Are all U.S. presidents descended from King John?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лют 2021
- If one version of the claim is true, many of John F. Kennedy's ancestors weren't even Irish.
Millions of people have heard that almost all American Presidents are related to each other and descendants of one English king. Is that true? What does this claim say about our understanding of kinship, power and genealogy?
ko-fi.com/rootsandroutes for one-time tips
/ rootsandroutes for regular support, as "regular" as this channel is
Music: "Angevin" (a name for King John's dynasty). Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0. creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
All other attributions are either on screen, or posted in the narrative attributions document: docs.google.com/document/d/1L...
23 presidents is still practically half of the presidents!
It’s literally half.
Almost half because we have 45 different presidents remember James a Garfield didn’t get elected twice in a row
Imma blow your mind. Something like 5% of the world is related to Genghis Khan. So probably every Chinese and Mongolian Pm...
So England still 'OWNS THE WORLD'
Yes 👍 that's about right 😊
Bible prophecied it years ago
Precisely! The US is still owned by Britain!!
Nope, Rome is the real owner of the world but you have to dig a little bit more to understand it...
Lmao England never stopped if you’re an American you have British/Scottish/Irish decent.
If even 3 or 4 are related, something is wrong. Seems like a club none of us are in
Money will get you there
All related
It just means that most US Presidents are Anglo Saxon
I’m descended of king John 😂
I’m a descendant of king John, sorry you’re not cool enough 😔
Great content! Thank you!
Hey sweet, thought this channel was dead but very glad it's not
Thank you! I am too.
i second that!
Hey! I remember you from the comment thread on that since-hidden Trump video. Your input there was valuable to my thinking. I hope that you think that I’ve been able to touch on presidential genealogy with the broader strokes that suit this channel. Thanks again!
@@rootsandroutes1 please make more videos, your videos are pretty good.
In fact, I just won a discussion against some conspiracy theories enthusiasts, using the knowledge i got from this video(besides my own research from other sources, that verify the contents of this video too.) So, thank you!
A lot of us descend from King John and through multiple Puritans. It's not surprising.
So do I, on several branches
This was well put together! 🌹
Thank you!
Yur content got the like, but that Andrew Jackson duel joke got you the Subscriber. Glad I found yur stuff while looking for a completely different subject.
Thank you! I need more shorts to be history jokes.
Around the 10 minute mark, the voice-over suddenly gets really quiet but the background music stays the same. But other than that great video! Edit: Also, what's up with the creepy "reflection"? Is it some kind of watermark?
Noted and thank you! I purposefully kept it from the Creative Commons source image, to try and create the sensation that old footage is on a real TV. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Old_TV.jpg. I guess the photographer being immobile could be a bit creepy.
Nice channel. Glad to see you made another video!
Thanks!
bra video mannen
tack mannen
This needs more views
Really nice video. You deserve more subs
Thanks. Appreciate it!
Informative
Thank you!
If that's the case, all US presidents are descended from the French. As France gave birth to both England and the US, that makes sense.
All the ones with documented early medieval ancestry (which is not all) go to the Franks, yes, among other peoples.
England wasn't the creation of France. Nonsense. England was formed by Anglo Saxons and their kingdoms a century and a half before the Norman Conquest.
bruh turn up your audio i can hardly hear you with my stuff set pretty high already, i had to blast it even more lmao
I do not believe Franklin Pierce had proven royal ancestry. Are you sure this was fact-checked? Also, this has nothing to do with royalty, but I remember finding a line on the Genealogy website which appeared to lead from President Reagan back to a Mayflower passenger. No other source has backed this up. This supposed line contradicts his Irish roots. I am very skeptical.
Gary Boyd Roberts can be wrong, but the Pierce descent is by him. Henry I through Gloucesters and Wales to both Griffith Bowen and his wife Margaret Fleming. GBR definitely doesn’t have a Mayflower ancestor for Reagan and has seven foreign-born great-grandparents for him with the eighth being either born in NY or Ireland.
Only half of the U.S. Presidents are directly descended from King John but all 45 U.S. presidents are directly descended from Charlemagne. 👑💍🇫🇷🇩🇪
The most incredible part of this subject is how they can and are able to prove this is not true, by showing how their lineage isn't connected... Most of us peasants would probably have a hard time going back more than 4 gens. How special are all these people that they keep a track back of their bloodline that far back.... 🤨
This peasant here is able to trace his ancestry back to the English royals as well. Being rich for many generations does help but even for a peasant like myself it's not impossible.
@@lightyagami3492 *ILLUMINATI!*
Exactly. Even for those who can be traced, it’s generally something like 5 out of 2^16 lines going to Edward I, and > 64,000 unknown lines in the same generation. That’s not even a “bloodline” strictly as the probability of inheriting a single segment from a particular 16th generation ancestor is basically 0. Due to the continuities of inherited privilege, those with such lines (even when they don’t know about them) are statistically more likely to attain high status where there’s been no major social break, but that’s not the argument being made.
@@lightyagami3492 sir you not a royal but a poser
@@rootsandroutes1 the real heirs of GOD otw
6:06 not always sir. right? I am talking about "Salic Law". Wiki: "The rights of family members were defined: for example, the equal division of land among all living male heirs, in contrast to primogeniture." Take a look at the son of Charlemagne. WHen he died the kingdom was divided and made into 3 kingdoms. Every son got a part.
Correct. I’m specifically referring to the situation in late Plantagenet, Tudor, and Stuart England and lowland Scotland where the presidents’ ancestors came from.
@@rootsandroutes1 Thank you. I am interested in the 8th president that is why I am here / found this video. My english is limited. I am not from the US. I am familiar with the study the 12 year old girl did. I will have to watch your video several times before I will fully understand what you claim, your english is rather difficult for me. Very interesting video sir , and thank you for making it. Greets
@@ezandman6804 You're welcome! Reliable sources on the ancestry of Martin Van Buren show no known royal ancestry. There are trees that attempt to link him to Charlemagne through Dutch nobility, but none are proven. I'm certain that an expert on the 16th and 17th century Netherlands would find them as bad as the JFK one I disprove here.
If my channel takes off, I'm going to be sure to prioritise building a community that translates subtitles. There used to be a built-in feature for that. I miss it!
@@rootsandroutes1 But who of the american presidents is closed linked to european nobilty? ARe there any direct links? Dutch History and DUtch US History can get foggy quickly sir! But VanBuren is not from Nobility I think.
Close? None at all. Even for the US presidents who have some noble ancestry it’s less than 0.1%, even for the highest (Washington and FDR). This is because English nobles’ younger children married what you might call patroons. The vast majority of their ancestry is common. The only possibilities of direct patrilineal links are Washington from the house of Dunkeld and Kennedy and Reagan from Irish kings. But none of those three are proven. Washington’s is the most believable.
Audio is a little low I have volume high
Kings and slaves all die the same ,no body is worth anything to the devils that give you the power to rule and unjustly slave others.
After ten minutes, the audio drops out.
It's funny you said Eisenhower cannot be linked to King John because he was German. Is it considered that King John's father was the first Anglo-Saxon King and that the Anglo-Saxons were descendants of Northern Germany?
Eisenhower can’t be linked to John with records because records weren’t well kept in German-speaking regions for people of his ancestors’ social status, and because diffusion of royal ancestry to commoners was lower in the Holy Roman Empire due to nobles taking up the social role that commoner gentry did in England. Mathematically speaking, it is certain John and Eisenhower did share common ancestors - probably Frankish or Burgundian ones later than Anglo-Saxon. However, actual relatedness is an entirely different question, to which the answer is always “yes”. This video is about whether there are records showing the relationship. There aren’t and never will be. By the way, John was the third post-1066 king who was partially Anglo-Saxon (by records) through Henry I’s wife Matilda of Scotland - following his brother Richard and father Henry II.
@@rootsandroutes1”records weren’t well kept by Germans” now that’s one preposterous claim right there.
@@zaiten2012 “for people of his ancestors’ social status”.
@@rootsandroutes1 Are you f-ing sh*tting me? Germans are the best people in the world when it comes to keeping records. Which is why it's so astonishing that not a single document proving the order or even awareness of any supposed systematic extermination of any people, has NEVER been found. Yet we see reports on the amount of milk or socks used for a squadron, with names, dates, locations, everything relevant to any sort of documentation or archiving.
Royalty has also always kept records, along with the Church. But if the Royal Family or Monarchy told the Church to delete records, they did, without hesitation. Otherwise there would be a new Bishop in town, the following day.
We also know these bloodlines are heavily interbred with one another, which has always been heavily frowned upon in any society for most of our history. So what do you do if you insist on keeping your bloodline 'pure'? You interbreed with your bloodrelatives and fake the parenthood. You think this is some modern concept of having surrogate babies or parents? You might've read and studied for a few hours, but you need to read more my friend.
@@zaiten2012just focused on that one part huhv
Something I've noticed is that the presidents with proven descents from Edward III tended to come from much more elite and aristocratic families, like the Bush family, Jefferson family, Washington family, Roosevelt family, etc. than the ones with proven descents from less recent monarchs. George W. Bush has an especially elite ancestry, with 5 gateway ancestors, several important figures in early American history, and the like in his heritage, not even counting the fact that one of the presidents was his father. Compare this with Clinton, Carter, Grant, and Reagan, who all came from middle class families. Carter does have a royal descent, but it is from John's father, Henry II. A lot of these proven royal descents also seem to be pretty rare anywhere else but in America and Quebec, since these places were initially founded and settled by some members of the Renaissance Era aristocracy who were in turn descended from medieval royalty. On "Who Do You Think You Are", it's considered exceptional when someone on the English verison can actually trace back to William the Conqueror. In America, it's literally every second person with colonial heritage.
I concur. The higher barrier to marriage across social class in Britain is also observable in the split genealogy of PMs. The royal-descended ones tend to be actual aristocrats (especially early ones, but also as late as Douglas-Home) and/or known descendants of illegitimate lines (from Grafton to Cameron and Johnson). They knew who they were - and the PMs from other social class backgrounds did too. There's no reason to expect Attlee, Lloyd George or May to ever have such a documented line, whereas if one were discovered for Grant, Arthur, or even Clinton it would be no real surprise. There's none of the phenomenon so common in North America where so many people *mostly* descend from poorly-recorded lower class lines, but can discover they are 1/16th or 1/32nd royal-descended landed gentry due to some younger child from high-TFR places like Connecticut who joined the westward migration as far as Wisconsin or Tennessee, often holding a position of higher socioeconomic status there.
Only half of the U.S. Presidents are directly descended from King John but all 45 U.S. presidents are directly descended from Charlemagne. 👑💍🇫🇷🇩🇪
What did they offer you?
There may not be records of some of these ancestors linking them to king John but the fact 23 can be proven with records which others would be hidden so if couldn't be linked back to prove all them were doesn't mean the rest aren't
The records connecting the other half aren’t hidden; they don’t exist at all. As you say, that doesn’t mean the remainder *aren’t* descendants of John. Indeed I’ve written elsewhere that his mother Eleanor’s descendants are probably in the hundreds of millions, making it a common ancestry in the “West” as a whole - and even more concentrated in the regions and classes from which U.S. presidents have had ancestry. But the overrepresentation in the halls of power of this cohort of a few hundred million is due to quite-openly-maintained systems of class, race, and inherited-wealth hierarchies and the very not-democratic nature of republican governance - with many positions passing openly as we all know to sons and wives. Odious trends on their own, without requiring any cabal.
Only half of the U.S. Presidents are directly descended from King John but all 45 U.S. presidents are directly descended from Charlemagne. 👑💍🇫🇷🇩🇪
I can’t believe this dude is trying to make it seem normal that they’re all related
You're probably also related to them
People just don’t do their history still and it is a reason why people who do can and will manipulate people who don’t
It’s easier to control humans when they don’t understand their own history or even the concept that our history is fragmented and merely our best renderings of what happened based of what we have
History is just his+story
There all connected end of story it’s clearly not random
Exactly! He claims it a myth and says only half definitely are.
So only half most definitely are and the others might be we don't know.
There is a schoolgirl that did a similar family tree tracing but on the female side and she linked all of them.
This whole video is super bias
@@matthornton44 You guys don't understand the video quite well. He is saying the truth. At least not all presidents are related to King John. That is a myth that should be debunked.
Gotta admit it’s still kind of weird and SEEMS like much more than a coinkidink
268 Million People are related to Charlemagne
@@Sulla-ps3jvwho
@@MysteryMan404 you want me to name every single one?
I love this video. I was at work, and one of my coworkers brought up some TikTok video he saw. And I was like dude there is no way they are all related to one guy.
I cannot wait to show him this video tomorrow even though it’s gonna take half of our lunch break
Makes sense though that people with money get into places of power...and folks with money try to keep the family going and growing
Is he related to King John Lackland?
I recently been informed I have a lineage to King John and I had knowledge I was related to Lincoln as well. 😂
Really ?😮
He would have shot the journalist in a duel😂😂😂.... Story checks out
Obama's common ancestors with Madison were Edwin Conway and Martha Eltonhead. However, the alleged connection to the King that they share there may be erroneous. Two people named John Stanley were probably mistakenly labelled as the same person. Also, given how little we know about JFK's real heritage, it is not necessarily impossible for him to be descended from King John I, as England and Ireland could have still exchanged immigrants, and some English were still Catholics, right? Religion can also change across generations. Also, we really do not know all of Eisenhower's ancestry, so we cannot assume that he was of entirely German descent.
Thank you very much for the Eltonhead/Conway information. I don’t doubt that JFK *could* be descended from John via his Hiberno-Norman descendants in a line whose records will forever remain lost to us (or never existed), and even if Eisenhower isn’t descended from John, he’s descended from some earlier king. John’s mother Eleanor of Aquitaine even had many early HRE descendants. Mathematical models of medieval royals’ descendants really do require 8 or 9 digits to count, and I have other content elsewhere online discussing that. This one, as you know, is about the separate concept of recorded ancestors and the attempt to fake them with wishful thinking or lies, as with your Stanley example, the false Fitzgeralds, or Eisenhower’s Boones.
@@rootsandroutes1 You are very welcome. Anytime.
John Savage, I meant. There were two John Savages that got mixed up.
Only half of the U.S. Presidents are directly descended from King John but all 45 U.S. presidents are directly descended from Charlemagne. 👑💍🇫🇷🇩🇪
This must be Obama's maternal grandmother's lineage. His maternal grandfather's lineage was the Dunham family and actually directly descended from the original immigrant, Richard Singletary, in the 1600's in Massachusetts. I am knowledgeable about this lineage because my mother was a direct descendant of Richard Singletary also. Richard Singletary was not related to the Singletary family of the UK (there is only one) because the Y-DNA test has proven this through Richard Singletary's male descendants. We have no idea about Richard Singletary's UK ancestry.
I have a feeling this video is about to blow up in 2024 👁️
What’s fried is I’m related to Herbert Hoover and my stepdad is a Randolph related to a president too so turns out we’re family after all
And the folklore of king John being related to demons is true bc I’ve killed people and haven’t lost a bit of sleep over them peasants
Some people still factcheck. Hence why I’m here 😂😂 saw the claim on a video and did not think it was true.
There's no way for us to "determine" the truth?
@Twice is the Worst Girl Group
Sorry!
You've alerted me to an error, I forgot the ? Question mark.
And I had thumbed down this shyt video.
This was a good rabbit hole at one point in time, however they have screwed up the internwebs so much it's pointless now.
Just live your best life, while you still can.
Interesting that our first Black President is related to King John.
Hmm. I don't know half my cousins, let alone 2'nd or 3'rd ones. Families (especially lesser members of well off ones) often moved away to start farms/lives in vastly different areas, never saw close family members again, especially during the earlier colonisation. Later history might ''prove'' their linages, but not close links. You might write to your parents etc, but never to a cousin you hadn't seen since they were 10. I went to a ''family'' meet years ago, all I knew were my close family, and of them.
By the way, I have d'Avignon's poster at home. Once I get back I might be able to send you pictures if you want to see which lines she used for each president. Many of them are indeed wrong-she cites Alice Strother as Tyler's paternal grandmother, despite the fact that Tyler named his daughter after the woman usually believed to be his paternal grandmother, Anne Contesse.
Thank you, I’d be delighted! I had purchased her Kennedy tree to research this video, but really would like to check out the others.
@@rootsandroutes1 I'll get back to you once I get home in a little more than a week.
I sent the links via Imgur a bit ago but I think they were blocked.
@@TheAlexSchmidt Hi, do you still have those photos? I've been looking all over online and I can't find any trace of readable pictures.
@@metarr had to make a new link but it's Imgur slash a slash BCYijqS.
You make a lot of logical sence , but there is some weird connection somewhere. Even with the facts you stated, its strange how much common ancestorory is shared with the elites of a country consisting of people who all have immigrant decent (excluding natives obviously). Idk what it is persay, but its not completely random in my opinion.
You’d like my more recent take better, not on this app yet. It doesn’t at all contradict this video that focuses only on showing the “all presidents have until-recently-hidden documented links” is wrong. But it does take the topic seriously, explaining why there is indeed a higher degree of connection than one would expect: the social capital that buys elections is part of the same mechanism that constructs race and class, and British gentry ancestry (or appearing as if that ancestry is believable) has historically been at the center of certain elements of that class. Or at the very least assimilation to it.
I'm related to Andrew Jackson and wouldn't that by default on the time line make me if I was president part of this, but if you know the story of the bell witch my family actually had a lot like alot to do with that, and thats where i am related to Andrew jackson
I’m related to George Maris of England. Nixon and Al Gore (Vp). I’m also related to King John of England.
And I a 49yo black male. 🤷🏾♂️
We all have common ancestors😅 🎵🎶 I'm an inbred outlaw My daddy is my pawpaw
There is no way the Irish Catholic Kennedys are connected to the British Royal Family, since Henry VIII no Catholics have held the royal seat, and until this day they ae not allowed.The Kennedys would have had to have protestant ancestry to have any royal blood.
Well, to be fair no one is saying they're descended from Tudors or later. The claim is a connection to the Plantagenet kings, who were Catholic. There are plenty of real lines from Irish Catholics through Cambro-Normans - including Fitzgeralds - to early kings like Henry I. The problem is that all the proposed trees from JFK to Cambro-Normans are based on no real sources.
Latest English king with proven descents to U.S. presidents is Edward III. Latest Scottish king either James II or James IV. All Catholic. Later Protestant kings do have British PM descendants though.
Prince William and his three children will be removed from the line of succession to the British throne if they convert to Catholicism. Only that way his younger brother Prince Harry can become king barring any tragedy. 👑💍🇬🇧
They are all related and the Rothschilds are related to queen Elizabeth they own the central bank
@@rootsandroutes1 So very possible to have King Henry I of England as a great grandfather... he had 2 legit kids, and 22 with various mistresses. =)
Why wouldn't they be related to richard as well?
Anyone who has John as a nth great-grandparent has Richard I as an nth great-granduncle. It's just that Richard I has no known direct descendants of his own.
I’m black from Virginia and I’m related to william Randolph that’s my name too it’s so confusing
Run for president ! 😅
I guess you can run for president then 😂
so.... the answer is yes?
Him.. trying to disprove
Me: taking the things he finds inconceivable and impossible and me connecting the dots
The 12 year old girl used the mother's to prove they were all indeed cousins except for martin van Buren.....a little leave spoils your lump friend.
Van Buren was not inter-related to the other Presidents.
I actually think he may be distantly related as well, I read it somewhere
It makes one wonder, of all the other presidential canditates, especially the final opponent, how many of them were, or are in the general population. Please note, royalty, the rich and the well off interbred a LOT, usually raised more children each generation and were usually healthier. It may be a statistcal glitch, anomally, whatever, more than a ''plot'', but is it simply more affluential and/or intellectual candidates tend to win more often, and King John and his children just begat more? I like Obama, but that is stretching it... The current idea is that President Trump was THE ONLY non descendant of King John.
It's important to differentiate here between recorded descendants of royalty (i.e. the half of presidents who have documented lines) and mathematically-modelled descendants of royalty (literally everyone, including presidents).
I'd also say it's way more than a glitch or anomaly, without it needing to be a "plot". It's accumulated social capital that tends to go along the same lines that are recorded. And this is just as bad an outcome as if it *were* a plot. Difference is, in the real version, it's open.
If you have a recorded line, that means at no point did it become "unimportant" enough before full-population censuses to have its records lost. Everyone has a mathematically-likely line to the rulers of their ancestral region 1,000 years ago. Those with *recorded* lines also got social capital from it (for instance Washington being a member of the gentry), and social capital is very useful for getting real capital and political power. Washington had an unknown maternal grandmother and has 60% unknown lines in generation 6, but his inherited wealth line came from the same direction as his Edward III recorded descent. Yet, the maternal grandmother was probably a descendant too; just won't ever be known because some or many links along the line were poor.
Anyway, too long for a comment. Videos upcoming on Washington and Trump.
Oh, and re: the other-party nominee, numbers are similar as are the reasons. There's Dukakis' ancestral Greece where there is absolutely zero chance for any but currently known aristocrats to find a medieval royal link. There are also those like Kerry who clearly do.
I’m not saying I don’t understand you point because it’s definitely a rational line of thought
But with that the amount of actual conspiracy and how and whom controls having ties or relations (genealogical or not) and the fact the have the time resources and their trains of thoughts are the basis for our own (the having been our school teachers as well as the boards who’ve hired them)
But please keep up the content and use of information to empower the populace and allow for more informed dialogue
It's why we need titles of nobilities amendment 11 states passed only two where left and then war of 1812 happens gee that's not sus
Momo got kennedy elected😂😂
yea i agree nothing secret could ever have happened back in the 1800s (per the attitudes of the time) lol
jfks line has 18 kildares up to thomas fitmaurice.. son of one of my ancestors. mine is verified via dna too
This FitzGerald route is significantly more plausible than the two presented in the video, and why my comment below mentions Henry I - a FitzGerald ancestor - as a mathematically-believable non-Irish royal ancestor for JFK. There’s still no generation-by-generation evidence leading back from the Fitzgeralds of Bruff though.
On your side is that Y-DNA or is there a triangulated autosomal ancestor somewhere in that line?
Loud ass music playing 🙄
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Have they all been planned to be prisdents through blood line .
William Randolph
Did you know that all students of UCLA can be traced back to Adam and Eve😳No kidding!
😂
THere is one other way to become king or...Emperor, just walk your army to congress, and take charge,
still think your vote counts?
Yup rome and the British empire never fell
That family linage should be banned from politics
THIS IS GREAT.. BUT NOW CAN YOU PREDICT OUR NEXT PRESIDENT??? HHHMMM
Everybody’s descended from king John (and Errol Flynn)
Sounds like it to me.
I know i am decended from Jonn Lackland. Its no big deal
We are ruled, we always have been.
Challenge your borders.
No.... You are completely wrong... This was proven 100% true....
The Rodney's are Queueing up, God Forbid....
YEP!
Propaganda!
Another thing. Preceding Presidents often had less knowledge of ancient family ties than current ones, simply due to lack of knowledge. Genealogy has exploded with computer data bases, you can't equalise what they knew then with a search can do for you now, what could not have been done 40 years ago is now a simple matter. Trivialising what a president knew 60 years ago pre computers ''could have done'' when it wasn't possible pre computers. I knew one grandparent, the others died earlier, and I don't know of ANY family prior.
Right. It's not so much about what ancestry the presidents themselves knew, but about the fact that there are armies of genealogists with distribution across all the places where there are records who will do the genealogy of the rich and famous, living and dead, for free. The ones who cite their sources consistently come up with the about-half number, which again, isn't the number who are descended from kings; it's the ones with documented routes. The ones who do things like make up JFK being descended from Protestant Virginians or the Trump equivalent I'm posting soon, do *not* cite sources, because there aren't any. JFK and Trump both probably do have lines to medieval kings of Ireland (and through them Henry II) and Lords of the Isles respectively. There just won't be records.
Every president of the usa is picked in the city of London yes even trump 😂😂😂😂
We are all related to 1 man: Adam🕊️
This channel seems more like a farce the longer I watch it... *DOWNVOTED.*
So not true
Marilyn Monroe. Hillary DNA match
''hey we dont wanta king''
the founding fathers: ''what bout this guy thats descended from our king to be our not-king?''
the fonding fathers were some of the most short sighted politicians to ever live
To take it another level, the term "president" had previously been used primarily for universities and joint-stock companies. Using it for "head of state" and giving that head of state *greater* powers than George III had was not "not having a king". It was having an elected, term-limited king who wasn't called a king, and who could gradually accrue more and more power to the office. Having an elected king wasn't even a new concept.
🤔
You forgot to add that they all was Masons 😂
This video is poorly researched.
Actually hes right. Not all of them are descendants of king john. Some are descendants of Charlemagne. Some are descendants of both. Still not a coincidence. Sorry not sorry its the other c word. Conspiracy. And not the theoretical kind.
😅
This is just a lizard person defending lizard people...... 😊😮😅
TOLD YOU SO! 😂
King John's my 21st great grandfather.
The amount of idiots in the comments is hilarious. Everything's a conspiracy, right yall?
No everything's a coincidence
Have an open mind.
Brrrrrrr wrong
YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT WOMAN DID NOT BREED WITH WHOM THEY SAID SHE BREED-The BIBLE states NOT to Listen to GENEALOGY and that IS the REASON---Whom actually Knows Whom the Real Daddy IS... BUT Now with Our abilities WE CAN KNOW the TRUTH? and KNOW What is What and Who is Who.---no more Fakes????
RUBBISH
I had heard about this years ago. That in some way all of the POTUS were related by blood. Outside of Trump lol
I can link my ancestry to the holy Roman emperor Fredrick Barbarosa. But almost anyone can link their history to a king