Discussion:
Is Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. a Plantagenet descendant ?
Add Reply
Olivier
2020-03-06 14:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Good morning, sir.

I heard that all US presidents have the blood of English kings.

I'd like to know if the candidates for 2020 have that particularity.

Yours sincerely,

Olivier
j***@gmail.com
2020-03-06 16:13:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Olivier
Good morning, sir.
I heard that all US presidents have the blood of English kings.
I'd like to know if the candidates for 2020 have that particularity.
People in this group will dispute it, but it is extraordinarily likely that everyone who was president is descended from at least one person who was King of England at some point. But no more likely for a president to be so than anyone else of western european stock.

However, it is equally certain that many many presidents do not have anything close to a traceable line to royalty. I don't believe the evidence supports one even for the current orange White House occupant.

I have also not seen one for Joe Biden. William Addams Reitwiesner had this:
http://www.wargs.com/political/biden.html

and I haven't seen Gary Boyd Roberts say anything about Joe Biden yet. (he may have, I just haven't seen it)

--Joe C
Vance Mead
2020-03-06 16:39:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
From a very cursory search, most of his family comes from Ireland. The Biden surname might come from Hampshire/Wiltshire. They appear to be yeomen/husbandmen in the 17th century.

This is from ten minutes' googling. Not for publication.
taf
2020-03-06 18:14:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Olivier
Good morning, sir.
I heard that all US presidents have the blood of English kings.
This is statistically likely, but not genealogically accurate. Periodically this kind of claim gets reported in the popular media, but the actual historical record does not bear it out. The pedigree of Andrew Jackson, for example, can't be traced beyond a great-grandparent, and there are others who have pretty obscure backgrounds that can't be traced before the 16th century. The people making the claim are basing it on sloppy genealogy.

There are variants of this claim that have been broadly reported. One was by an amateur American genealogist who purchased the publishing rights to one of the British Peerage trademarks and then portrayed himself as an expert on all things genealogical. Every four years for about two decades, he would send out a press release to the media claiming that in every American election, the candidate with the most/best royal ancestry won, and this inviolable rule could be used to pick the winner of the next election. It would be reported in the nature of the stories about the octopus who picked the winner of the World cup, or more traditionally, the groundhog who predicted then spring would arrive, but some people took it as serious reporting. Even if he picked it wrong, he would be back again the next election cycle claiming to have discovered a 'better' royal descent for the actual winning candidate than he knew about before the previous election, and thereby confirming his principle. He never provided any details on the pedigrees involved, and there is every reason to believe he was simply a charlatan, making it all up to get media attention. (In his obituary in a British newspaper, it was said that his upside was that he was always available to the press with a pithy fact they could publish, the downside being that it was usually incorrect.)

As an aside, his claim would be picked up by David Icke, a conspiracy theorist who believes that the Illuminati who have been secretly controlling the world since prehistoric times and from whom all of the royal houses are drawn, and because of this work, all of the presidents as well, are actually the descendants of alien reptilian humanoids.

The other version was by a 12-year-old who simply went on line to the crowdsourced pedigrees on FamilySearch and 'discovered' that every American president descended from king John. The media reported it as a 'look what the precocious girl has done' story, without fact-checking the original claim. Well, the FamilySearch trees are of similar quality to other crowdsourced genealogy collections that are online - a few carefully done, using appropriate scholarship with primary records, but most are the work of simple name-collectors, compiling their trees from other trees they in turn found online, without any understanding of the sources, caveats or anything else, and thus combining every jumped conclusion, fanciful assumption, etc. Again, there are a number of American presidents for whom no such authentic line has been traced.
Post by Olivier
I'd like to know if the candidates for 2020 have that particularity.
I don't think Trump has such a documented line (if he did, I am sure NEHGS would have issued a press release by now, reporting "Trump is a cousin of Obama"). I seriously doubt Bernie Sanders does (his background is continental Jewish), and I am completely unfamiliar with Biden's roots.

taf
taf
2020-03-07 02:27:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Olivier
I'd like to know if the candidates for 2020 have that particularity.
I don't think Trump has such a documented line (if he did, I am sure NEHGS would have issued a press release by now, reporting "Trump is a cousin of Obama"). I seriously doubt Bernie Sanders does (his background is continental Jewish), and I am completely unfamiliar with Biden's roots.
Oops, I left out one candidate, Tulsi Gabbard. Her family were Anglo-Americans living on Samoa, but I am unaware of any attempt to trace her deeper ancestry.

taf
d***@gmail.com
2020-08-16 05:44:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It does, a 12 year old girl found out ALL BUT 1 ARE RELATED.
b***@yahoo.com
2020-06-13 19:15:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty-even Trump his 10th Great grandmother was Lady Jane Stewart the granddaughter of King James V of Scotland. This is also my line, $.80 from Lady Jane’s son David Leslie born 1600 and I descend from their daughter lady Margaret Leslie born 1593 in Scotland. Biden needs to have his family tree done by a professional I’ve been doing this for almost 2 decades and I have sources which means I have proof for everything in my tree.
taf
2020-06-13 20:11:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@yahoo.com
Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty-
This may well be true, and Van Buren too, but in terms of proven royal ancestry the claim that they all have such descents is not well-founded. If one sets aside the wishful thinking and unfounded names-the-same assumptions, there are a lot more than just Van Buren who lack such a proven royal descent.
Post by b***@yahoo.com
even Trump his 10th Great grandmother was Lady Jane Stewart the
granddaughter of King James V of Scotland.
Perhaps you could present the precise line for evaluation.

taf
Enno Borgsteede
2020-06-13 20:11:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@yahoo.com
Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty-even Trump his 10th Great grandmother was Lady Jane Stewart the granddaughter of King James V of Scotland.
I don't think so. According to Geni, King James V of Scotland is my 6th cousin 13 times removed, but there is no relation with the current president, which would be there if the president were a descendant.

For more information, please check:

https://www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Trump-a-descendant-of-King-John-of-England

The article mentions Geni as an offender, and it had a connection earlier, but that was corrected later.

Regards,

Enno
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-13 20:29:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
This passed unnoticed by the newsgroup, at the time, but, back in 2016, a genealogist said that both Hillary Clinton and François Hollande were descended from Louis X of France, read https://www.thelocal.fr/20161106/hollande-distantly-related-to-hillary-clinton-claims-book/.
John Higgins
2020-06-13 22:18:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
This passed unnoticed by the newsgroup, at the time, but, back in 2016, a genealogist said that both Hillary Clinton and François Hollande were descended from Louis X of France, read https://www.thelocal.fr/20161106/hollande-distantly-related-to-hillary-clinton-claims-book/.
You misread this. It didn't say that Clinton or Hollande was "descended" from Louis X. It said that Clinton was "a relative" of Louis X, and that Hollande was "distantly related to" Pjhilip V, brother of Louis X. There's a difference...

The article deservedly "passed unnoticed" by the newsgroup in 2016. It was trash, and still is.

The supposed Roddham royal descent has been discussed - and dismissed - several times here. Check the archives....
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-13 22:42:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
This passed unnoticed by the newsgroup, at the time, but, back in 2016, a genealogist said that both Hillary Clinton and François Hollande were descended from Louis X of France, read https://www.thelocal.fr/20161106/hollande-distantly-related-to-hillary-clinton-claims-book/.
You misread this. It didn't say that Clinton or Hollande was "descended" from Louis X. It said that Clinton was "a relative" of Louis X, and that Hollande was "distantly related to" Pjhilip V, brother of Louis X. There's a difference...
The article deservedly "passed unnoticed" by the newsgroup in 2016. It was trash, and still is.
The supposed Roddham royal descent has been discussed - and dismissed - several times here. Check the archives....
On your first point, oops, sorry, you're right, I got confused.
On your second point, this royal descent is not through the Roddhams of Durham. It's through Hillary's French-Canadian ancestry through her mattrilineal greatgrandmother.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-13 22:57:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I've just sent a message to said French genealogist asking him if he could clarify us regarding his research.
John Higgins
2020-06-14 21:40:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
This passed unnoticed by the newsgroup, at the time, but, back in 2016, a genealogist said that both Hillary Clinton and François Hollande were descended from Louis X of France, read https://www.thelocal.fr/20161106/hollande-distantly-related-to-hillary-clinton-claims-book/.
You misread this. It didn't say that Clinton or Hollande was "descended" from Louis X. It said that Clinton was "a relative" of Louis X, and that Hollande was "distantly related to" Pjhilip V, brother of Louis X. There's a difference...
The article deservedly "passed unnoticed" by the newsgroup in 2016. It was trash, and still is.
The supposed Roddham royal descent has been discussed - and dismissed - several times here. Check the archives....
On your first point, oops, sorry, you're right, I got confused.
On your second point, this royal descent is not through the Roddhams of Durham. It's through Hillary's French-Canadian ancestry through her mattrilineal greatgrandmother.
I overlooked that the article said that Hillary's relationship to Louis was via her maternal ancestry, not through her Rodham ancestry (which I misspelled as "Roddham").

The beginnings of Hillary's French ancestry can be seen here (scroll down to "Les émigrants percherons ancêtres de Hillary Rodham Clinton"):
http://www.perche-quebec.com/files/hillary-clinton/individus/hillary-clinton.htm#percherons
Most if not all of this can be seen in Genealogics - although with no linkage to to French monarchs, at least that I can see).
m***@gmail.com
2020-07-21 23:40:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I believe that is because she is a descendant (like myself) of one of the “King’s Daughters”... girls and women selected to be sent to New France. The King financially sponsored between 600 and 1000 girls/women - they were of no familial relation to the king himself.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-22 01:31:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I believe that is because she is a descendant (like myself) of one of the “King’s Daughters”... girls and women selected to be sent to New France. The King financially sponsored between 600 and 1000 girls/women - they were of no familial relation to the king himself.
No. The article's wording makes it fairly clear that he meant Hillary was related to Louis X, who ruled centuries before the colonization of New France.
Denis Beauregard
2020-07-24 15:45:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:31:20 -0700 (PDT), Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I believe that is because she is a descendant (like myself) of one of the “King’s Daughters”... girls and women selected to be sent to New France. The King financially sponsored between 600 and 1000 girls/women - they were of no familial relation to the king himself.
No. The article's wording makes it fairly clear that he meant Hillary was related to Louis X, who ruled centuries before the colonization of New France.
You clearly just don't know what is a “King’s Daughters”.

During 1663-1673, France sent to New France about 800 women to
be married, now known as “King’s Daughters” because the king
was paying for their travel. Some of them were found to have
some Royal ancestry, many many generations back as expected.

Now refering to the chart at
http://www.perche-quebec.com/files/hillary-clinton/individus/hillary-clinton-arbre.htm

it focusses on Perche, which is an area of France, partly in Normandy.
None of her ancestors in that page are royal.

So I verified all her Quebec ancestry based on that page, that is from

- Simon Campeau and Véronique Bourdeau (GFAN 27267)
- Joseph Godet and Jeanne Pilette (GFAN 112544)

I put my family sheet numbers for reference. But none is royal anyway.

None of the ancestors of Hillary is "royal" according to the various
researches made about Quebec early families.

But there are some “King’s Daughters” (Filles du roi) who have a
documented trail to some king.

- Catherine de Baillon
http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec-genealogy/001/001079.php
- Judith Catherine de Belleau (no living descendant)
http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec-genealogy/004/004276.php
- Marie Martin
http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec-genealogy/001/001446.php


Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790
taf
2020-07-24 16:01:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Denis Beauregard
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:31:20 -0700 (PDT), Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
No. The article's wording makes it fairly clear that he meant Hillary
was related to Louis X, who ruled centuries before the colonization of
New France.
You clearly just don't know what is a “King’s Daughters”.
The article indicates that "French geneologist (sic) Jean-Louis Beaucarnot" claim of her ancestry that, "Most notably, back 23 generations, she counts as a relative King Louis X le Hutin, known as 'Louis the Stubborn' in English." Who knows what it means by 'she counts as a relative' but one can not attribute this to a misunderstanding by Paulo over King's Daughters.

taf
Denis Beauregard
2020-07-24 16:31:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Denis Beauregard
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:31:20 -0700 (PDT), Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
No. The article's wording makes it fairly clear that he meant Hillary
was related to Louis X, who ruled centuries before the colonization of
New France.
You clearly just don't know what is a “King’s Daughters”.
The article indicates that "French geneologist (sic) Jean-Louis Beaucarnot" claim of her ancestry that, "Most notably, back 23 generations, she counts as a relative King Louis X le Hutin, known as 'Louis the Stubborn' in English." Who knows what it means by 'she counts as a relative' but one can not attribute this to a
misunderstanding by Paulo over King's Daughters.

There is no lineage that far from her New France ancestry.

From

2 Joseph GODET
* married 1775-02-19 Pointe-Montréal (Ontario) [GFNA 112544]
3 Jeanne PILETTE

She descends from:

(by Louis Hébert and Marie Rolet, early pioneers)

954 Simon PAJOT
master tallow-chandler
dead before inventory 1563-11-09 (France)
* married about 1530 Paris (Paris : 75056) [GFNA 45456]
955 Jeanne GUERINEAU
born (France)
dead between will 1572-10-03 and inventory 1572-10-16 Paris
(Paris), buried Paris (Saint-Gervais) (Paris)

(by Jean Valiquette, enrolled in 1653)

814 Mathurin FOUREAU
dead after 1582-07-02 (France)
* married about 1550 Le Lude ? (Sarthe) [GFNA 127727]
815 Thenneline FAUCHART
dead after 1578-10-12 (France)


Her 2 farer ancestors are not from king's daughters. And none is close
to Louis X.

As for the claim "relative of Louis X", this is not from her Quebec
ancestry. And there are 3 king's daughters with royal ancestry. Also,
it is obvious she had many ancestors living in France at the same
time as Louis X, but also any French king until they left for New
France in the 1600s !


Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790
taf
2020-07-24 17:06:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:01:18 -0700 (PDT), taf
There is no lineage that far from her New France ancestry.
. . . . that you know of.

taf
Denis Beauregard
2020-07-24 21:06:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:01:18 -0700 (PDT), taf
There is no lineage that far from her New France ancestry.
. . . . that you know of.
If I don't know in 2020, you can sure Mr Beaucarnot didn't know
in 2016... It is not common to publish a new deep ancestral tree
for New France !


Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790
taf
2020-07-24 21:57:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:06:42 -0700 (PDT), taf
Post by taf
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:01:18 -0700 (PDT), taf
There is no lineage that far from her New France ancestry.
. . . . that you know of.
If I don't know in 2020, you can sure Mr Beaucarnot didn't know
in 2016... It is not common to publish a new deep ancestral tree
for New France !
If Mr. Beaucarnot has found something new, but has yet to formally publish it, then you wouldn't know about it, would you?

In general, I find arguments along the lines of 'if I don't know about it, then it can't possibly exist' very unpersuasive.

taf
Denis Beauregard
2020-07-24 23:18:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:06:42 -0700 (PDT), taf
Post by taf
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:01:18 -0700 (PDT), taf
There is no lineage that far from her New France ancestry.
. . . . that you know of.
If I don't know in 2020, you can sure Mr Beaucarnot didn't know
in 2016... It is not common to publish a new deep ancestral tree
for New France !
If Mr. Beaucarnot has found something new, but has yet to formally publish it, then you wouldn't know about it, would you?
He made a book and said that in his book. If he has found something,
you can be sure someone at least reacted to it or verified it.

But as I said, he is not an expert of New France. So, if he found
something, it would be from the "non Quebec" French ancestry, which
is very limited.


Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790
taf
2020-07-24 23:51:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Denis Beauregard
But as I said, he is not an expert of New France. So, if he found
something, it would be from the "non Quebec" French ancestry, which
is very limited.
And like I said, this is not a logically sound argument, that someone has to be an expert in New France genealogy to find a royal line for a French family. I prefer to actually see what a claim is before I decide it has to be wrong, but to each his own.

If anyone is curious enough, the book is available on Amazon.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-25 00:30:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here is a relevant quote from Google Books preview, which does not inspire much confidence: "une aieule descendante d'un bâtard de Bourbon la fait cousiner avect toutes les anciennes families royales de la vielle Europe. Comme Barack Obama, elle descend de notre roi Jean II le Bon et, comme lui, comme George Bush et comme son adversaire Donald Trump, elle compte parmi ses ancêtres la reine Isabelle d'Anglaterre, dite << la louve de France >>, fille de Philippe le Bel.

Problems:
1. Obama has no documented descent from Edward III of England or Jean II of France.
2. Trump has no documented descent from Edward III, either.
Denis Beauregard
2020-07-24 16:05:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 13:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
This passed unnoticed by the newsgroup, at the time, but, back in 2016, a genealogist said that both Hillary Clinton and François Hollande were descended from Louis X of France, read https://www.thelocal.fr/20161106/hollande-distantly-related-to-hillary-clinton-claims-book/.
I would not trust the author of the said genealogy as a source
for royal ancestry of Hillary. He is not an expert of New France.

But the article, as reported by another poster, said "relative".

If there is no royal lineage for her on the Internet, it means
that in 2016, there were none too !


Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790
taf
2020-07-24 16:34:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Denis Beauregard
I would not trust the author of the said genealogy as a source
for royal ancestry of Hillary. He is not an expert of New France.
It is perfectly possible for a French genealogist to be competent in tracing a French family to royalty without having expertise in a distinct region where a member of the family happened to emigrate.

taf
j***@albion.edu
2020-06-13 23:40:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
“Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty” .....
“I’ve been doing this for almost 2 decades and I have sources which means I have proof for everything in my tree.”

Well, I sure would love to see that. Many of us, especially the professional Gary Boyd Roberts, have done the presidential trees over the years. I want to be clear: there is NO PROOF of several of these supposed royal ancestries. And by “proof,” I mean contemporary documents. Unfortunately, I can find *sources* for anything I want, but *sources* are not *proof* unless they are contemporary and trustworthy. Example: as far as I know, not a single person has been able to find proof of any of President Andrew Jackson’s great-grandparents. That doesn’t stop multiple modern-day “sources” from claiming otherwise, making guesses based on flimsy ideas. As for Trump, his maternal Scottish ancestry is likely to contain some gentry, but there are conflicting claims about the line that have never been resolved. Other Presidents that have not been proven to have royal descent are: John Adams, Monroe, Tyler, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Garfield, Arthur, McKinley, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton. Some of these had First Ladies who have proven royal descent. And Buchanan and Polk *may* have Scottish royal descent, but it hasn’t been proven fully.

Certainly many of the US Presidents do have proven royal ancestry. About half of them. “All but Van Buren”? No.
J+
JBrand
2020-06-14 02:27:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@albion.edu
“Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty” .....
“I’ve been doing this for almost 2 decades and I have sources which means I have proof for everything in my tree.”
Well, I sure would love to see that. Many of us, especially the professional Gary Boyd Roberts, have done the presidential trees over the years. I want to be clear: there is NO PROOF of several of these supposed royal ancestries. And by “proof,” I mean contemporary documents. Unfortunately, I can find *sources* for anything I want, but *sources* are not *proof* unless they are contemporary and trustworthy. Example: as far as I know, not a single person has been able to find proof of any of President Andrew Jackson’s great-grandparents. That doesn’t stop multiple modern-day “sources” from claiming otherwise, making guesses based on flimsy ideas. As for Trump, his maternal Scottish ancestry is likely to contain some gentry, but there are conflicting claims about the line that have never been resolved. Other Presidents that have not been proven to have royal descent are: John Adams, Monroe, Tyler, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Garfield, Arthur, McKinley, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton. Some of these had First Ladies who have proven royal descent. And Buchanan and Polk *may* have Scottish royal descent, but it hasn’t been proven fully.
Certainly many of the US Presidents do have proven royal ancestry. About half of them. “All but Van Buren”? No.
J+
I thought John Adams had both Coytemore/Tynge and Mrs. Margaret Estouteville Sheppard ...
Don Stone
2020-06-14 03:36:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JBrand
Post by j***@albion.edu
“Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty” .....
“I’ve been doing this for almost 2 decades and I have sources which means I have proof for everything in my tree.”
Well, I sure would love to see that. Many of us, especially the professional Gary Boyd Roberts, have done the presidential trees over the years. I want to be clear: there is NO PROOF of several of these supposed royal ancestries. And by “proof,” I mean contemporary documents. Unfortunately, I can find *sources* for anything I want, but *sources* are not *proof* unless they are contemporary and trustworthy. Example: as far as I know, not a single person has been able to find proof of any of President Andrew Jackson’s great-grandparents. That doesn’t stop multiple modern-day “sources” from claiming otherwise, making guesses based on flimsy ideas. As for Trump, his maternal Scottish ancestry is likely to contain some gentry, but there are conflicting claims about the line that have never been resolved. Other Presidents that have not been proven to have royal descent are: John Adams, Monroe, Tyler, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Garfield, Arthur, McKinley, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton. Some of these had First Ladies who have proven royal descent. And Buchanan and Polk *may* have Scottish royal descent, but it hasn’t been proven fully.
Certainly many of the US Presidents do have proven royal ancestry. About half of them. “All but Van Buren”? No.
J+
I thought John Adams had both Coytemore/Tynge and Mrs. Margaret Estouteville Sheppard ...
I believe you are thinking of John Quincy Adams.

-- Don Stone
JBrand
2020-06-14 16:25:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Don Stone
Post by JBrand
Post by j***@albion.edu
“Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty” .....
“I’ve been doing this for almost 2 decades and I have sources which means I have proof for everything in my tree.”
Well, I sure would love to see that. Many of us, especially the professional Gary Boyd Roberts, have done the presidential trees over the years. I want to be clear: there is NO PROOF of several of these supposed royal ancestries. And by “proof,” I mean contemporary documents. Unfortunately, I can find *sources* for anything I want, but *sources* are not *proof* unless they are contemporary and trustworthy. Example: as far as I know, not a single person has been able to find proof of any of President Andrew Jackson’s great-grandparents. That doesn’t stop multiple modern-day “sources” from claiming otherwise, making guesses based on flimsy ideas. As for Trump, his maternal Scottish ancestry is likely to contain some gentry, but there are conflicting claims about the line that have never been resolved. Other Presidents that have not been proven to have royal descent are: John Adams, Monroe, Tyler, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Garfield, Arthur, McKinley, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton. Some of these had First Ladies who have proven royal descent. And Buchanan and Polk *may* have Scottish royal descent, but it hasn’t been proven fully.
Certainly many of the US Presidents do have proven royal ancestry. About half of them. “All but Van Buren”? No.
J+
I thought John Adams had both Coytemore/Tynge and Mrs. Margaret Estouteville Sheppard ...
I believe you are thinking of John Quincy Adams.
-- Don Stone
Okay, so those lines are through Abigail Smith, wife of President John Adams.
Amber de la Motte
2020-09-05 17:27:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The claimed royal descent(s) for John Adams Sr. are all, so far as I know, based on a bogus Welsh line for the family concocted with forged documents in the 19th Century. It was so well done that it even fooled NEHGS!
Post by JBrand
Post by j***@albion.edu
“Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty” .....
“I’ve been doing this for almost 2 decades and I have sources which means I have proof for everything in my tree.”
Well, I sure would love to see that. Many of us, especially the professional Gary Boyd Roberts, have done the presidential trees over the years. I want to be clear: there is NO PROOF of several of these supposed royal ancestries. And by “proof,” I mean contemporary documents. Unfortunately, I can find *sources* for anything I want, but *sources* are not *proof* unless they are contemporary and trustworthy. Example: as far as I know, not a single person has been able to find proof of any of President Andrew Jackson’s great-grandparents. That doesn’t stop multiple modern-day “sources” from claiming otherwise, making guesses based on flimsy ideas. As for Trump, his maternal Scottish ancestry is likely to contain some gentry, but there are conflicting claims about the line that have never been resolved. Other Presidents that have not been proven to have royal descent are: John Adams, Monroe, Tyler, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Garfield, Arthur, McKinley, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton. Some of these had First Ladies who have proven royal descent. And Buchanan and Polk *may* have Scottish royal descent, but it hasn’t been proven fully.
Certainly many of the US Presidents do have proven royal ancestry. About half of them. “All but Van Buren”? No.
J+
I thought John Adams had both Coytemore/Tynge and Mrs. Margaret Estouteville Sheppard ...
Josiah de la Motte
2020-09-05 17:31:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Whoops, I was signed in to my mother’s email.

Josiah de la a Motte
The claimed royal descent(s) for John Adams Sr. are all, so far as I know, based on a bogus Welsh line for the family concocted with forged documents in the 19th Century. It was so well done that it even fooled NEHGS!
Post by JBrand
Post by j***@albion.edu
“Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty” .....
“I’ve been doing this for almost 2 decades and I have sources which means I have proof for everything in my tree.”
Well, I sure would love to see that. Many of us, especially the professional Gary Boyd Roberts, have done the presidential trees over the years. I want to be clear: there is NO PROOF of several of these supposed royal ancestries. And by “proof,” I mean contemporary documents. Unfortunately, I can find *sources* for anything I want, but *sources* are not *proof* unless they are contemporary and trustworthy. Example: as far as I know, not a single person has been able to find proof of any of President Andrew Jackson’s great-grandparents. That doesn’t stop multiple modern-day “sources” from claiming otherwise, making guesses based on flimsy ideas. As for Trump, his maternal Scottish ancestry is likely to contain some gentry, but there are conflicting claims about the line that have never been resolved. Other Presidents that have not been proven to have royal descent are: John Adams, Monroe, Tyler, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Garfield, Arthur, McKinley, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton. Some of these had First Ladies who have proven royal descent. And Buchanan and Polk *may* have Scottish royal descent, but it hasn’t been proven fully.
Certainly many of the US Presidents do have proven royal ancestry. About half of them. “All but Van Buren”? No.
J+
I thought John Adams had both Coytemore/Tynge and Mrs. Margaret Estouteville Sheppard ...
Josiah de la Motte
2020-09-05 17:35:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The claimed royal descent(s) for John Adams Sr. are all, so far as I know, based on a bogus Welsh line for the family concocted with forged documents in the 19th Century. It was so well done that it even fooled NEHGS!

Josiah de la Motte
Post by JBrand
Post by j***@albion.edu
“Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty” .....
“I’ve been doing this for almost 2 decades and I have sources which means I have proof for everything in my tree.”
Well, I sure would love to see that. Many of us, especially the professional Gary Boyd Roberts, have done the presidential trees over the years. I want to be clear: there is NO PROOF of several of these supposed royal ancestries. And by “proof,” I mean contemporary documents. Unfortunately, I can find *sources* for anything I want, but *sources* are not *proof* unless they are contemporary and trustworthy. Example: as far as I know, not a single person has been able to find proof of any of President Andrew Jackson’s great-grandparents. That doesn’t stop multiple modern-day “sources” from claiming otherwise, making guesses based on flimsy ideas. As for Trump, his maternal Scottish ancestry is likely to contain some gentry, but there are conflicting claims about the line that have never been resolved. Other Presidents that have not been proven to have royal descent are: John Adams, Monroe, Tyler, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Garfield, Arthur, McKinley, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton. Some of these had First Ladies who have proven royal descent. And Buchanan and Polk *may* have Scottish royal descent, but it hasn’t been proven fully.
Certainly many of the US Presidents do have proven royal ancestry. About half of them. “All but Van Buren”? No.
J+
I thought John Adams had both Coytemore/Tynge and Mrs. Margaret Estouteville Sheppard ...
pj.ev...@gmail.com
2020-09-05 20:32:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The claimed royal descent(s) for John Adams Sr. are all, so far as I know, based on a bogus Welsh line for the family concocted with forged documents in the 19th Century. It was so well done that it even fooled NEHGS!
Josiah de la Motte
Post by JBrand
Post by j***@albion.edu
“Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty” .....
“I’ve been doing this for almost 2 decades and I have sources which means I have proof for everything in my tree.”
Well, I sure would love to see that. Many of us, especially the professional Gary Boyd Roberts, have done the presidential trees over the years. I want to be clear: there is NO PROOF of several of these supposed royal ancestries. And by “proof,” I mean contemporary documents. Unfortunately, I can find *sources* for anything I want, but *sources* are not *proof* unless they are contemporary and trustworthy. Example: as far as I know, not a single person has been able to find proof of any of President Andrew Jackson’s great-grandparents. That doesn’t stop multiple modern-day “sources” from claiming otherwise, making guesses based on flimsy ideas. As for Trump, his maternal Scottish ancestry is likely to contain some gentry, but there are conflicting claims about the line that have never been resolved. Other Presidents that have not been proven to have royal descent are: John Adams, Monroe, Tyler, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Garfield, Arthur, McKinley, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton. Some of these had First Ladies who have proven royal descent. And Buchanan and Polk *may* have Scottish royal descent, but it hasn’t been proven fully.
Certainly many of the US Presidents do have proven royal ancestry. About half of them. “All but Van Buren”? No.
J+
I thought John Adams had both Coytemore/Tynge and Mrs. Margaret Estouteville Sheppard ...
The 2009 edition of Ancestors of American Presidents doesn't have royal ancestry for John Adams. But John Quincy Adams has two lines through his mother. (Andrew Jackson has a very short known ancestry. No royal ancestry is indicated, because it's only four generations.)
d***@gmail.com
2020-08-16 05:46:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Yes. I agree, then that 12 year old girl proved it.
Is Biden in there? Trump?
j***@albion.edu
2020-08-16 09:56:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Wrong. The 12 year old girl did not “prove” it. She gathered a bunch of information from trees on the internet. She did almost no original research whatsoever. Now, I am not one to cast aspersions on a 12-year-old for being enthused about genealogy — I can see some of my 12-year-old self in her. But to take her Ingenuous word as proof just because of some credulous media coverage is ridiculous. Her enthusiasm is to be commended, not her research skills.
Again, ABOUT HALF OF U.S. PRESIDENTS HAVE PROVEN ROYAL ANCESTRY. That’s it.
Jim+
David Teague
2020-08-22 08:22:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Wrong. The 12 year old girl did not “prove” it. She gathered a bunch of information from trees on the internet. She did almost no original research whatsoever. Now, I am not one to cast aspersions on a 12-year-old for being enthused about genealogy — I can see some of my 12-year-old self in her. But to take her Ingenuous word as proof just because of some credulous media coverage is ridiculous. Her enthusiasm is to be commended, not her research skills.
Again, ABOUT HALF OF U.S. PRESIDENTS HAVE PROVEN ROYAL ANCESTRY. That’s it.
Jim+
Just in case people have forgotten, the late William Addams Reitwiesner had this to say on the ancestry of then-Senator Biden: http://www.wargs.com/political/biden.html.

David Teague
Dwayne Wayne Miles
2020-09-03 12:22:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Teague
Wrong. The 12 year old girl did not “prove” it. She gathered a bunch of information from trees on the internet. She did almost no original research whatsoever. Now, I am not one to cast aspersions on a 12-year-old for being enthused about genealogy — I can see some of my 12-year-old self in her. But to take her Ingenuous word as proof just because of some credulous media coverage is ridiculous. Her enthusiasm is to be commended, not her research skills.
Again, ABOUT HALF OF U.S. PRESIDENTS HAVE PROVEN ROYAL ANCESTRY. That’s it.
Jim+
Just in case people have forgotten, the late William Addams Reitwiesner had this to say on the ancestry of then-Senator Biden: http://www.wargs.com/political/biden.html.
David Teague
Jesus, people. Of course the presidents have royal lineage.
Burke's Peerage Book of Genealogy lays it all out and it's the most accurate book that traces and tracks Royal Lineage in the world. It’s located in the UK but you can also access the data online. I’ve never seen a more accurate account. https://www.burkespeerage.com/families.php
Unfortunately JOE does not have Royal Lineage. Or none we can trace at the moment.
Trump does. I have no idea where you guys got King James from… President Donald J. Trump is the direct descendant of Hakon V King of Norway according to Icelandic genealogist Oddur F. Helgason. Mr. Trump is also related to Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, Icelandic President Guðni Th. Johannesson of Iceland, and in fact almost all Icelanders.
So please stop spreading BS on forums if you dont know what you're talking about people.
45 Presidents so far have presided over America.
33 are genetically related to King Alfred the Great, and Carloman the great monarch of France.
19 are genetically related to England's King Edward III which has thousands of blood connections to Prince Charles.
14 of presidents are directly connected to the descendants of King Edward I.
Only a few Presidents who served were not genetically connected to Royalty but their wives were.
Every president who sat in the white house since the first elections in America in 1789, (only during elections) has been the candidate with the most European royal genes or... the most genes connected to an Aristocratic family of Europe.
Pres. Bill Clinton for example is genetically related to the house of Windsor, genetically related to every Scottish Monarch, and to King Henry III and to Robert I of France. But his wife is not. Ever wonder how she got 3 million more votes than Trump, but still lost.
Joe Biden is genetically related to John Adams the 1st US Vice President of the United States under Washington, then the 2nd President of the US. It is not clear if Adams has a Royal genetic connection but his wife did (Abigail Smith-Adams) who is a direct descendant of King Edward I through his daughter Elizabeth.
Presidents (because of the Electoral College) have been installed not voted in. Please don't kid yourself or believe otherwise. I've accepted it. Everyone else should. Unless you get rid of the Electoral College system you will never break this cycle.

The Aristocratic families of the East coast of America are obsessed with interbreeding. Read the writings of Lord Edward Bulwer-Lytton author of the “The Coming Race” who talks about the very thing the Nazi’s also believed in, about the real power in the blood that created “supermen” etc. This obsession with holding the genetic structure has to do with what powers it gives them.
George Bush Sr. was a distant cousin of Barbara Bush, his wife.
Denis Beauregard
2020-09-03 12:43:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 05:22:24 -0700 (PDT), Dwayne Wayne Miles
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
33 are genetically related to King Alfred the Great, and Carloman the great monarch of France.
genealogically, not genetically !!!
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
19 are genetically related to England's King Edward III which has thousands of blood connections to Prince Charles.
14 of presidents are directly connected to the descendants of King Edward I.
Only a few Presidents who served were not genetically connected to Royalty but their wives were.
Every president who sat in the white house since the first elections in America in 1789, (only during elections) has been the candidate with the most European royal genes or... the most genes connected to an Aristocratic family of Europe.
I think this was disproven.
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
Pres. Bill Clinton for example is genetically related to the house of Windsor, genetically related to every Scottish Monarch, and to King Henry III and to Robert I of France. But his wife is not. Ever wonder how she got 3 million more votes than Trump, but still lost.
ever heard of the electoral college in USA ?


Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790
taf
2020-09-03 14:19:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Denis Beauregard
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 05:22:24 -0700 (PDT), Dwayne Wayne Miles
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
Every president who sat in the white house since the first elections in America in 1789, (only
during elections) has been the candidate with the most European royal genes or... the most
genes connected to an Aristocratic family of Europe.
I think this was disproven.
Not only disproven, completely without foundation. It didn't last beyond the first two contested elections (Washington was effectively the unopposed consensus candidate for president in the first two).

1796 - Adams beats Jefferson
1800 - Jefferson beats Adams

So, unless the Adams and Jefferson somehow acquired different ancestry in the intervening four years, one or the other of these elections did not follow pattern. This repeated itself in 1824/1828 (involving J Q Adams and Jackson, and anyone who really thinks Jackson was elected because he had the most royal connections in his ancestry has no clue whatsoever what he is talking about - central to his mythos was being a backwoods everyman made good and his victory in the electoral college in 1828 was the culmination of a wave of anti-establishment populism), in 1836/1840 (Van Buren/Harrison), and in 1888/1892 (Harrison/Cleveland).

This was all something Harold Brooks-Baker, the financier and genealogical hobbyist who purchased the Burke's Peerage franchise, simply made up because he was a shameless self-promoter and knew the media couldn't resist reporting on him if he made this outrageous claim. And it didn't matter if he picked the wrong candidate - like Groundhogs Day, four years later he would come out of his hole to make another prognostication, and if any press even remembered he got it wrong the time before he would claim to have 'discovered' a new connection that made the winner the true most-royal candidate. He never, ever, gave any actual evidence,.

More relevant to this group, he did the same with a 'Queen Elizabeth has Muslim ancestors' story that he would parade out to the British tabloids every few years, which basically ran, "the son and heir of Alfonso VI of Castile was born to his Muslim mistress. Therefore Queen Elizabeth has Muslim ancestry," completely ignoring the fact that infante Sancho died in his teens without issue. The press lapped it up and never figured out he was just a charlatan because the story was interesting enough to report, but not interesting enough to fact-check first (and these were the British tabloids, about whom journalistic integrity is not the first thing that springs to mind). His obituary gave a mixed review, saying that on the plus side he was always available to the press with a pithy quote or interesting story, the down side being that it was usually untrue.

taf
pj.ev...@gmail.com
2020-09-03 15:41:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
Post by David Teague
Wrong. The 12 year old girl did not “prove” it. She gathered a bunch of information from trees on the internet. She did almost no original research whatsoever. Now, I am not one to cast aspersions on a 12-year-old for being enthused about genealogy — I can see some of my 12-year-old self in her. But to take her Ingenuous word as proof just because of some credulous media coverage is ridiculous. Her enthusiasm is to be commended, not her research skills.
Again, ABOUT HALF OF U.S. PRESIDENTS HAVE PROVEN ROYAL ANCESTRY. That’s it.
Jim+
Just in case people have forgotten, the late William Addams Reitwiesner had this to say on the ancestry of then-Senator Biden: http://www.wargs.com/political/biden.html.
David Teague
Jesus, people. Of course the presidents have royal lineage.
Burke's Peerage Book of Genealogy lays it all out and it's the most accurate book that traces and tracks Royal Lineage in the world. It’s located in the UK but you can also access the data online. I’ve never seen a more accurate account. https://www.burkespeerage.com/families.php
Unfortunately JOE does not have Royal Lineage. Or none we can trace at the moment.
Trump does. I have no idea where you guys got King James from… President Donald J. Trump is the direct descendant of Hakon V King of Norway according to Icelandic genealogist Oddur F. Helgason. Mr. Trump is also related to Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, Icelandic President Guðni Th. Johannesson of Iceland, and in fact almost all Icelanders.
So please stop spreading BS on forums if you dont know what you're talking about people.
45 Presidents so far have presided over America.
33 are genetically related to King Alfred the Great, and Carloman the great monarch of France.
19 are genetically related to England's King Edward III which has thousands of blood connections to Prince Charles.
14 of presidents are directly connected to the descendants of King Edward I.
Only a few Presidents who served were not genetically connected to Royalty but their wives were.
Every president who sat in the white house since the first elections in America in 1789, (only during elections) has been the candidate with the most European royal genes or... the most genes connected to an Aristocratic family of Europe.
Pres. Bill Clinton for example is genetically related to the house of Windsor, genetically related to every Scottish Monarch, and to King Henry III and to Robert I of France. But his wife is not. Ever wonder how she got 3 million more votes than Trump, but still lost.
Joe Biden is genetically related to John Adams the 1st US Vice President of the United States under Washington, then the 2nd President of the US. It is not clear if Adams has a Royal genetic connection but his wife did (Abigail Smith-Adams) who is a direct descendant of King Edward I through his daughter Elizabeth.
Presidents (because of the Electoral College) have been installed not voted in. Please don't kid yourself or believe otherwise. I've accepted it. Everyone else should. Unless you get rid of the Electoral College system you will never break this cycle.
The Aristocratic families of the East coast of America are obsessed with interbreeding. Read the writings of Lord Edward Bulwer-Lytton author of the “The Coming Race” who talks about the very thing the Nazi’s also believed in, about the real power in the blood that created “supermen” etc. This obsession with holding the genetic structure has to do with what powers it gives them.
George Bush Sr. was a distant cousin of Barbara Bush, his wife.
Have you heard of "Ancestors of American Presidents"? It lays out those connections...and a lot of presidents have no known royal ancestry.
taf
2020-09-03 17:06:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
Jesus, people. Of course the presidents have royal lineage.
Loki, people, there is no 'of course' about this.
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
Burke's Peerage Book of Genealogy lays it all out and it's the most accurate book
that traces and tracks Royal Lineage in the world. It’s located in the UK but you can
also access the data online. I’ve never seen a more accurate account.
https://www.burkespeerage.com/families.php
Back in the 1990s, Burke's was bought out by a self-promoting charlatan genealogical hack. It is not authoritative.
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
So please stop spreading BS on forums if you dont know what you're talking about people.
That is good advise. You might want to consider taking it.
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
Every president who sat in the white house since the first elections in America in 1789,
(only during elections) has been the candidate with the most European royal genes or...
the most genes connected to an Aristocratic family of Europe.
This is just plain false, as addressed elsewhere. Thomas Jefferson gained no royal ancestors between when he lost to John Adams in 1796 and when he beat him in 1800 - not only was this not a general pattern, it didn't even survive the first two contested elections. John Quincy Adams did not become less royal between 1824 and 1828, etc. This lie was publicized by Burke's Peerage - that tells you everything you need to know about their reliability.
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
Pres. Bill Clinton for example is genetically related to the house of Windsor, genetically
related to every Scottish Monarch, and to King Henry III and to Robert I of France. But
his wife is not. Ever wonder how she got 3 million more votes than Trump, but still lost.
By losing Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by a minuscule number of votes, in spite of winning California, New York, Massachusetts and Maryland by overwhelming majorities. Scottish monarchs have nothing to do with it.
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
Presidents (because of the Electoral College) have been installed not voted in.
Not exactly. They have indeed been voted in, only they were voted in by either the electors of the Electoral College or (1800, 1824) by the House of Representatives, the members of which are in turn voted in.
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
Unless you get rid of the Electoral College system you will never break this cycle.
The Aristocratic families of the East coast of America are obsessed with interbreeding.
Curiously, it was the House of Representatives that sided with the eastern elite's favored candidate in 1824, even though the Electoral College had given a plurality but not a majority in favor of the backwoods hick. All of this conspiracy theorizing aside, there have only been a small number of US elections that could be deemed as manipulated in a manner not envisioned by the Constitution, in which I would count 1800, 1824, 1876 and 2000. In the original Constitution, each electors had two votes and the person who got the most overall would be President, he who received the second-most Vice President, but it had naively not anticipated the emergence of political parties, and in 1800 every pro-Jefferson elector would also vote for this VP-candidate-designate, so the two ended up with the same number of electoral votes, the VP-designate decided there was no reason he should not be President and did not yield, and much backroom chaos (and eventually the most famous duel in American history other than the Shootout at the OK Corral) ensued. In 1876, there was dispute over the status of one elector from one state (a partisan Governor declared one winning elector to have been ineligible and appointed an elector of the opposite party, which would have swung the majority in the opposite direction. This required an Electoral Commission to sort out and they reached a despicable compromise - they ratified the unsubstituted electoral panel, in exchange for the winner removing all of the post-Civil War strictures that ensured the vote to freed slaves, and as a consequence, African-Americans were disenfranchised, initially throughout the south but later in much of the nation for the next 9 decades. Finally (or perhaps not) in 2000 the candidate who rightly won a majority of states' electors did not become president, because the Supreme Court terminated a recount at an incomplete stage, such that the winner was not the person eventually found to have won the most votes in that state. I am not seeing a pattern here of manipulation by 'the eastern elite' to seat a given president, and in particular in 1876, elections for the next 4-score and more years were distorted at the cost of _not_ having their man as president in this one election.

taf
lancast...@gmail.com
2020-09-04 12:23:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
Jesus, people. Of course the presidents have royal lineage.
Loki, people, there is no 'of course' about this.
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
Burke's Peerage Book of Genealogy lays it all out and it's the most accurate book
that traces and tracks Royal Lineage in the world. It’s located in the UK but you can
also access the data online. I’ve never seen a more accurate account.
https://www.burkespeerage.com/families.php
Back in the 1990s, Burke's was bought out by a self-promoting charlatan genealogical hack. It is not authoritative.
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
So please stop spreading BS on forums if you dont know what you're talking about people.
That is good advise. You might want to consider taking it.
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
Every president who sat in the white house since the first elections in America in 1789,
(only during elections) has been the candidate with the most European royal genes or...
the most genes connected to an Aristocratic family of Europe.
This is just plain false, as addressed elsewhere. Thomas Jefferson gained no royal ancestors between when he lost to John Adams in 1796 and when he beat him in 1800 - not only was this not a general pattern, it didn't even survive the first two contested elections. John Quincy Adams did not become less royal between 1824 and 1828, etc. This lie was publicized by Burke's Peerage - that tells you everything you need to know about their reliability.
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
Pres. Bill Clinton for example is genetically related to the house of Windsor, genetically
related to every Scottish Monarch, and to King Henry III and to Robert I of France. But
his wife is not. Ever wonder how she got 3 million more votes than Trump, but still lost.
By losing Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by a minuscule number of votes, in spite of winning California, New York, Massachusetts and Maryland by overwhelming majorities. Scottish monarchs have nothing to do with it.
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
Presidents (because of the Electoral College) have been installed not voted in.
Not exactly. They have indeed been voted in, only they were voted in by either the electors of the Electoral College or (1800, 1824) by the House of Representatives, the members of which are in turn voted in.
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
Unless you get rid of the Electoral College system you will never break this cycle.
The Aristocratic families of the East coast of America are obsessed with interbreeding.
Curiously, it was the House of Representatives that sided with the eastern elite's favored candidate in 1824, even though the Electoral College had given a plurality but not a majority in favor of the backwoods hick. All of this conspiracy theorizing aside, there have only been a small number of US elections that could be deemed as manipulated in a manner not envisioned by the Constitution, in which I would count 1800, 1824, 1876 and 2000. In the original Constitution, each electors had two votes and the person who got the most overall would be President, he who received the second-most Vice President, but it had naively not anticipated the emergence of political parties, and in 1800 every pro-Jefferson elector would also vote for this VP-candidate-designate, so the two ended up with the same number of electoral votes, the VP-designate decided there was no reason he should not be President and did not yield, and much backroom chaos (and eventually the most famous duel in American history other than the Shootout at the OK Corral) ensued. In 1876, there was dispute over the status of one elector from one state (a partisan Governor declared one winning elector to have been ineligible and appointed an elector of the opposite party, which would have swung the majority in the opposite direction. This required an Electoral Commission to sort out and they reached a despicable compromise - they ratified the unsubstituted electoral panel, in exchange for the winner removing all of the post-Civil War strictures that ensured the vote to freed slaves, and as a consequence, African-Americans were disenfranchised, initially throughout the south but later in much of the nation for the next 9 decades. Finally (or perhaps not) in 2000 the candidate who rightly won a majority of states' electors did not become president, because the Supreme Court terminated a recount at an incomplete stage, such that the winner was not the person eventually found to have won the most votes in that state. I am not seeing a pattern here of manipulation by 'the eastern elite' to seat a given president, and in particular in 1876, elections for the next 4-score and more years were distorted at the cost of _not_ having their man as president in this one election.
taf
I am pretty sure Lizard people are involved in this somewhere.
taf
2020-09-04 13:41:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
I am pretty sure Lizard people are involved in this somewhere.
They always are.

taf
wjhonson
2020-09-04 16:53:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It may be possible to trace David Icke back to a shape-shifting lizard.
Not necessarily through the Icke surname, but his mother was born a Cooke
9 His paternal-paternal great-grandmother was a Vaughan
and 11 was a Neill possibly O'Neill

I'm sure he is a lizard himself. A traitor to his people.
lancast...@gmail.com
2020-09-04 19:11:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
It may be possible to trace David Icke back to a shape-shifting lizard.
Not necessarily through the Icke surname, but his mother was born a Cooke
9 His paternal-paternal great-grandmother was a Vaughan
and 11 was a Neill possibly O'Neill
I'm sure he is a lizard himself. A traitor to his people.
Funny ... but scary.
Peter Stewart
2020-09-04 22:39:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by ***@gmail.com
I am pretty sure Lizard people are involved in this somewhere.
They always are.
If the current denizens of the White House and senate majority need to
bask in the sun to warm their lizard blood, why can't some human beings
grab them all one morning and place them in captivity where they can do
no harm?

I'm afraid they are reptilian in brain-power but not genetically lizards
after all. We will know for sure one day if they manage to slither out
through the prison bars they all so thoroughly deserve.

Peter Stewart
taf
2020-09-04 19:02:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Curiously, it was the House of Representatives that sided with the eastern elite's
favored candidate in 1824, even though the Electoral College had given a plurality
but not a majority in favor of the backwoods hick. All of this conspiracy theorizing
aside, there have only been a small number of US elections that could be deemed
as manipulated in a manner not envisioned by the Constitution, in which I would
count 1800, 1824, 1876 and 2000.
Lest anyone come across this in the archive, I should probably clarify. The basic outcome of 1824 the founders did envision, the House voting to elect a president if the Electoral College failed to return a majority. After all, they put it into the Constitution, and the idea that the preferred candidate of the rabble would necessarily be the best president, and hence the one they must vote for, is antithetical to the whole reason the Electoral College was created as a group of the most-knowledgeable and conscientious better suited to make the right choice. What they would not have envisioned in their idealistic conception of government was that someone would rather than voting for the best person would (allegedly) offer to have their bloc vote for a candidate only if he would be named Secretary of State. In this case, the elite did pick their candidate over the will of the people, but it had nothing to do with genealogy and everything to do with venal ambition and it could just as well have gone either way, depending on who was willing to make the deal.

taf
James Baker
2020-09-04 02:46:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Pretty amusing, Dwayne. Telling professional genealogists (myself not included) to stop spreading BS, and then turning around to regale us with your enlightened pop-genealogy conspiracy theory about the “most royal candidate.” Yawn.
Two more quick things:
There have been 44 different presidents, not 45. Ignorance does not become an impassioned rebuttal.
“I’ve never seen a more accurate account.” — I have no doubt this is a true statement.
J+
Olivier
2020-09-05 14:31:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
Post by David Teague
Wrong. The 12 year old girl did not “prove” it. She gathered a bunch of information from trees on the internet. She did almost no original research whatsoever. Now, I am not one to cast aspersions on a 12-year-old for being enthused about genealogy — I can see some of my 12-year-old self in her. But to take her Ingenuous word as proof just because of some credulous media coverage is ridiculous. Her enthusiasm is to be commended, not her research skills.
Again, ABOUT HALF OF U.S. PRESIDENTS HAVE PROVEN ROYAL ANCESTRY. That’s it.
Jim+
Just in case people have forgotten, the late William Addams Reitwiesner had this to say on the ancestry of then-Senator Biden: http://www.wargs.com/political/biden.html.
David Teague
Jesus, people. Of course the presidents have royal lineage.
...
President Donald J. Trump is the direct descendant of Hakon V King of Norway according to Icelandic genealogist Oddur F. Helgason. Mr. Trump is also related to Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, Icelandic President Guðni Th. Johannesson of Iceland, and in fact almost all Icelanders.
...
https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/culture_and_living/2017/01/24/donald_trump_is_related_to_most_icelanders_and_dani/
taf
2020-09-05 15:00:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
President Donald J. Trump is the direct descendant of Hakon V King
of Norway according to Icelandic genealogist Oddur F. Helgason. Mr.
Trump is also related to Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, Icelandic
President Guðni Th. Johannesson of Iceland, and in fact almost all
Icelanders.
...
https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/culture_and_living/2017/01/24/donald_trump_is_related_to_most_icelanders_and_dani/
I would be careful in taking at face value the descent given here for Trump. It may well be perfectly accurate, but it also may be the result of one or more guesses. Without more details and documentation, it is impossible to tell. (You don't get reported in the newspaper if all you find are brick walls, so their is a motivation not to be stringent.)

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-09-05 15:35:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
President Donald J. Trump is the direct descendant of Hakon V King
of Norway according to Icelandic genealogist Oddur F. Helgason. Mr.
Trump is also related to Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, Icelandic
President Guðni Th. Johannesson of Iceland, and in fact almost all
Icelanders.
...
https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/culture_and_living/2017/01/24/donald_trump_is_related_to_most_icelanders_and_dani/
I would be careful in taking at face value the descent given here for Trump. It may well be perfectly accurate, but it also may be the result of one or more guesses. Without more details and documentation, it is impossible to tell. (You don't get reported in the newspaper if all you find are brick walls, so their is a motivation not to be stringent.)
taf
It's wrong. Read the discussion in https://www.geni.com/discussions/162521. It's the result of a couple of conflations. As was noted earlier in the thread, Trump is likely to have some Scottish gentry ancestry but the Isle of Lewis's records appear to be too thin to document one.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-09-05 15:48:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Dwayne Wayne Miles
President Donald J. Trump is the direct descendant of Hakon V King
of Norway according to Icelandic genealogist Oddur F. Helgason. Mr.
Trump is also related to Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, Icelandic
President Guðni Th. Johannesson of Iceland, and in fact almost all
Icelanders.
...
https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/culture_and_living/2017/01/24/donald_trump_is_related_to_most_icelanders_and_dani/
I would be careful in taking at face value the descent given here for Trump. It may well be perfectly accurate, but it also may be the result of one or more guesses. Without more details and documentation, it is impossible to tell. (You don't get reported in the newspaper if all you find are brick walls, so their is a motivation not to be stringent.)
taf
It's wrong. Read the discussion in https://www.geni.com/discussions/162521 See also https://www.geni.com/people/Catherine-Christian-MacLeod/6000000010884245749, https://www.geni.com/people/Christian-MacLeod/6000000098652608877, https://www.geni.com/people/Donald-MacLeod/6000000055952799898 and https://www.geni.com/people/Donald-MacLeod/6000000055952799898,
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/MacLeod-1167 and https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/MacLeod-1169.
It's the result of a couple of conflations. Trump's ancestress Catherine McLeod appears to have been conflated with a Christian MacLeod, daughter of a Donald MacLeod, who was then conflated with another Donald MacLeod. As was noted earlier in the thread, Trump is likely to have some Scottish gentry ancestry but the Isle of Lewis's records appear to be too thin to document a specific descent.
taf
2020-09-05 16:49:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
It's wrong.
. . .
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
It's the result of a couple of conflations.
Yeah, that is what I was afraid of.
taf
wjhonson
2020-09-05 18:47:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I will attack this descent at another point.

Donald MacKay Lord Reay, had a daughter Anna by his third marriage.

Did she however married Rev Hugh Munro ?
Or was this an entirely different Anna
Loading...