not to dissappoint here are some quotes that will shatter the so called 'PROVEN FACTS' IN THE AFOREMENTIONED TITLE.Ok let us deal firstly with this title> Queen Elizabeth II is Direct Lineage of the Roman Caesars by blood! (Proven Fact) upon this very point does the WHOLE OF MUZZELS thread or post hang and its this 2>whose father was "Old King" Coel, whose father was
Marius King of Britain,
whose mother was Venus Julia" OK now bare in mind muzzle has based his whole premise of 'PROVEN FACT' on thiese few lines i have just posted (this connecting our Queen Liz right back to Rome.Where does this info come from i hear u ask? there is ONE SOURCE ONLY AND ILL GIVE YOU A MILLION POUND/DOLLARS IF YOU PROVE OTHER WISE,AND THAT SOURCE IS FROM A CHRONOLOGICAL FABLED LIST OF british kings entoitked THE HISTORY OF BRITISH KINGS quote coming right up en.wikipedia.org... thats the page on wiki the very opening lines are "The Historia Regum Britanniae (English: The History of the Kings of Britain) is a pseudohistorical account of British history, written c. 1136 by Geoffrey of Monmouth." Note the words PSEUDOHISTORICAL note also the name of the author GEOFFREY OF mONMOUTH in answer to who he is.I heres another link of that book www.amazon.co.uk... .Why is this important this Geoffrey dude and his less than creditable book ? well and heres the straw that will break the camels back this is the one and ONLY source where you will find the linage that muzzle has pinned his whole thread title upon that Liz is descended to the Romans there is absolutely not one shred of written evidence by any greek roman or brit or celt or any archaelogical evidence to suggest venus julia was married into royal british stock namely marius none what so ever and it is upon her purported marriage to marius the brit that this whole thread flaots on so if muzzle is basing iswhole premise of PROVEN FACT upon THE ONLY SOURCE OF THIS INFO WHICH IS gEOFFREY OF MONMOUTHS BOOK THE HISTORY OF THE BRITISH KINGS THEN HES IS BOTH MISGUIDED AND BADLY INFORMED ....................................So i ask u this once you have researched and not taken peoples delusional research as verbatim come back and thank me ill leave you with professor Marlers quote bare inmind what i said about Venus Julia being pivotal to muzzles title in particular his last 2 words PROVEN FACT ...based upon a 12th century pseudohistorian

J. C. Marler, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy
and the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies,
and Assistant Vatican Film Librarian,
Saint Louis University
"To the best of my knowledge, everything that can be known about Genuissa (aka Venissa or Venus Julia) is to be found in Geoffrey of Monmouth, the 12th century British chronicler who wrote the Historia regum Brittaniae. "and about Geoffrey of Monmouth it can be said ................"Historia Regum Britanniae is now acknowledged as a literary work of national myth containing little reliable history. This has since led many modern scholars to agree with William of Newburgh, who wrote around 1190 that "it is quite clear that everything this man wrote about Arthur and his successors, or indeed about his predecessors from Vortigern onwards, was made up, partly by himself and partly by others".GET IT??? A LITERARY WORK OF NATIONAL MYTH CONTAING LITTLE RELIABLE HISTORY.also i add its not incumbent upon me to prove myself i am here to disprove muzzle so if your quite prepared to suck in everything muzzle says without googling 1000's of articles links books that will vindicate what i say then you are both lazy and a reason why myths and bull5hit is profligate[10] reply to post by xuenchen

reply to post by cuchullainuk777


Thanx,

That is what I was looking for.

I will study the ideas.

reply to post by xuenchen
The truth is not always popular Geffrey of Monmouth is almost single handedly responsible for the romantical mythos that is king arthur.oh by the way Tacitus's writing refute the venuse julia sory .Please dont come along and tell me Tacitus is wrong theres tons and tons of archaeological evidince to support him PROVEN FACT you back muzzles topic at the races and your on a dead cert loser."Dont shoot the messenger who discredits fakery but rather seek to impune the delsuional who perpetuate myth and drivel