Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Flibbertigibbet

The Queen is descended from Muhammad

37 posts in this topic

Not just once, either, but many, many times over through all sorts of different lines of descent from the royal families of Europe. The key is the Arab occupation of Spain in the Middle Ages. Many of Muhammad's descendants, who were part of the ruling class, married into local Spanish and Portuguese aristocracy, and from them the lines spread out into European royalty.

http://www.arabnewsblog.net/2010/09/10/something-completely-different-for-%E2%80%98id-queen-elizabeth-iis-descents-from-the-prophet-muhammad/

Prince Charles, through his father, is also descended from Dracula (Vlad the Impaler).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Does that mean people should sing "Allah save the Queen" instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just once, either, but many, many times over through all sorts of different lines of descent from the royal families of Europe. The key is the Arab occupation of Spain in the Middle Ages. Many of Muhammad's descendants, who were part of the ruling class, married into local Spanish and Portuguese aristocracy, and from them the lines spread out into European royalty.

http://www.arabnewsblog.net/2010/09/10/something-completely-different-for-%E2%80%98id-queen-elizabeth-iis-descents-from-the-prophet-muhammad/

Prince Charles, through his father, is also descended from Dracula (Vlad the Impaler).

It could be possible: many royal families in Europe have intermarried. Marrying a 'common man or woman' was something not done back then.

But this, "I’ve also heard that something like 80% of people with northwest European ancestry have a direct descent from Charlemagne""must be a 'bit' of an exaggeration, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be possible: many royal families in Europe have intermarried. Marrying a 'common man or woman' was something not done back then.

But this, "I’ve also heard that something like 80% of people with northwest European ancestry have a direct descent from Charlemagne""must be a 'bit' of an exaggeration, lol.

This guy here claims that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/05/the-royal-we/2497/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy here claims that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/05/the-royal-we/2497/

"The mathematical study of genealogy indicates that everyone in the world is descended from Nefertiti and Confucius, and everyone of European ancestry is descended from Muhammad and Charlemagne"

Yeah, right, a 'mathematical study'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of things that people "claim" to be true, I believe I heard some people following the religion Islam, claim that sperm is generated in the backbone of males. Also, that Mohammad had actually split the moon into two. So, the people who claim that ALL the Europeans to be the great great grandchildren of Mohammad, they must obviously have valid reasons for that (read: religion).

Also, I believe that sometimes there can be a huge difference between a 'truth' and a 'fact'. But it's upto every individual to decide for his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make it clear - I didn't mean to hurt anyone's sentiments. And I am sorry if I did. I just wanted to convey that I am not convinced, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like 70 per-cent of irish people can trace their lineage back to a dude called Niall of the Nine Hostages .

Most royal families are all inter bred anyway , to keep them Royal .

Isnt the Royal family in England German ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like 70 per-cent of irish people can trace their lineage back to a dude called Niall of the Nine Hostages .

Most royal families are all inter bred anyway , to keep them Royal .

Isnt the Royal family in England German ???

Yes, the British monarchy has been mostly German since 1714. Descended from Germans and in each generation marrying a German, too. This only stopped fairly recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heil mein Queen ,. Is what all you English should ne sayin . hehe

Only taking the pist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go back long enough i think you'll find we are all related to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from: http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3266&Itemid=244

Even before the current popular interest in DNA research, Guy Murchie wrote in The Seven Mysteries of Life that if we trace our ancestry back fifty generations to C.E. 700, we find we all share a common ancestor. None of us, Murchie insists, can be less closely related than fiftieth cousins. “Your own ancestors,” he wrote, “whoever you are, include not only some blacks, some Chinese, and some Arabs, but all the blacks, Chinese, Arabs, Malays, Latins, Eskimos, and every other possible ancestor who lived on Earth around A.D. 700 … It is virtually certain therefore that you are a direct descendent of Muhammad and every fertile predecessor of his, including … Confucius, Abraham, Buddha, Caesar, Ishmael, and Judas Iscariot.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from: http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3266&Itemid=244

Even before the current popular interest in DNA research, Guy Murchie wrote in The Seven Mysteries of Life that if we trace our ancestry back fifty generations to C.E. 700, we find we all share a common ancestor. None of us, Murchie insists, can be less closely related than fiftieth cousins. “Your own ancestors,” he wrote, “whoever you are, include not only some blacks, some Chinese, and some Arabs, but all the blacks, Chinese, Arabs, Malays, Latins, Eskimos, and every other possible ancestor who lived on Earth around A.D. 700 … It is virtually certain therefore that you are a direct descendent of Muhammad and every fertile predecessor of his, including … Confucius, Abraham, Buddha, Caesar, Ishmael, and Judas Iscariot.”

The bold portion above is ignorance at its finest. While it's true that we are all related and that many of these people listed above could have descendants living today, it is NOT true that those listed above are ancestral to everyone living today. Contrary to what is stated in the article. They are ancestral to some and only distantly related to others.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It could be possible: many royal families in Europe have intermarried. Marrying a 'common man or woman' was something not done back then.

But this, "I’ve also heard that something like 80% of people with northwest European ancestry have a direct descent from Charlemagne""must be a 'bit' of an exaggeration, lol.

All native Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. But that's only because all native Europeans are descended from all of those people of Charlemagne's time who have descendants right up to today.

14 US presidents are also descended from him.

The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Which means all native Europeans today who are not part of the same family and who appear to be unrelated are actually very distant cousins of one another.

Charlemagne is, approximately, my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather.

A03_DurerPortrait.jpg

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All native Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. But that's only because all native Europeans are descended from all of those people of Charlemagne's time who have descendants right up to today.

14 US presidents are also descended from him.

The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Which means all native Europeans today who are not part of the same family and who appear to be unrelated are actually very distant cousins of one another.

Charlemagne is, approximately, my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather.

A03_DurerPortrait.jpg

If that's the case then surely all US presidents are descended from him, not just 14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like 70 per-cent of irish people can trace their lineage back to a dude called Niall of the Nine Hostages .

Most royal families are all inter bred anyway , to keep them Royal .

Isnt the Royal family in England German ???

Isn't Niall of the Nine Hostages just a myth written down 1500 years after the event?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Does that mean people should sing "Allah save the Queen" instead?

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bold portion above is ignorance at its finest. While it's true that we are all related and that many of these people listed above could have descendants living today, it is NOT true that those listed above are ancestral to everyone living today. Contrary to what is stated in the article. They are ancestral to some and only distantly related to others.

cormac

Maybe you need to offer some supporting evidence for the "ignorance" of that author Guy Murchie's assertion. It may seem improbable, but that doesn't rule it out. It is extensively argued in his book "The Seven Mysteries of Life", and I have never seen a rebuttal of it, but let's see yours !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does all this mean that I have a legitimate claim to the throne? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So whether Mongolian, European, African, Indian, etc.... , we all have a common ancestor only that far back in history? I do not buy it.

I'm with Cormac on this one.

Edited by Mentalcase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm funny enough.. the current royal family.. is not actually the true royal family..

The true king of england lives in adelaide south australia..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt, on 22 April 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

The bold portion above is ignorance at its finest. While it's true that we are all related and that many of these people listed above could have descendants living today, it is NOT true that those listed above are ancestral to everyone living today. Contrary to what is stated in the article. They are ancestral to some and only distantly related to others.

Maybe you need to offer some supporting evidence for the "ignorance" of that author Guy Murchie's assertion. It may seem improbable, but that doesn't rule it out. It is extensively argued in his book "The Seven Mysteries of Life", and I have never seen a rebuttal of it, but let's see yours!

Perhaps you need to understand what's being said in contradiction to itself. To whit, the first claim:

It is virtually certain therefore that you are a direct descendent of Muhammad and every fertile predecessor of his, including … Confucius, Abraham, Buddha, Caesar, Ishmael, and Judas Iscariot.

and then the further claim:

Even before the current popular interest in DNA research, Guy Murchie wrote in The Seven Mysteries of Life that if we trace our ancestry back fifty generations to C.E. 700, we find we all share a common ancestor. None of us, Murchie insists, can be less closely related than fiftieth cousins. “Your own ancestors,” he wrote, “whoever you are, include not only some blacks, some Chinese, and some Arabs, but all the blacks, Chinese, Arabs, Malays, Latins, Eskimos, and every other possible ancestor who lived on Earth around A.D. 700 … It is virtually certain therefore that you are a direct descendent of Muhammad and every fertile predecessor of his, including … Confucius, Abraham, Buddha, Caesar, Ishmael, and Judas Iscariot.”

So he claims we're all descended not from some, but ALL POSSIBLE ANCESTORS from 700 AD. So no matter who you are according to Murchie, EVERYONE has at least one black, Chinese, Arab, Malay, Latin and Eskimo ancestor going back to 700 AD. That's not exactly the same thing as being a direct descendant of Muhammed, now is it? And as to the predecessors of Muhammad I have to wonder how that was determined as there are no extant lineal records to link Confucius, Abraham, Buddha, Caesar, Ishmael and Judas Iscariot. Two of which, Abraham and Ishmael, are questionable as to having actually existed.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that I'm distantly (but tracably) related to the Queen, then I'm related to Judas?

As if my family tree wasn't already screwy (what with Oliver Cromwell, foundinh members of te IRA and possibly early members of the Nazi party being in the pot along with Knights and Knight Templar, some Masons....).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case then surely all US presidents are descended from him, not just 14.

Well... yeah. There was a thing recently where they went back on the genetics of various presidents to where they were closest related. So they are all related.

How'd you get 14?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you need to understand what's being said in contradiction to itself. To whit, the first claim:

and then the further claim:

So he claims we're all descended not from some, but ALL POSSIBLE ANCESTORS from 700 AD. So no matter who you are according to Murchie, EVERYONE has at least one black, Chinese, Arab, Malay, Latin and Eskimo ancestor going back to 700 AD. That's not exactly the same thing as being a direct descendant of Muhammed, now is it? And as to the predecessors of Muhammad I have to wonder how that was determined as there are no extant lineal records to link Confucius, Abraham, Buddha, Caesar, Ishmael and Judas Iscariot. Two of which, Abraham and Ishmael, are questionable as to having actually existed.

cormac

It should be further noted that 50 generations back in time is meaningless, as the quantity of ancestors any individual would have going back to a point as low as 30 generations gives the total number of ancestors as 1,073,741,824 individuals. That's ONE BILLION ancestors. For my own ancestry 30 generations only gets me back to the time of William the Conqueror circa 1066. The previous claim by Munchie would also not take into account lines that have gone extinct from 50 generations ago til now. So the claim that "everyone is descended from whomever" is wrong from the start.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.