Hey internet friends.
Not too long ago, those who sought total and complete control over a society did so not
on the basis of exemplifying exceptional character or extraordinary ability, but they operated
under what was known as the divine right of kings, or the assertion that a king, viewed
as a god in his own respect, was not subject to the will of his people, but only to be
judged by God himself.
These mighty men of olde were successful in convincing others that God’s mandate flowed
through their veins, and that everyday people should spend the best years of their lives
working to secure the social order of their realm.
And for a time, this was how the world worked, documented in history books with the blood
of the ordinary used as the ink to write a version of the past.
But In a post-American revolution society, it would seem like the divine rights of kings
would be a distant memory, but is the reality really so?
Do certain bloodlines still hold power within our current government system?
And if all US presidents are somehow united in blood, does that mean our leaders are really
elected by the people?
Or does that mean they’re selected by few?
Recently, there’s been a surge of renewed interest in a story that hit the mainstream
a number of years ago, when Bridgeanne, a twelve-year-old student, discovered that all
of the United States presidents, with the exception of one, were all related to each
other, linked by one distinct royal descendant.
Bridgeanne reportedly completed this project with a little help from her grandparents,
and the one president they were unable to link to the common descendant was Martin Van
Buren, the eighth president of the United States but the first president to actually
be born a citizen of the United States, unlike the seven presidents before him who were born
British subjects.
At 5 foot 6, Van Buren’s nickname was the “little magician”, because he was quite
the compelling guy, or at least Yale’s Skull and Bones not-so-secret-society must’ve
thought so, as Van Buren’s skull is rumored to reside within the school’s tombs.
Bridgeanne traced all the presidents back to King John of the House of Plantagenet.
The House of Plantagenet, with the surname having etymological roots in Old English,
meaning sprig of bloom or young tree—get it—because we’re talking about the royal
house of young tree because we traced the old family tree back…back to the sapling?
Yeah, okay…whatever.
According to the legend that’s still being circulated today, the Plantagenets were descended
from a demon, which served as an explanation of their ferocity and seemingly supernatural
success on the battlefield.
King John’s reputation doesn’t really improve from his familial lore—you probably
were introduced to him as a child, as the villain in the Tales of Robin Hood.
As the ruler of a vast international empire who held the most important and powerful dominion
over Europe at that time, there’s next to nothing flattering written about King John.
During the age of chivalry, he was callous and cruel, orchestrating one bloody betrayal
after another, relishing in the conflict he created within his own court, starving his
captives to death, and most of all, oppressing his subjects.
One of the lovely fairytales taught within the confines of the classroom assures us that
the era of kings being able to do whatever they pleased, whenever they pleased, ended
with King John, as he’s most known for granting the Magna Carta, a document which was based
on the Charter of Liberties and whipped up by the Archbishop of Canterbury as a practical
solution to a political problem.
You see, King John had managed to annoy everyone with his disastrous military campaigns, and
he specifically ticked off his barons because he attempted to extort money from them, so
as a peace treaty of sorts, the Magna Carta served to place limits on the power of the
crown—theoretically ensuring King John’s actions would not be repeated by a future
ruler, and to this day still symbolizes the rights of a subject against the power of a
tyrant, even though the document DEFINITELY didn’t apply to all people at that time,
just nobility.
Sorry poor people, you lose again.
But nonetheless it was the first step towards the justice system we know today.King John
granted the Magna Carta in 1215, but by the next year he had kicked the bucket, with his
legacy being that he managed to lose the empire his family had attained, leaving England divided
and war-torn.
His funeral broke tradition, as he wasn’t buried with his crown, and records of his
death indicate that he was little mourned, and mentioned that his subjects thought him
to be suffering in the torments of hell.
Even his queen abandoned four of their five children and wasted no time to start a new
life with a lover from her past, never to publicly mention her late husband again.
Spicy.
Curiously, in 1797, King John’s body was exhumed and the townspeople pilfered parts
of his remains, keeping them as souvenirs.
Comment below if you would’ve kept a piece of King John as a souvenir.
Your honesty, as always, is appreciated.
—
Before a seventh grader connected all of the presidents back to King John, there was a
guy making headlines in his attempt to discover if and how bloodlines played into power.
As the son of a Washington DC attorney, this Harvard graduate, classmate of Ted Kennedy,
and ex-husband of a French countess, Harold Brooks Baker, often made comments about the
British Royal Family to the press and advocated his “most royal candidate theory” with
each United States presidential election, with the theory being that the winning candidate
would always have the greatest percentage of royal blood.
His theory held water up until the 2004 presidential election, when he guessed that John Kerry
would be the winner, given that he had more royal blood than George W. Bush.
Brooks-Baker kicked the bucket a few months later, but his theory lived on.
Much like Bridgeanne’s project, the media drooled all over themselves whenever Brooks-Baker
spoke, and the propagation of his most royal candidate theory has served to push another
theory: that presidents are selected, not elected, and specifically, their selection
is based on their pedigree.
To reiterate, the basis of this theory is that, a candidate does not achieve presidency
because of their ambition, charisma, skillset, or ability to get the most people to vote
for them, the candidate ascends to presidency because they are SELECTED by their bloodline.
A bloodline that can be traced back to House of Plantagenet.
Critics of the most royal candidate theory have claimed that “the odds of any given
person being distantly related to royalty are remarkably high, with one estimate suggesting
that more than 150 million Americans are of royal descent.”
So there’s quite a few of us who can trace our lineage back to royalty.
One model uses a formula that was created from research at Yale and aimed to find Europe’s
most common ancestor.
What they discovered is that if you took the entire population of Europe and plugged it
into this formula, you’d have to go back around 1300 years or 46 generations to find
the generation that contains Europe’s most common ancestor, and that ancestor would likely
be someone of royal blood since that family tree has survived.
Meaning that, with this model, everyone in Europe is descended from Charlemagne.
It should be noted, though, that the House of Plantagenet is quite a bit more recent
than the reign of Charlemagne.
Furthermore, if it’s true that an estimated one third of Americans are said to be descended
from the Plantagenets, you would think the number of American presidents who can trace
their bloodline back to King John would actually be less than 98% as Bridgeanne’s model suggests.
But actually it’s more than 98%, since Donald Trump is related to King John as well, and
it was discovered after Bridgeanne’s media blitz that Martin Van Buren’s ancestry can
be traced back to King John’s mother.
So that puts us at 100% of United States Presidents who are tied back to House of Plantagenet,
which is interesting for such a small sample size.
That being said, I personally have a problem with the most royal candidate theory…hello,
this is my opinion.
Both BridgeAnne’s project and the most royal candidate theory rely on something that most
politicians don’t have: honesty.
Honesty about whose your daddy and baby mamas throughout time.
But beyond that—does the royal candidate theory and BridgeAnne’s extracurriculars
have any meaningful significance in deciphering what is truly playing out on the world’s
stage?
In my opinion, while I find this topic to be endlessly fascinating and I could happily
make twenty videos on the topic, the line of questioning feels a bit misdirected.
If you really believe presidents are selected, not elected, then why aren’t we discussing
the bloodlines of those who are doing all the selecting?
Who are the people we aren’t talking about?
What are their motives?
What is their belief system?
Sure, the puppet is interesting, but how about who’s pulling the strings?
What do you think, internet friends?
Are Presidents selected or are they elected?
As always, I look forward to your comments.
Thank you so much for watching, subscribing, and supporting my channel on patreon!
Bye!