Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Ex-Princess Lisa

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
The Windsors / Re: Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall
« on: December 28, 2007, 04:18:11 PM »



I really do not get the 666 thing.

I thought 666 was the number of the Beast according to the Bible. Does that not mean that there are 666 beasts.

Not people walking around with 666 tatooed to their heads or their names add up to 666 if you look at it in a certain way, maybe on a Friday.


2
The Windsors / Re: Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall
« on: December 28, 2007, 04:08:49 PM »

 As for descent  from Christ.  This is  something  again, claimed by many European royal houses, starting from Charlermagne, I think. It was to bolster the king's rights to rule, claims to "divine right" and such. It was pure fabrication and propaganda.  False genealogies wre drawn up, going back to BEFORE Christ, direct from Soloman, David and the other Judean kings. I imagine it did not fool the intelligensia but in an illiterate society, it may have had it's uses.Of course  no one could claim a descent from Christ himself- contradicting the Church's teaching, so they had to invent a biblival descent  through other lines.  I think the early Romanovs even had some such chart drawn up.
 All this is well documented in serious books about monarchy,


I have not read many serious books about monarchy, but this does explain why the male-line descendents of Charlemagne that are alive today (the Purcells) and the male-line Romanovs, have the same Y DNA chromosome. Both lines seem to be descended from the same male line and maybe that is the Davidic line.

Also most Jewish men have a J or J2 haplotype and the Romanovs and Purcells have a J haplotype. (I've read that the Cohen haplotype is J2)

Both the Romanovs and Charlemagne claim to be descended from a Byzantine dynasty. Maybe this is true.


3
So the announcement card would have been brought from Japan with them on the sea vogage and used in France.

4
Do you know what year it was used?

Maybe Nicholas did not come back by train from Japan on his 1891 trip, but came back by ship, stopping in France en route?

In another thread we discussed at length how Nicholas returned from his journey in 1891 to Japan as the outward journey is well documented, but the return trip was summed up by the sentence "and then he went home".

However we know he cannot have returned home by train as the Trans-Siberian Railway was not built at that time.


5
Rulers Prior to Nicholas II / Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« on: December 11, 2007, 11:09:24 AM »
IA- in the case you cite, the difference was that the bride was not required to convert. Marrying the heir to the throne of Russia required  the bride to become Orthodox.

I thought the emphasis was on the mother to the heir to the Russian throne had to be Orthodox. That is why the bride had to be Orthodox.

I'll put it another way. I thought the emphasis of the law was that the woman who gave birth to the heir to the throne must be Orthodox at the time of the birth.
In practical terms the woman always converted before she got married.

6
The Windsors / Re: MONARCHY - The Royal Family at Work
« on: November 27, 2007, 09:15:40 AM »
I enjoyed the programme too and I agree with you, I also found out more about the White House than the Queen. But I found that very interesting.
I was surprised about the amount of support for the Queen from Americas young people, I hope they all feel that way.

As for your annoyance at the Queens title, I must admit I do tend to refer to HM as The Queen of England even though I know the correct title is The Queen of Great Britain, it rolls off the tongue easier. I wonder if she is offended if someone calls her The Queen of England.

As for your third point about monarchies of Netherlands and Denmark etc, I have a question. Do these monarchies go on state visits to America?

7
The Windsors / Re: So Farewell Then, Backstairs Billy
« on: November 27, 2007, 09:05:17 AM »
I had never heard of Backstairs Billy until yesterday when I read an article in The Daily Express (yes, I'm sure many people will be outraged that I read this trashy tabloid).
After the first paragraph I had an intial feeling of dislike towards Billy, that only intensified as I read further. After reading the article I felt I would not have trusted Billy as far as I could throw him. You probably think this is a snap judgement and you would be right.
Good riddance I say, to a nasty piece of work.  - he wanted to work in the Royal Household since he was a child? if something is too good to be true, it probably is not true.  Not a nice person - just clever.

9
The Windsors / Re: Princess Louise,Princess Royal, Duchess of Fife
« on: November 22, 2007, 03:52:19 PM »

T
[/quote]

Their father's blood was rhesus positive, their mother's rhesus negative, the consequences of which were not understood in those days. 

[/quote]

I am interested to hear that Alexandra was rhesus negative. Is it true?

I know a bit about it because I am rhesus negative and so is my daughter.

Are any other subsequent members of the Royal family who are known to be rhesus negative?

Not a serious condition anymore luckily.

10
The Danish Royal Family / Re: Crown Prince Frederick & Crown Princess Mary
« on: November 04, 2007, 05:16:34 PM »
In fact there is going to be a new royal marriage next year.

Dmitri,
Who is getting married next year?

 - I've just reread the thread beneath this one and have the answer .

11
Nicholas II / Re: Nicholas II's Favorite Things
« on: November 02, 2007, 06:39:30 PM »
The only ring that Nikolai II always wore was his wedding band.

Margarita


Does anyone know anymore about his wedding band. Was it just a plain gold ring?

Were there any inscriptions on it? Either inside it or outside it.

Did it have any distinguishing features?

There must have been marks inside it at least from the jeweller who made it?


12
I'm sorry Forum Admin, I will not mention my claims again.

Ex-Princess Lisa

13
Well hello Lisa.You blend in perfectly here,as isn't it you who claims your husband is a grandson of Nicholas II?
For those at loss now,please visit the Byzantine thread.

How do you know my husband is a greatgrandson of Nicholas II?

I never told you that on the Byzantine thread.

But yes it is true, my husbands paternal grandfather was Alexei.

My paternal grandfather was Nicholas IIs illegitimate son, George.

So my husband and I are second cousins.

(Only royalty and hillbillies would do this!)

14
Dear Mr Schweiter,

I do not know very much about you, but the way you are being attacked from all sides leads me to conclude that whatever you are saying must be true.

Well hello Lisa.You blend in perfectly here,as isn't it you who claims your husband is a grandson of Nicholas II?
For those at loss now,please visit the Byzantine thread.Oh,and btw,his name is Schweitzer,mr Richard Schweitzer.

Sorry for the typo

15
Dear Mr Schweiter,

I do not know very much about you, but the way you are being attacked from all sides leads me to conclude that whatever you are saying must be true.

By the way, talking of samples being switched - those of you who read my threads will know that I keep requesting a DNA test for myself or my father to be done by the Forensic Science Service.

What I have not said before on this forum is that I had a DNA test done for my father by a company called Family Tree DNA in America. But I was contacted by the Russian Intelligence Service and told that the DNA had been switched and that the test results were incorrect.

I have no DNA profile to compare it too at the moment so it does not make much difference anyway.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6