The real 13 illuminati bloodlines

why dont some of you pussies do some research on these bloodlines and post your info?

i see 3

Windsor
Piso
Bush

It´s interesting to note that Laurance Rockefeller funded both Dr. John Mack and Dr. Stephen Greer in their alien abduction and UFO research. What does that suggest to you?

Question for the handsome demon:

Mr. Demon Sir,
Do you know of any illuminati bloodlines that originated in Czec republic and have since moved into the mid-west of USA??

GLD, whom do you represent?

who is that BRUCE family?

Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble, but the current Queen of the United Kingdom is not the true Monarch according to bloodline. This was proved last year by a British TV documentary, which discovered that the TRUE hereditary monarch is someone called Michael Hastings, an Englishman who emigrated to Australia, where he is now a businessman. Here are the details from the documentary:

Britain´s Real Monarch

This is the title of a TV documentary by Tony Robinson shown on Britain´s Channel 4 on January 3, 2004, and again on November 20, 2004. This documentary presented persuasive evidence that the present Queen of England does not have a valid claim to the throne that she has occupied since 1952.

A legitimate claimant to the English throne must be descended from Henry II (reigned 1154-1189) in an unbroken line of descent in which all members were born legitimately, that is, their parents were married at the time of their birth. If a line of descent passes through someone who was born out of wedlock then no descendant of that person has a legitimate claim to the throne of England.

Now let us examine the validity of the claim of the present Queen of England to the throne. This is most easily done by inspection of the family tree of Henry II given at [link to www.channel4.com] Here we see that Queen Elizabeth II traces her descent back through Victoria (reigned 1837-1901), James I (reigned 1603-1624) and Henry VIII (reigned 1509-1547) to Henry´s father Henry VII (reigned 1485-1509).

Henry VII was descended from John of Gaunt (lived 1340-1399) who was descended from Henry II. Unfortunately for the legitimacy of Henry VII´s claim to the throne, his descent from John of Gaunt was by way of the latter´s mistress (later wife) Katherine through her son John Beaufort. Since John Beaufort was born out of wedlock, this descent could not be used to legitimate Henry VII´s claim to the throne (though John and the other three children of John of Gaunt and Katherine, all born out of wedlock, were legitimized retrospectively by an act of parliament in 1397).

In order to support the claims of Henry VII´s future offspring and descendants (and for the purpose of ending the civil war between the Houses of York and Lancaster), in 1486 Henry married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, who claimed to be descended from Edward III (the father of John of Gaunt) and thus from Henry II. It is from the union of Henry VII and Elizabeth that all modern kings and queens of England are descended. But if Edward IV was illegitimate then none of his descendants (and thus none of Henry VII´s descendants) had or have a valid claim to the throne of England.

Edward IV´s mother, Cecily Neville (herself descended, via Katherine, from Edward III) was married to Richard, Duke of York. On the Channel 4 website we read:

According to Dominic Mancini, an Italian visitor to London in 1464, Cecily ´fell into a frenzy´ at news of the marriage of her eldest surviving son Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville and, in her rage, made the astounding accusation that he was a bastard, adding that she would be prepared to testify before a public enquiry that this was indeed the case.

At the time of Edward´s birth it was rumored that his natural father was an English archer. In fact Edward was tall and (unlike his younger brother Richard III) did not resemble his father in physical appearance.

Although later known for her piety as well as her pride, it is rumoured that, in the summer of 1441, she [Cecily] had an affair with an English archer named Blaybourne based in the Rouen garrison in Normandy while her husband was elsewhere in France fighting. The future Edward IV is said to have been the result of this liaison.

According to documents discovered by Dr Michael Jones in Rouen Cathedral there was a 5-week period when Richard was 100 miles away from his wife, leading a military campaign against the French, during which Henry was conceived, so Richard could not have been Henry´s father, and so Henry´s parents were not married at the time of his birth. Moreover, only one of Henry´s parents (Cecily) was descended from Edward III and Henry II, and that line of descent was illegitimate (it was again via the union of John of Gaunt with Katharine). Thus Henry IV had no legitimate claim to the English throne, and so none of his descendants, including the present Queen of England, have had either.

Tony Robinson asked the question: If the succession of kings and queens from Edward IV to Elizabeth II is illegitimate, is there an alternative, legitimate line of descent? And if so, has it persisted to the present day?

The answer to both questions is Yes. Again consulting [link to www.channel4.com] we see that after the birth of Edward there were two sons born to Cecily and Richard. The youngest, Richard, became King Richard III in 1483 but died childless in the Battle of Bosworth (1485). The second son was George, Duke of Clarence, who was executed in 1478. His daughter Margaret (lived 1473-1541) had five children and among her present-day descendants is Michael Hastings (born 1942), who emigrated to Australia in 1960, married, fathered five children, and currently lives in Jerilderie, New South Wales. Since the line of descent from Henry II to Michael Hastings is legitimate, and the line of descent from Henry II to Elizabeth II is not legitimate, it follows that Michael Hastings is Britain´s legitimate king, and the present occupant of Buckingham Palace has no valid claim to be Queen of England.
[link to www.serendipity.li]
---------------------------------------------
So you see, the belief of David Icke and others that the House of Windsor is an Illuminati royal bloodline is, historically speaking, utterly false. It assumes that the British Royal family is a legitimate, geneticially continuous descent from the earliest kings and queens. It is not. There are many people living today with just as many genes (if not more) inherited from the original King Henry II as Queen Elizabeth II, who has no right, based upon legitimate marriage, to call herself queen. Her only right comes as an accident of history. She has no more ´royal blood´ in her than thousands of private citizens living today, all of whom can trace back their families in just as direct a route (if not more so) to the original royal bloodline.

The family tree of Queen Elizabeth, showing how the House of Windsor (and therefore the Queen) comes from BASTARD ANCESTORS without any legal right to the British throne, can be seen at:
[link to www.channel4.com]

Look for the crucial (crucial, that is, for the Windsor family!) union of Henry VII, descendant of John, the bastard son of John of Gaunt and his mistress, and Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV, bastard son of Cecily Neville and the archer Blaybourne.

The notion of an ancient bloodline that originated in ancient Sumeria may be true or untrue. The fact of the matter is, however, that the present Queen is neither a rightful nor the most representative of this bloodline, genetically speaking. This of course turns Icke´s claim that the Queen is a shape-shifting reptilean into the sheer, silly nonsense that it always was. Sorry to disappoint you, David!

6342 has some of the surface facts together,
but his story lacks the deeper dimensions.

We are more than just physical...
take it from there.

There´s nowhere to take it to! Either the Queen is a legitimate member of a bloodline or else she isn´t. Well, the truth is - she is no more legitimate a member than thousands of other people who are non-aristocrats. So much for the notion of Illuminati bloodlines! One of her ancestors - Elizabeth, wife of Henry VII - did not have one drop of no royal blood in her, as her ancestor was an illigitimate child of a non-royal. The notion of being the highest representative of one of the 13 bloodline families originating in ancient Sumeria is just plain wrong as far as the Queen is concerned. Sorry to collapse your house of cards with facts. But there it is.

´we are more than physical´

i like that......
our spark/spirit/essence gets to pick a diff body each time...
that is the ´dream´

eeeeeeeeeeee O.

So the Bush clan is not from the same deli-counter? or otherwise no one Royal beat their meat? Rumors of 92 IQ may show the way!

De Medici goes back to Tuscany, Italy to the 1200´s with my family Dotti. De Medici were the employers of Michealangelo (Buonorotti - painter) and were as powerful as Prince Philip Benini also known as King Charles the IV and ascends back to King Charles I where all 42 US presidents are born from.

Dotti was Count Dotto Dotti, Captain of the Archers for Prince Philip married into this line. His brother was Blessed Saint Andrea Dotti. Part of the faction that led campaigns against the Merovingians to secure the secret of Christ later protected by the Knights Templar.

This is all nice but I want to know how this list is suctioning wealth off of the citizens. I know Rothschild is busy in the Federal Reserve and so is Rockefeller. Windsor is a vacuum for the Brits. De Medici is consuming the Italian art complex. I know Hanover is Germany´s personal financial predators. I´m not too familiar with the rest of the guys though.

"Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble, but the current Queen of the United Kingdom is not the true Monarch according to bloodline. This was proved last year by a British TV documentary"

TV documentary?

I thought one of the 13 lines was designated Lee or Li, with HQ in Hong Kong?

Rothschild like some of the others is a made up name meaning Red Shield and was conceived only about 200 years ago. Their original name was Bauer - does anyone know if Bauer has any illuminati bloodlines? Or did Rothschild just buy into the illuminati with their incredible wealth?

HalfMan: I guess you must be American. British TV documentaries like that one mentioned above with university academic researchers writing the script have much greater credibility than in the ratings-driven, dumbed-down TV of the USA. So the laugh is on you for your mindless knee-jerk reaction.

Central America Reptilian lunch
[link to antigray.tripod.com]

Description:

[link to antigray.tripod.com]

Hahaha,...

Instead of reality TV,...we have Reality.

Nasty bit of news,..hey what?


**Edit**

Damn,...you are one mis-guided historian,...

IMO.


Z

eeeeeeeee O.

eeeeeeeee O.

Ummm...

In defense of the bloodline/reptilian argument, I really don´t think it matters whether the bloodline is "legitimate" (i.e. produced through legally church-sanctioned marriage), or not.. blood is blood, regardless of who was married, and who wasn´t.

The throne may be another matter entirely.. but I´m just sayin´ - does it really matter who was married or who wasn´t, insofar as bloodlines are concerned?

--The Dracs have the thirteen families beat. They have never and will never earn or accumulate wealth. The Dracs have gold and jewels from thousands of years ago. It is kept in secret caverns and caves all over and is well protected. When a need arises they go get a piece of gold and go on their merry way.--

*******************
wow that´s dumb....just ONE good earthquake and g´bye wealth and power.

jeez...so stuupid!

[ps-can direct me to them thar caves??? lol!]

Im just glad the Bush family are not part of them, could you imagine such morons in a club like that

you mock so lightly about having gold in the caves...why?

im so glad antigray has been mentioned.

the man is brilliant!
very well rounded.

please see antigrays site listed above.