Rare Bloodline DNA of Nicholas 11

[Royal Bloodline Descent]

The subject of a major flaw in our theory is as you suggest  We Cannot Demonstrate that a specific mutation of Nicholas 11 and his brother George had is the physical cause of the ear lobe shape, you are correct the mutation inherited does not shape the earlobe but it does provide the genetic map to form the earlobe markers. You go on to say until we can do that it is our theory and speculation and nothing more.

Been Nicholas 11 or his German Kaiser Wilhelm 11 who both show in posted photos on Alexanders Palace Time machine, show otherwise . Is it just speculation and nothing more you might be able expand on your comments if you wish .

Thank you for your theory very interesting and in closing I would mention in case you were not aware or I failed to mention when Queen Victoria daughter Vicky married a German Prince whose first born was Wilhelm 11 who inherited the identical ear lobe mutation markers at birth as his Russian cousin Nicholas 11  and other mentioned and shown on RBD page on face book.

As for myself not been born within a royal line but maternally my German ancestors showed the identical visible markers as I  and I have passed them down to my child and she on to her child, I would ask is it just theory and peculation or facts.

As mentioned I am not royal but a commoner who looked like the Prince who married Queen Victoria's first born daughter inheriting her husband's eyes and facial looks and later I took on the looks of their son Wilhelm 11 and his mutilation on on my earlobes and has descended to my my child and her child.

My personal feeling somewhere within my German ancestors linage such mutated gene was passed on to my maternal side by what means I don't know, but it is definitely not just theory and speculation.

I welcome your comment for or against but what I have mentioned and the photo verification of royals who inherited the same is fact and not fiction. If you have not seen photos we have presented on Royal Bloodline Descent you may be interested or not to see what is real and what is not.


Royal Bloodline Descent
 

[Royal Bloodline Descent]

The major flaw in your theory is that you can NOT DEMONSTRATE that the specific mutation Nicholas II and George had is the physical cause of the ear lobe shape.  Until you can do that, your theory is just speculation and nothing more.
[/quote]


Been that is your theory may we direct you to modern day facts on the subject matter mentioned with photos that a certain royal gene continues to be inherited into  three related royal lines . We respect you have your theory so we do not wish you to change your mind but if you believe what Royal Bloodline Descent webpage on facebook has posted so far is just theory then may we suggest you keep up your good work to Alexander's Palace and not see our latest posting but in case you decide to see the latest photo we would appreciate your comments and after viewing that photo and if your your opinion is the same as before we will respect your theory even though facts have been posted so far are are not theory.


 

[Forum Admin]

The entire ear lobe issue was raised in the Anna Anderson debacle, which clearly proved genetic relationship can NOT be determined by ear lobe shape.

[Royal Bloodline Descent]

Royal Bloodline Descent has read your comments that the entire earlobe issue as raised in the so called debacle, which clearly proved genetic relationship can Not be determined by ear lobe shape.

I believe you may be correct on that statement, but at no time was the hereditary physical earlobe marker ever mentioned as the geneticist we have communicated with conducting  examination of the Romanov remains were ever aware of the inherited earlobe markers and only became aware of such markers existed years after when pointed out to the geneticist by Royal Bloodline Descent, some  now recognize the rare genetic markers does exist.

Royal Bloodline Descent does not expect that the information provided will accepted by some as the truth, such is the case with photo proof provided it was suggested by a few that the photos had been changed from the original previously posted and because  manipulation of photos had been changed from the real photos so far posted on RBD on facebook.

RBD thanks all who have provided their thoughts on this matter.

[DNAgenie]

It is quite possible that the specific feature shown on the photographs is the result of a gene or combinations of genes which are found among some royals and some other people. There is evidence that a number of different aspects of ear shape are influenced by at least 6 different genes, on different chromosomes, though none are found in mitochondrial DNA. The piercing or partial piercing could easily be the result of one or a combination of these genes, or of another gene which has not yet been identified. 

What I object to is the implication that anyone who does not possess this particular feature cannot belong to this particular royal family, or that anyone who does possess it must be royal.

It would be interesting to trace its appearance in family members and others, as has been done for other inherited characteristics, like the cleft chin that appears in many British royal descendants, or the red hair that appeared among the Tudors. I hope that sort of information is being documented in the Facebook page you refer to.

[Royal Bloodline Descent]

We Believe it may be as you have suggested on your first paragraph  to where you go on to say The piercing or partial piercing could easily be the result of one or a combination of these genes , or of another gene which has yet been identified.

You mention on your second paragraph, What You object to is the implication that anyone who does not possess this particular feature cannot belong to this particular royal family, or that anyone who does possess it must be royal.

RBD agrees with your last comment on subject just spoken about and will mention as we have stated before the contributor to Royal Bloodline Descent had inherited the identical visible earlobe markers from birth as a few royals past and present have so inherited and passed the markers on to his first born and so on.  That is the same as some royals whose children may inherit the same. 

Been of royal birth or not we have been advised by particular geneticists one may not be born of a royal family but would need to be sharing a common gene that certain royals show,, in other words one shares a common gene which they refer to as a complex family line inheritance. How true this may be one does not really know at this time.

We don't believe you have looked at the photos posted on Royal Bloodline Descent but if you had or may do so, you you may note the earlobe markers on the main contributor match the same as some royals but that does not make him a royal .   We are now posting some born royals in England  who inherited the same too which their ancestors all had some some family line connection to Queen Victoria including Czar Nicholas 11 and two of his children Alexei and Anastasia..

Thank you for your comments.

Respectfully yours


Royal Bloodline Descent    on facebook

 

[Royal Bloodline Descent]

To DNAgenie

We have for your perusal posted a couple of new photos of certain British royals who show their inheritance of the same ancestor visible gene marker on the earlobe does exists as is the same with previous photos posted of a few related royal families such as Nicholas 11 a hundred plus years ago.

We thank you for the questions you have put to us and if you decide to discuss further with us we welcome your comments and any questions.

Regards


Royal Bloodline Descent      on Facebook

[Royal Bloodline Descent]

The subject of a major flaw in our theory is as you suggest  We Cannot Demonstrate that a specific mutation of Nicholas 11 and his brother George had is the physical cause of the ear lobe shape, you are correct the mutation inherited does not shape the earlobe but it does provide the genetic map to form the earlobe markers. You go on to say until we can do that it is our theory and speculation and nothing more.

Been Nicholas 11 or his German Kaiser Wilhelm 11 who both show in posted photos on Alexanders Palace Time machine, show otherwise . Is it just speculation and nothing more you might be able expand on your comments if you wish .

Thank you for your theory very interesting and in closing I would mention in case you were not aware or I failed to mention when Queen Victoria daughter Vicky married a German Prince whose first born was Wilhelm 11 who inherited the identical ear lobe mutation markers at birth as his Russian cousin Nicholas 11  and other mentioned and shown on RBD page on face book.

As for myself not been born within a royal line but maternally my German ancestors showed the identical visible markers as I  and I have passed them down to my child and she on to her child, I would ask is it just theory and peculation or facts.

As mentioned I am not royal but a commoner who looked like the Prince who married Queen Victoria's first born daughter inheriting her husband's eyes and facial looks and later I took on the looks of their son Wilhelm 11 and his mutilation on on my earlobes and has descended to my my child and her child.

My personal feeling somewhere within my German ancestors linage such mutated gene was passed on to my maternal side by what means I don't know, but it is definitely not just theory and speculation.

I welcome your comment for or against but what I have mentioned and the photo verification of royals who inherited the same is fact and not fiction. If you have not seen photos we have presented on Royal Bloodline Descent you may be interested or not to see what is real and what is not.


Royal Bloodline Descent
 
DNAgenie

Thank you for your comments about the inherited royal markers that you mention they are  there.   Just wanted to let you know other Royal photos have been posted on RBD showing other British Royals who have inherited the same visible DNA earlobe markers.

Regards


Royal Bloodline Descent      On facebook