It's OK, the UK has Royal Family isn't worried about being replaced
(media.patriots.win)
Comments (13)
sorted by:
Lol, no... No she's not, fucking stop it.
She's German
A breed apart.
"Historians and genealogists also argue the historical accuracies upon which the claim is built. This claims rests on the idea that Zaida of Seville was the daughter of Abu al-Qasim Muhammed ibn Abbad, who, in turn, was descended from the Prophet (PBUH). However, Zaida’s own origins are debatable as some argue that, rather than being Abu al-Qasim’s daughter, she merely married into his family.
Following the 2012 discovery of Richard III’s remains in a car park in Leicester, various genetic tests have been conducted on the Plantagenet King. Recent research has brought into question his relation to the Queen, suggesting she does not descend from him and therefore, by extension, cannot be a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
Many have pointed out that “if you trace anyone’s lineage back far enough, you discover – shock horror – we’re all related to each other eventually.” – meaning that there is a significant difference between being directly descended from someone or simply being related to them. The Observer tries to put this in perspective by demonstrating that a child born in 1947, would have had 1,024 ninth-grandparents: compare this to the Queen, who is purported to be the 43rd great-granddaughter of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Supposing that this is true, the Queen would have hundreds of thousands of 43rd great-grandparents.
And so with gaps in historical records and no genetic evidence, it is difficult to prove the relation between an 11th-century Muslim princess and a 20th-century British Queen, never mind a 7th-century Prophet."
https://theculturetrip.com/middle-east/articles/is-queen-elizabeth-ii-really-related-to-prophet-muhammad
Good comments.
The part of what nay argue is debatable. Especially in light of the failed "out of Africa" theory.
It can mean however that prima nocte and rape was a common way to spread the seed. I am not sure what is worse: knowing your antecedent reaches back to a pedophile or being able to back into the mist of time without such relationships.
Shes royalty and they all marry amongst themselves.
The muslims conquered Spain for a short time.
Elizabeth shares a thin ancestral line from a Spanish royal that descends from one of the marriages between the Spanish and muslims.
She also descends from Charlemagne that led the recoquista against the caliphate in Spain.
It might just be one of those things as Charles also descends from Vlad the Impaler.
I personally believe islam and the elites have a connection though, just by reading about the islamic saviour the 'al-mahdi' in the quran does the same exact things the antichcrist does in the Bible.
To me it looks like there playing into the endtimes, but the fact they descend from muhammed doesnt really concern me as Spain was invaded by them
She is German. The Windsor name it turns out was fabricated for her families role in standing as the British royal family for the Rothschilds.
The Prophet Muhammad lived between the years 570 and 632. HM the Queen was born in 1926. The time in between is roughly 1300 years. At 30 years a generation that is over 43 generations. The number of ancestors doubles with each generation so we need to work out 2 to the power of 43 to see how many ancestors the Queen would have had back in the year 600.
2^43 = 8,796,093,022,208
So it is quite likely that we could all be related to everyone back then!
Also, as there have never been that many people on earth at the same time it means we are all interbred to some extent.
Lemmie see:
Generation 1 has 2 parents (= Generation 2). = 2 Generation 2 has 4 parents (= Generation 3). + 4 Generation 3 has 8 parents (= Generation 4). + 8 Generation 4 has 16 parents (= Generation 5). + 16 Generation 5 has 32 parents (=Generation 6). + 32
Total number: 62. The progression shows not a square root, but a simple calculus of the number of generation times the number of parents of a specific child: 42*2 = 86.
The total sum of all these 43 generations in terms of the number of parents as the predecessors to any now living child: 1892.
I was with you right up to where you got to 32. Even the 62 is not too far away because it is really 64 but you have left the first generation out, I'm guessing. What you did after that I don't understand. Why not just continue where you were from 32 onwards? if you do you get this:
1 2 2 4 3 8 4 16 5 32 6 64 7 128 8 256 9 512 10 1,024 11 2,048 12 4,096 13 8,192 14 16,384 15 32,768 16 65,536 17 131,072 18 262,144 19 524,288 20 1,048,576 21 2,097,152 22 4,194,304 23 8,388,608 24 16,777,216 25 33,554,432 26 67,108,864 27 134,217,728 28 268,435,456 29 536,870,912 30 1,073,741,824 31 2,147,483,648 32 4,294,967,296 33 8,589,934,592 34 17,179,869,184 35 34,359,738,368 36 68,719,476,736 37 137,438,953,472 38 274,877,906,944 39 549,755,813,888 40 1,099,511,627,776 41 2,199,023,255,552 42 4,398,046,511,104 43 8,796,093,022,208