Alternative Genealogy

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I'm reminded of a "listicle" begun on "Five Possible Identities for the Real Jesus." That could easily be a series, but I wonder if it really helps push the conversation in a productive direction. If I don't put out at least one, though, then I'm afraid I do an offense to my volunteer editors.
Hi Marcilla, you've lost me here. Where was the "listicle" begun? Who are your volunteer editors?

Five possible identities? Here's my list: Homer's Odysseus, Julius Caesar, Augustus (Octavian), Titus, Vespasian, Josephus, Judas the Galilean, James the Just's brother, The Egyptian, and Izates Manu IV. That's ten. Did I miss anybody? Not counting posthumous pretenders such as all the Popes.

I'd love to see a chart - maybe even interactive - that has all the roots and how they are proposed to come together - by timeline - into the Jesus of the Gospels that we know today. I don't suppose anything like that exists, though?
Richard had always been hoping I'd put something together. The closest I ever came, is a "Composite Gospel" spreadsheet based on Semantic Bible's pericope browser, which I mapped onto parallel incidents in Josephus identified by Joe Atwill, and incidents in Homer identified by Dennis MacDonald. This could be extended to include the other eight candidates, or more.

Also, our esteemed forum member Gilius once posted a spreadsheet comparing the gospels and Josephus, in this thread.
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
Actually, Karl was the grandnephew of Franz Joseph. The son of Franz Joseph was the tragic Crown Prince Rudolf, of the Mayerling mystery.
TY, yes! Interesting story I hadn't heard yet!

And to think that us chicks think that we get sucked into royal-watching ;)

Hi Marcilla, you've lost me here. Where was the "listicle" begun? Who are your volunteer editors?
You and our dear, departed King Richard were kind enough to volunteer to add some thoughts, as you now have consolidated some interesting tables. Thanks!

I want to say that I started this ~mid 2018, but then got sidetracked on some car repairs, career-changing, and then having thought more of it, I think I decided that my work was fundamentally flawed in failing to give adequate consideration to my audience. I was thinking too much in terms of how I think, and not in terms of a more casual audience.

But that's more about "memeology," and less about genealogy
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
And to think that us chicks think that we get sucked into royal-watching ;)
I love it, as I have an "official" connection to the Habsburgs. A very distant cousin married the nephew of the Blessed Karl of Austria, the last Habsburg Emperor, who lost his throne at the end of WWI. The daughter of my distant cousin married, in turn, a second cousin, twice removed, of the nobleman who married the only legitimate daughter of Crown Prince Rudolf.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Oh, and let's not forget the Trumpists who refer to Orange Man as the "God Emperor". Such confusions can also exist in modern America! But thankfully, it's still a minority position even among Republicans.
QUOTE="Jerry Russell, post: 17523, member: 1"]
So my point is not that the Royals aren't important... but how to evaluate their power in perspective, considering everything else that's going on. Is Prince Charles really setting the agenda for Davos and the Great Reset? Or are Bill Gates and other tech monopolists more in control?
So now we have King Charles III, "The Antichrist And A Cup Of Tea" (?), with Donald Trump looking more like a False Prophet, and I haven't heard much about Bill Gates lately. Could Charles have used his brother Andrew to ensnare Gates with Jeffrey Epstein, and thus remove his influence? Now that we have "Charles in Charge", will the Great Reset officially begin? Perhaps more than the climate will "change" during his reign, as his granduncle Edward VIII could not remain King and marry a divorced woman, and yet Charles is doing just that, besides being divorced himself. Charles also seems inclined to cut down in size the innermost circle of "The Firm", his closest royal relatives, while wasting no time publicly designating eldest son William as Prince of Wales, and thus his heir. As far as "Alternative Genealogy" goes, William has been said to be the surrogate son of King Charles by the union of the former King Juan Carlos of Spain (also a titular King of Jerusalem), with the supposed Merovingian bloodline of Princess Diana, making William a future Holy Roman Emperor. Both William and Juan Carlos have the same shaped head and exceptional height, and, truthfully, William would still be the son of a "Charles" (Carlos).
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Well-Known Member

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
William has been said to be the surrogate son of King Charles by the union of the former King Juan Carlos of Spain...
I don't know who is saying this aloud. But now that you mention it, I do see the resemblance between William and Juan Carlos. And there's this article in the Daily Mail, claiming that Diana was one of Juan Carlos' estimated 1500 conquests.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2099114/Did-Spains-King-Don-Juan-Carlos-affair-Diana.html

Here's the low-down from this Daily Mail article:

It is certainly the case that the Princess, together with Prince Charles and their young children, holidayed in Majorca with the Spanish royal family several times during the Eighties.​
Charles never felt at ease on the sunshine island and much preferred visiting the Duke of Wellington’s estate near Granada on the mainland where the shooting was good.​
But Diana, who loved lounging about on yachts in stylish bathing suits, was right at home on the shores of the Mediterranean where she could show off her figure. And the king, who appreciated displays of female beauty, seems to have acted on an impulse to get closer to her.​
After her first trip to Majorca in 1986, Eyre alleges Diana told her bodyguard Ken Wharfe that Juan Carlos fancied her. Apparently, the king made all sorts of excuses to get tactile with her and used to love bending down with her and inviting her to stroke his old German shepherd dog, Archie.​
Another royal biographer, Lady Colin Campbell, has long insisted that the Princess and the king embarked on an affair while on a cruise with their spouses in August 1986, and that they took up with each other again the following summer.​
‘Diana did it to make Charles jealous, but it didn’t work,’ says Lady Colin. ‘Charles couldn’t have cared less.’​
According to Eyre, rumours of the affair intensified later over the curious case of some photos of Diana in a state of undress. These were touted around the world’s publications, only to be taken off the market when someone in Spain paid $45,000 (£29,000) for them. That someone is rumoured to have been Juan Carlos, who wanted to protect the Princess’s reputation.​
With paparazzi dogging Diana every minute of her life, one might think there would be more evidence than this, if this affair actually happened. But until there's a DNA test, only Diana knows for sure, and she's not saying.

The WSWS (although still as wrong as ever about Covid) has been excellent on the topic of QE II's demise, and all the royalists that have been emerging from the shadows. For example, "The 1619 Project and the New York Times' glorification of the monarchy":

The Times’ lengthy obituary of Queen Elizabeth, published September 8, praised her as “the nation’s anchor” and her defense of the royal family as “a rare bastion of permanence in a world of shifting values.” This obituary was accompanied by numerous fawning articles celebrating the “grace, humor and longevity” of the late monarch and countless “live updates” breathlessly describing all of the rituals around her funeral and the coronation of the inauspiciously named King Charles III—whose 17th century namesake Stuart predecessor Charles I was beheaded in the English Civil War, while his son, Charles II, was driven into years of exile. The Times even issued a lesson plan for students entitled, “The Life And Legacy of Queen Elizabeth.” ....​
Perhaps realizing they had overdone it, the Times editors published a somewhat defensive article on September 14 under the title “Was Elizabeth the Queen of America?” ... In this article, the Times acknowledged that “Americans fought for freedom from the British crown” but placed the blame on the American population for being “consumed with fascination by the royal family after the queen’s death on Thursday.”​
This excuse turns reality upside down. The Times and the rest of the US media establishment have been force-feeding the population with monarchist propaganda ever since the news arrived of the queen’s death—but according to the Times, this is supposedly the fault of readers for reading it, not of the newspapers for cramming it down their throats.​
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
From a "Look Alike" site -
I used TinEye reverse image search to trace down the original source of this set of images. The source seems to be an interview of "Lord Chancellor" Greg Hallett with Jim Fetzer, dated 30 December 2012. The interview is now available only via the Wayback Machine.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150330071037/http://www.theworldoftruth.net/HallettReport/No5.html#.VRj28y2l31I

In this same interview, Hallett states that Queen Victoria's firstborn son was actually a person by the name of Marcos Manoel. Thus he implies that every British monarch since Edward VII has been an illegitimate imposter.

Another interesting theory is that Princess Diana was not actually John Spencer's daughter. On the contrary, he says that Frances Burke-Roche was having an affair with Sir James Goldsmith, whose family had changed their name from Goldschmidt. They were a Jewish banking family, competitors to Rothschilds. Not Merovingian after all? Goldschmidt, Goldfish? Hmmm....

Getting back to Marcos Manoel: Chancellor Hallett has a new website, www.kingof.uk. Now he's saying that he himself is the true King of England, styling himself King John III. I wonder why he didn't mention that to Fetzer in 2012? A bridge too far?
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Another interesting theory is that Princess Diana was not actually John Spencer's daughter. On the contrary, he says that Frances Burke-Roche was having an affair with Sir James Goldsmith, whose family had changed their name from Goldschmidt. They were a Jewish banking family, competitors to Rothschilds. Not Merovingian after all? Goldschmidt, Goldfish? Hmmm....
Besides William's mother Diana, the mother of William's wife, Catherine, Princess of Wales, is also a GOLDSMITH! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carole_Middleton Goldschmidt, Goldfish? Hmmm....

Getting back to Marcos Manoel: Chancellor Hallett has a new website, www.kingof.uk. Now he's saying that he himself is the true King of England, styling himself King John III. I wonder why he didn't mention that to Fetzer in 2012? A bridge too far?
So now in 2022 we have King John III vs. King Charles III? Hmmm....
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Too late to add on to my previous post, and more research is needed, but apparently "Lord Chancellor" Hallett took over the pretender King of England status from the Manoel descendants sometime between 2014-2019, now claiming that he is a direct descendant of the "posthumous" Anne Boleyn and her grandson Sir Walter Raleigh, the "King of America" (Richard would have loved this, as Hallett posits that both Anne Boleyn & Sir Walter Raleigh were not really beheaded, but escaped to a "hidden resort"). Besides that, he also claims to be the "Messiah", with Hallet's own mother & sisters now saying that he is delusional, though he did write some intriguing books about fifteen years ago (when he was still "rational"?). I found one of them online, "Hitler Was A British Agent" - https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceaopmwoewopsmqy567fko5x22gdkbosdf5i4v6nwtbt3ttumkkfyi?filename= - Hitler was a British Agent-ENZ (2006).pdf

Going by what Hallett has written on the picture of a very young General George S. Patton, on the homepage of his new site that you directed me to, he believes that Donald Trump is his reincarnation. I have found hints that he also believes former New Zealand Prime Minister and UN executive Helen Clark (who also later tried to become Secretary-General of the UN) is the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.

Hallett now calls himself King John III, as Marcos Manoel supposedly became King John II in 1869 (1698code might notice that you can move those numbers around to make "1698"). King John I of England, I presume, was the one who signed the Magna Carta in 1215. As I mentioned previously, we now have King John III and King Charles III, put those names together in Spanish and you have King Juan Carlos! ;)

Even stranger, today is September 23, the birthday of Roman Emperor Augustus Caesar (Greg Hallett claims to have "Silent Roman Emperor" backing), and the late Richard Stanley had discussed the birth of a "Space Jesus" on Sept. 23, 2017. Greg Hallett/King John III/Messiah says that Revelation's End Times were fulfilled in September of 2017, connecting with him as King and Christ.
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Now he's saying that he himself is the true King of England, styling himself King John III. I wonder why he didn't mention that to Fetzer in 2012? A bridge too far?
From the Hallett report #4 with Fetzer on that old site you found,
" I have actually been adopted into the True Royal Family. I was adopted in the Summer Solstice of 2010, and again on Leap Day 2012. That is actually on video, in the form of a Knighthood, elevating me to Lord Chancellor of the True Prince of Wales, and it’s on TheWorldOfTruth.net.
So when you go to that website, TheWorldOfTruth.net, you can see the Knighthood and the sword we’re using is the sword of King Dom Ferdinand II who was the most popular King of Portugal. And that sword was given to him by Duke Ernst II of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, who was the premiere Duke of the Saxe-Coburg and Gothas. His younger brother was Prince consort Albert, who married Queen Victoria. So even Duke Ernst II knew that we are the True Royal Family. I used ‘The Royal We’ because I am adopted – and it has it’s advantages.
From memory, the date was 10th of June 1869 (Again, as 1698code would notice, that year can be switched to "1698"). The sword was given to us, and then passed down through The Family, and it is one of about 32 Royal Marks – we’ve got more, but we’re presenting about 32, 33 Royal Marks. It’s showing that The Family that I have been adopted into is the True Royal Family.
So I am in England at the moment. I have been here for about 4 months, and I am acting as Proxy, as stand-in for the True Monarch and the True Prince of Wales. We’ve been working on this story now for about 2½ years. "
Looks like the "stand-in" became ambitious and "stood up" the "True Monarch"! ;)

From report #7 with Mark Windows -

"The Rothschilds ran the European wars, and the Battle of Waterloo. Napoleon and Wellington — fighting on the French and the British sides — were both Rothschild agents. Napoleon lost, Wellington won, Homing Pigeons left from Waterloo to Bank with the contrary message saying that Napoleon had won — just in case that there was a straight bird. Everyone on the stock market who was told that Napoleon had won, cashed in all their stocks. And then Nathan Mayer Rothschild bought up all the stocks on rock bottom prices, then released the true news that Wellington had won. And with that, he took over the Bank of England, virtually bankrupted the British Royal Family, and in exchange for funding the British Royal Family he claimed Breeding Rights.
So Princess Victoire Louise, she was Queen Victoria’s mother, she was travelling to Switzerland, stopped by in France and underwent a ceremony called ‘The Merovingian Bestia Neptuni Procreation Tradition’ aka Threesome, and that was with Nathan Mayer Rothschild and Baron James Mayer de Rothschild, who was the French Baron Rothschild, and it was his seed that took hold, and that resulted in Queen Victoria.
Queen Victoria looks identical to Baron James Mayer de Rothschild, French Baron Rothschild. So Queen Victoria was illegitimate but she was still made Queen. But before she became Queen, she secretly married the Second in line to the British Throne, who is Blind Prince George of Cumberland, and they married at Mont Saint Michel in Normandy on Britain’s Mother Day on 9th of March 1834, and then about 57 days later Queen Victoria gave birth in Carlisle Castle in England to Marcos Manoel who was a Legitimate Firstborn from the First and Second in Line to the British Throne, although Victoria was secretly illegitimate, but Blind Prince George was legitimate.

It is insane, Britain’s monarchy is absolutely insane, and what they have done is, they said, ok, we are not going to release the secret for 200 years! And we call it the Shin, the Forbidden Secret. The secret will go from 1812 to 2012, with basically the death of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who was Nathan Mayer Rothschild’s father. Yes. So that is how it was done. So the Forbidden Secret was allowed to come out in 2012, and I started to work on it. I wrote some pre-stories in 2007 called “How to Take Over the World: A Right Royal Con”. Then I started to write THE HIDDEN KING OF ENGLAND from March 2010"
My comment - the exact date was Sept. 19, 1812 (the passing of Mayer Amschel Rothschild) to Sept. 19, 2012, and now Queen Elizabeth was buried on Sept. 19, 2022.

"Greg Hallett: He (then Prince Charles) has actually been quite honorable in abdicating, he has told his friends that he is going to abdicate as soon as he can. For example, if Queen Elizabeth died or abdicated, then Charles would abdicate straight away." Oh really?
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Am I missing something, or is this all completely incoherent logically? If Anne Boleyn had a son, that means that every British monarch since Elizabeth I (who took the throne in 1558) has been illegitimate. So what difference does it make if Queen Victoria was really Rothschild's daughter? How could Blind Prince George of Cumberland be legitimate unless he was descended from Sir Walter Raleigh? And what royal family was Hallett allegedly adopted into?

Which leads to the question of whether Hallett has the connections and firepower to stage a coup and become the new King of England, or whether this is all clickbait and he's eking out a living selling snake oil?

Does anybody else besides Hallett think that Prince William is Juan Carlos's love child?

I was looking into whether there might be any DNA evidence to settle the matter. I found this article by Nick Schifrin at ABC News claiming that Prince William's maternal (mitochondrial) DNA has been traced through 7 generations to a half- Indian woman named Eliza Kewark. Apparently the relation had also been long suspected based on scandalous reports of the royal ancestry, now verified through DNA. But tracing the matter to its source, it seems that the research is actually based on DNA samples from two matrilineal cousins of Princess Diana.

According to Bradley Larkin of Surname DNA Journal: Prince Philip Mountbatten provided a sample of his DNA to verify the authenticity of remains of Tsar Nicholas of Russia and his family. So, the y-DNA data for verification of William's paternity is available, if we could only obtain a sample from William.

To further complicate matters: a person named Simon Dorante-Day, born in 1966, says he's convinced that his real parents were Charles and Camilla. He believes that they became lovers in 1965, when Charles was ~18 years old. After the affair, Camilla went into hiding.

Dorante-Day has filed a lawsuit to force DNA testing of King Charles. But perhaps he could just contact Mr. Larkin and get the data Philip's DNA sample? If indeed Mr. Dorante-Day is Charles and Camilla's son, would that give him a prior claim to the British throne over Prince William? And what would this do to Hallett's position?
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Am I missing something, or is this all completely incoherent logically?
You are the one who "found" King John III ;) in the first place, so you should be answering all of these questions, not me! (lol) Seriously, as far as his own aspirations are concerned, I think that his mother & siblings are right, and he has become delusional about himself, it looks like since about 2019. What he says about the royal family may have kernels of truth in it, before he became self-obsessed, as he wrote a lot about this topic years before his "breakdown". As I said previously, more research needs to be done on what he said about them long before. For instance, others have stated that the Rothschilds infiltrated the British Royal Family, and were also grandfather to Adolf Hitler. However, for now-

That "son" by Anne Boleyn was not by King Henry VIII, so not of the Tudor royal lineage.

Hallett is making "ancestors" Anne Boleyn/Walter Raleigh "King of America" his own special royal lineage, which is delusional. He claims that the great-grandson of Sir Walter Raleigh was "Prince" Samuel Bellamy the pirate, who had a child (that did not live long) by a Goody HALLETT, and somehow he descends from them!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Bellamy

Hallett was supposedly "adopted" into the "true royal" family of Marcos Manoel, whom he was "Lord Chancellor" to. Funny that we don't hear any of the Manoel descendants commenting on this, if indeed they truly exist, outside of the imagination of Hallett.

Someone had written a book about the Juan Carlos/Prince William relationship -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2099114/Did-Spains-King-Don-Juan-Carlos-affair-Diana.html

If Prince William knows whom his real father is, he may not ever take a Y-DNA test, for obvious reasons.

Hallett does mention that son by Charles/Camilla too. If true, that "son" is illegitimate (of course, William and Harry may be also, but they are "officially" legitimate).
 
Last edited:
Top