Plantagenet Legacy Paved Over??? Presidents, Christianity, And Hidden History.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


Agreed. Mitochondreal Eve and a common male ancestor from Iraq some thousands of years ago. But I still find it fascinating that 1/3 of Americans share this Plantagent blood, or 66.6% - yet fully 99.7 percent of Presidents hail from it. And that a bloodline as recent as roughly 520 years back could be so pervasive today. That's a whole lot of DNA distribution. Someone else mentioned Ghengis Khan - and that makes sense, as he's said to have sired thousands of kids.

That is quite the statistical anomaly to me.

~Heff

I've just arrived back from a trip from Aquitaine (Bordeaux and St Emilion) - and there all sorts of references to the Plantagenets vs the Valois down there - so this thread caught my eye!

Originally posted by Hefficide
Agreed. Mitochondreal Eve and a common male ancestor from Iraq some thousands of years ago. But I still find it fascinating that 1/3 of Americans share this Plantagent blood, or 66.6% - yet fully 99.7 percent of Presidents hail from it.

It's not that surprising when you think about it. With the odd anomaly aside, Presidents tend to be rich white dudes. And what's the easiest way to be a rich white dude? Have a rich white dude for a father. And so on....

The myth of the American Dream - a melting pot where anybody can make it if they work hard enough - is just that - a myth. Like old Europe, the biggest advantage you can have in life isn't a high IQ, or a strong work ethic (though of course these things help), it's having rich parents that belong to the dominant ethnic group.

There is even a wiki page about royal descent:

However, with improved documenting schemes, it can be estimated that as many as 150 million Americans have traceable royal European descent.[10] According to American genealogist Gary Boyd Roberts, an expert on royal descent, most Americans with significant New England Yankee, Mid-Atlantic Quaker, or Southern planter ancestry are descended from medieval kings, especially those of England, Scotland, and France. Some Americans may have royal descents through German immigrants who had an illegitimate descent from German royalty.[11]
Due to primogeniture, many colonists of high social status were younger children of English aristocratic families who came to America looking for land because, given their birth order, they could not inherit. Many of these immigrants maintained high standing where they settled. They could often claim royal descent through a female line or illegitimate descent. Many Americans descend from these 17th-century British colonists who had royal descent. There were at least 650 colonists with traceable royal ancestry,[12][13] and 387 left descendants in America (almost always numbering many thousands, and some as many as one million).[12] These colonists with royal descent settled in every state, but a large majority lived in Massachusetts or Virginia.[12] Several families, who settled in those states, over the two hundred years or more since the colonial land grants, interwinded their branches to the point that almost everyone was somehow related to everyone else. One writer observed, "like a tangle of fish hooks".[14]

and

The English geneticist Professor Stephen Jones estimates that 25% of the British population is descended from the Plantagenets.

The phrase "English descent" does not, of course, mean "purely English descent". As soon as an immigrant family marries into an indigenous family, it acquires all the ancestors of its indigenous parent, and is therefore no less likely to be able to claim a royal descent than a non-immigrant family.

Good thread by the way - nice to have a change away from the "aliens did it" crap.

Curious timing. I just read hours of wiki entries because I'm interested in war of the roses game. I read all about that war. So much that I've already forgot most of it
Also I just recently watched the documentary about an alternative royal bloodline that apparently should be the ruling monarch in UK right now. It was a bloke in australia. He recently died but had children so the bloodline is still there.

Thought I'd give this a bump.

For those in the UK, Channel 4 have a documentary tomorrow night www.channel4.com... where it is expected that an announcement will be made as to the identity of the remains found.
Unofficial opinion seems to be that the remains are that of Richard and preparations for reburial are already being discussed in parliament.


Freeborn was right - Richard was a true King in the North and was well loved by the people there, he was known as a good soldier and a fair judge.The much maligned image we have of him today is a result of Shakespeare's play ( and of course he was writing with a Tudor queen on the throne ), but the question of the two princes in the Tower - sons of his brother the King and rightful heirs to the throne, will not go away.

If you have the time, here is a link to an excellent doc about the era and the eternal struggle for the throne

What bugs me is that this is a project of national importance and yet we have to wait for a television programme for the big 'reveal'.

Yeah and that wont air here at all. I'm just as much interested even though I have no national interest in the matter.

reply to post by PsykoOps


I know - not fair
This seems to have been reduced to reality TV - the university involved in the investigation has already been criticised for this and for withholding findings until the programme is aired.

By the way, the youtube link isn't working - the doc is part of a Channel 4 series and I am unable to embed.

A couple of articles on this are on the BBC Website;

www.bbc.co.uk...
www.bbc.co.uk...

It will be a shame if he becomes known as The Car Park King and doesn't start to get the recognition that he deserves.

According to the first article the results of the test are to be released tomorrow at 10.00GMT.

reply to post by Freeborn


Announcement just confirmed the remains are those of Richard according to DNA results.
He is to be buried in Leicester cathedral near to where the body was found. I think maybe York would have been a more appropriate choice given his history, but who am I to say?

Given the relatively small population of the time in England and the length of time between then and now, I would hazard a guess and say a good many people all over the world could trace their ancestry back. I myself have family connections going back through the ages to various nobility and I would imagine most of us have at least one branch of blue bloods knocking about in our family tree somewhere.

Also, like Byrd said, it is only recently social mobility became a possibility, so it stands to reason that the rich, powerful and connected then would remain so in the subsequent centuries.

reply to post by Hefficide


It was expected, right up until the Victorian era in fact, that the upper crusts would keep mistresses etc as marriage was more of a business/functional contract and not born out of love or even list, mostly. In fact, King William III was often accused of being gay because he didn't keep at least one mistress (at least???) and he actually cared for his wife, Queen Mary.

In fact, anyone with the surname prefixed "Fitz-" is descended from a royal bastard child.

Huge thanks to my British brethren for bumping and updating this!!! What a nice distraction from the other subjects that have totally distracted me from the truly interesting things that normally would capture my attention!

Later on tonight, as time frees up, I will most certainly review the links presented and come back to comment!

Once again, thanks my friends!

~Heff

Richard III's deluded supporters, especially the weirdos who are members of the Richard III Society, have been telling us for years that Richard III was not as bad as the Tudors said he was. "Oh, he didn't have a curvature of the spine and one shoulder higher than the other," they told us. "That was just propaganda from the evil Tudors."

How inconvenient, then, for the supporters of Richard III when it was found that his skeleton did indeed suffer from a curvature of the spine and did have one shoulder higher than the other. So dismayed by this discovery was Phillippa Langley, a rather strange member of the Richard III Society, that she burst into tears on the recent documentary of the king's discovery!

The facts are that Richard III was a nasty little man and all the plaudits lavished onto him from some quarters at the moment does seem a little strange....

Here's a great article........

Richard III should be reburied under Leicester council’s car park

Nigel Jones 5 February 2013


Richard III's deformed skeleton proves that one supposed Tudor libel about the king was no more than the truth. Image: Getty

Anyone who watched last night’s Channel 4 Documentary Richard III: The King Under the Car Park will need no reminding that members of the Richard III Society tend to be delusional fantasists rather than serious historians. Although we should doubtless be grateful to the Society for funding the dig that discovered the monarch’s bones, that very fact tends to slant the coverage of Richard’s resurrection.

There has been much talk about ‘re-writing history’ and countering ‘Tudor propaganda’; but the inconvenient truth (for Ricardians) is that the late king’s spine was indeed twisted by scoliosis and one of his shoulders was noticeably higher than the other. Those particular pieces of Tudor and Shakespearian “spin” were no more than the plain truth. So it is with the rest of Richard’s ‘black legend’. As far as serious historians are concerned, the case against Richard has long been closed. Or, to put it in topical terms, if Richard is innocent of the charges against him, then so is Chris Huhne.

Rising in the dock of History to hear the accusations against him, Richard III would be on his feet for a very long time. The murder of his two nephews, the Princes in the Tower of London, would, of course, head the charge sheet. But what about the even more brutal killing – committed in the same grim fortress twelve years before, and carried out by Richard’s own hands – the murder of the saintly and mentally fragile Henry VI, England’s rightful anointed king?

Or the elimination earlier in 1483 of William, Lord Hastings, the very man who had helped to engineer the coup which brought Richard to the throne? Hastings, accused of treason at a meeting of Richard’s new council, was dragged kicking and screaming his innocence to be decapitated on a rough wooden builder’s block after the psychopathic king had sworn to have his victim’s head off before he had eaten his lunch. Or the cold-blooded execution in Salisbury market place of his own chief henchman and former partner in crime, Henry Stafford, the 2nd Duke of Buckingham, who, perceiving Richard’s truly evil nature when it was too late, had finally turned to rebel against him? Or Richard’s seizure of Lord Rivers and Sir Richard Grey (respectively uncle and half-brother of the little princes), arrested in their beds after being entertained to dinner at Richard’s table and lulled into drunken sleep at the Rose and Crown Inn in Stony Stratford, before being sent north to Richard’s Yorkshire heartland to be quietly murdered.


cont....

Richard III had a long list of crimes to answer for before his own subjects, appalled by his tyranny, rebelled after just two years of his rule and welcomed the unknown Welshman Henry Tudor in his place. They helped Henry to defeat Richard’s army at the Battle of Bosworth in August 1485, killed the king before he could flee, and dragged his torn and battered body to the nearby town of Leicester.

Why, since the discovery of what has now been positively identified as Richard’s skeleton in the ruins of the Franciscan Abbey of Greyfriars under a Leicester council car park, has there been such an avalanche of praise heaped on this awful little man? The lauding of wicked Richard has come not only from the usual suspects in his starry-eyed fan club, but from serious historians who really should know better. Chris Skidmore, a Tory MP and Tudor historian who has written a new book about Bosworth, even tabled a Commons Motion calling on the government to ‘arrange a full state funeral for the long dead monarch, and for his remains to be interred appropriately’.

The Richard III Society may huff and puff, but almost all serious modern historians – including Richard’s most recent biographers Professor Michael Hicks and Desmond Seward, and the respected historian Alison Weir – have come to the same conclusion: contemporary evidence rather than “Tudor propaganda” leaves little room for doubt that he is guilty of the crimes for which posterity (and Shakespeare) have traditionally condemned him. To pretend otherwise, as so many Ricardians do, is sentimental fantasy.

For the murder of Henry VI, stabbed and/or bludgeoned as he knelt in prayer in his cell in the Tower’s Wakefield tower, contemporary chronicler John Warkworth is specific: King Henry, he says was ‘put to death between eleven and twelve o clock… by the Duke of Gloucester (Richard’s title before he usurped the throne).’ The Burgundian diplomat Philppe de Commines, unlike Warkworth a sympathiser with Richard’s Yorkist house, agreed. Richard, he says, ‘killed poor King Henry with his own hand, or else caused him to be killed in his presence’. John Morton, bishop of Ely, wrote that Richard ‘slew King Henry with his own hand as men constantly say.’ Richard’s crime was widely known and his name reviled in his lifetime, long before any Tudor propagandists got spinning.

The arrest and killing of Richard’s other prominent victims – Hastings, Buckingham, Rivers and Grey – were carried out brazenly as open acts of terror to scare his subjects into submission in the aftermath of the coup that brought him the throne in Spring 1483. But Richard was canny enough to know that the rubbing out of the two little Princes, Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York, the frail final obstacles that stood in the way of his grasping total power, would be a murder too far even in an age inured to the terrible bloodletting of the Wars of the Roses. He ensured, therefore, that the smothering of the two boys in their Tower bedsheets was carried out in secret by his own Keeper of Horse, Sir James Tyrell, and two hired thugs, Miles Forest and John Dighton.

Although the fullest details of the double murder do indeed come from a Tudor writer – Sir Thomas More, Richard’s earliest biographer, who got his information from those who were at the Tower at the time – the literally killer fact ignored by the Richardian revisionists, is that More’s description of where the boys’ bodies were buried – under a heap of stones beneath the White Tower – exactly fits the actual discovery of their skeletons in the reign of Charles II. Charles certainly believed that the skeletons were those of his ancestors, and he gave them a fitting regal burial in Westminster Abbey. The skeletons were exhumed and examined in the 1930s after a Ricardian campaign and were found – surprise, surprise – to be those of two boys of the same ages as the Princes when they disappeared in September 1483.

A modern lawyer, addressing the Court of History in Richard’s defence, would make modish excuses for his client’s behaviour. For Richard suffered a dysfunctional childhood and youth. His father, two of his brothers and his guardian, Warwick the Kingmaker, all died violently in the Wars of the Roses. No wonder Richard’s characteristic tic – seen at his own coronation – was playing with his dagger, drawing it in and out of its sheath, while casting suspicious glances all around him. No wonder, too, that his many enemies spread absurd stories that he had been born with teeth and hair down to his shoulders, or that he had only to breathe on a flower for its petals to wither. The crooked product of twisted times, Richard would never be “normal”.

The Leicester bones have finally been identified, so where should Richard’s mortal remains be reburied? Leicester looks likely to claim the king for its own cathedral. Westminster Abbey, resting place of the princes, has also been suggested. Surely it would be sacrilege to bury this killer in any Holy place. Even stowing him in the Yorkist heartland, in York Minster or the castles of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, would be showing him too much respect. Like his fellow tyrant Adolf Hitler, whose bunker, by strange coincidence, now lies under a Berlin car park, the best resting place for Richard would surely be a dishonoured tomb underneath the very same car park where he has lain these past five centuries. He deserves no better.

Nigel Jones’s Tower: an epic history of the Tower of London is published by Hutchinson/Windmill. He will lead ‘Winter of Discontent’ a tour of Ricardian sites in Yorkshire, the Midlands and London between August 20-23 2013. www.historicaltrips.com

blogs.spectator.co.uk...

reply to post by Klassified


I've brought up this Plantagenet conspiracy many times on the board; this is how I was able to predict the elections would be down to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, both are related. I used this to predict the outcome, with Barry winning, at least a year before the election.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Klassified

 

I've brought up this Plantagenet conspiracy many times on the board; this is how I was able to predict the elections would be down to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, both are related. I used this to predict the outcome, with Barry winning, at least a year before the election.

Yeah, this is the elephant in the room we're all supposed to ignore, isn't it?

reply to post by Sicksicksick


Cheers for your posts, very good read indeed. I actually went away and read about William of Hastings, poor sod..seems like he was a very loyal Knight and got a bum deal.... Those damned Nevilles popped up again in that story..Them and the Woodvilles seem to have had a big hand in the stirring of the pot that was the Wars of the Roses.

reply to post by Klassified


It's not really an Elephant though, as myself and others have alluded to, it isn't that much of a big thing at all. The potential descendants of a single Plantagenet over 15-20 generations is a huge number, let alone the combined descendants of all of them... I reckon you and I probably have some familial link.

reply to post by stumason

I can see valid points from both perspectives. About the only thing a person can do is weigh the evidence they can find, and decide which they think is more likely.

Thanks for chiming in. I always appreciate opposing perspectives. It keeps us from getting too focused on one view, and only looking for confirmation of our own bias.

reply to post by Klassified


Indeed

I have a genuine interest in genealogy myself, so whatever side of the fence I am on it is an interesting topic.

reply to post by Hefficide


Thank you Heff, you just helped clear some fog i've been having. And I will explain in detail.

Let me start with the Mormon/Latter Day Saints. I was raised in this religion until I started distancing myself farther and farther from the age of 16 until I triped and eventually landed here. That being said one of the biggest things the LDS want there members to do is their Geneology. This is "HUGE" and common knowledge of the religion. They actually own FamilyTree.com / members of the LDS/Mormon religion gain access to this site for free.

My sister who is not an active member but has access (She didn't have her name taken off the books) and has been diligently researching our family tree. She found out that my bloodline is linked to Jonas Hill who helped spark the revolutionary war and was the first soldier to collect a pension from out gov't. What is really sick is when she kept following the lineage on my Mother's mom's side my sister was able to follow back to where in the smallest % we are linked to Obama...... (I'm not exactly proud to say this at this point in time btw)

So everything can be researched farther and farther back as if they are actively archiving bloodlines. A way to groom the leaders they want to use and puppets perhaps?

I can say this, I was actively in leadership positions in the church via through sunday classes, the whole Mormon/LDS priesthood shananigans, Senior Patrol Leader in Calumet Council Troop 5 (Eagle Scout), Actively recruited (By the armed forces) and denied by me when I hit 18 and 9/11 occured (I'm the only son and my father who was an Army Ranger literally said HELL NO who will protect your family when SHTF son), before the age of 21 I was a Leed Supervisor at CACH in Hodgkins with over 50 employees, actually the list keeps going, I never once stayed in a position of leadership for very long as I could not take the politics behind the scenes and I am very quick to defend the ones that make what I do possible. I denied leadership positions because what I was actively seeing at a young age was not leading, it was manipulation.

Needless to say that if I wereTPTB, I would have paved over their lineage too, to prevent the truth from surfacing. Whatever truth they wanted hidden for whatever reason. Nothing keeps secrets quiet, quite like cement and mortor.

So that's my lil tid bit to add to this forum I hope you enjoyed it. And NO will not disclose my Family Tree via Forum. That's a lot of copy-pasting and I care not to disclose anymore.