# What did the 'Founding Fathers' actually 'Find'?



## NigeWz (Apr 15, 2021)

Guys, I'll keep this one short, because it's basically just a question.
My grandmother was born in 1902, and she gave birth to my father in 1935, So let's go back just a few more generations and see what we get.
So, let's assume that my grandmother's mother was around the same age when she gave birth. That would put her birth year somewhere around 1870
Back to her mother, and we'd be around 1840. So that's only 4 generations.
Let's go back a couple more, and you'd be around 1776.
So, 5 or 6 generations in the past is all we need to go.
My question is this;
If the 'founding fathers' were 'real', why are NONE of their descendants taking advantage of their lineage TODAY?
A friend of mine came across a guy who knows that he's related to the infamous 'Lizzie Borden' (nothing to be proud of), but her 'deeds' were said to have been carried out in 1872.

Oh, and here's another one for our American friends here. Does anyone you know, know anyone, who knows anyone who works in the 'Electoral College', or maybe that doesn't exist either?


----------



## msw141 (Apr 15, 2021)

I think it just gets diluted.  like when that Elizabeth Warren story about her taking. a DNA test to "prove" she was of Native American heritage, they framed it as her great great great great grandmother was native american, which in passing sounds pretty direct, like you could envision that this was a straight line in her family tree almost like she could find some heirloom in her attic from this person.  but some people visualized the reality of that result and it is so far removed from her that you'd question if there's any tangible family connection that still links these two people together.  when you think "great great great great grandmother" you think that refers to one or two persons from your mother and father's side of the family, but it's like that is just one of 480 that you have, it's something we don't often think about.  (quick disclaimer-- I am aware this entire test was a fraud anyway since native americans don't permit their dna to be in these databases so they can't actually have confirmed what they say they did)

this graphic sums it up pretty well.








I think the Electoral College was perhaps real at one time, but was buried in the mud flood.


----------



## NigeWz (Apr 15, 2021)

msw141 said:


> I think it just gets diluted.  like when that Elizabeth Warren story about her taking. a DNA test to "prove" she was of Native American heritage, they framed it as her great great great great grandmother was native american, which in passing sounds pretty direct, like you could envision that this was a straight line in her family tree almost like she could find some heirloom in her attic from this person.  but some people visualized the reality of that result and it is so far removed from her that you'd question if there's any tangible family connection that still links these two people together.  when you think "great great great great grandmother" you think that refers to one or two persons from your mother and father's side of the family, but it's like that is just one of 480 that you have, it's something we don't often think about.  (quick disclaimer-- I am aware this entire test was a fraud anyway since native americans don't permit their dna to be in these databases so they can't actually have confirmed what they say they did)
> 
> this graphic sums it up pretty well.
> 
> ...



From memory, Warren was claiming that she had Native ancestry. That's more of a generalisation I think. I'm talking about a specific group of men who were (allegedly) responsible for founding America. I think I'd want to be certain of my heritage if I were related to one of those men.


----------



## msw141 (Apr 15, 2021)

NigeWz said:


> I'm talking about a specific group of men who were (allegedly) responsible for founding America. I think I'd want to be certain of my heritage if I were related to one of those men.



these people do exist as seen in this article, I think for the most part they are inconsequential.  my point above is that I don't think these are the only descendants, I think that when you are this many generations removed, you are but one of hundreds or even thousands of people that could claim the same level of connection to the founding father.  but there's probably only a small number of people that try to make that tenuous connection seem more substantial than it really is.  like Warren, she made a big stink about her identity despite holding less dna of that group than the normal person you pass by on the street.


----------



## NigeWz (Apr 15, 2021)

msw141 said:


> NigeWz said:
> 
> 
> > I'm talking about a specific group of men who were (allegedly) responsible for founding America. I think I'd want to be certain of my heritage if I were related to one of those men.
> ...


Yeah, but here we're only going back 5 or 6 generations. Let's just say that something doesn't sit right with my BS-meter, lol.


----------



## msw141 (Apr 15, 2021)

I'd trust that instinct.  You'll uncover it.


----------



## NigeWz (Apr 15, 2021)

msw141 said:


> I'd trust that instinct.  You'll uncover it.


Yeah, well there's evidence to show that King George (of England) was actually George Washington


----------



## Truth Lover (Apr 16, 2021)

*My relative President George Washington: possible royalty clues?

I am not an expert in this King/George/Washington intel, but 40 years ago my father got mail from his stepmother saying that HE  "should get the letter, that it was rightfully" his, from George Washington - that starts off with "My Dear Cousin, ... "

It was written to my dad's grandmother. We think her mother was a sister of George Washington's mother because both of their last names was Ball, and their children were cousins.

According to Wiki ped ia, (wow, **suddenly**, uncannily, sounding like wick ed pda,) George didn't smile due to his teeth being wooden / false, (embarrassing, sore, ugly?) due to chewing on nuts with shells on them ruining his teeth. (Is that odd?)  

I never met him or saw a picture with his mouth opened at all, but all my life I've thought his portraits look like someone who is very worried, because he knows something but is not allowed to say anything. It's in his eyes too, along with tiredness.  

Per chance, most of the photos of other "royalty" reveal a very similar worried, non-delightful, tired, closed mouth look. Queen Victoria is a perfect example of this, along with all of her children. She looked dreadful at her wedding. They say she was very in love with her nice husband. But couldn't she have smiled at least once? Couldn't she have shown some happiness or gratitude for getting to be a Queen?? And then, later in life, she looked more tired than ever.

Also I've been concerned that Washington is not a last name from any country origionally. I don't know where he got it from. I have even thought that maybe it was made up.

And of course George had no children that we know of. I wonder, do cousins and nieces and nephews count?  

They certainly do with European royalty that have no descendants. Look at the fantastic deal Queen Elizabeth got for all these many decades because her uncle had no children. And note that although Elizabeth does not seem to enjoy children, she made sure she had 4 of them, and grandchildren too, **presumably** to keep all the loot in the family. She even married family, her kissin-Cousin Phillip (**recently** deceased, or last fall and announced now as:  "died at 99 on the 9th.")

Here in the USA we don't know how to claim our family titles like they do in Great Britain. Those people are motivated because they might get cost of living allowances up into the millions based on their near and far ancestors, and/or get castles and a bit of respect and such.

Many times **the whole inheritance goes** to just one child. It may then be their choice as to whether they share some of it or not. 

I always wondered how an early American like George Washington had so much land and such a nice house. I know my great-great grandfather on my mother's side, and his brother were deeded a thousand or more acres of land in New England, by European royalty. Then they had to build the houses and farms.

It is said that George got his from his half-brother, who had inherited it from their father not long before. If the father had ever lived in America or not, I don't know. And who got it all after George? So much still to find out. 

I read, this week, that the current queen gave her mother, who **used** to be queen, an increasingly large spending account every year. (And even so, her mother was 7 million dollars in debt when she passed away. They said Elizabeth paid off the debt and inherited houses and jewelry worth more than 20 million. Nice for her. She often smiles in photos and portraits.) (But her younger sister did usually look, in photos, depressed, as if she felt left out.)

A friend of mine's father grew up on England's Isle of Man, in the main castle. The owners who inherited it, had two sons. My friend's father was the younger one. In due time the older son inherited the castle. Younger son got nothing. And that's that.

Before long the older son's money got used up. With no parents to get money from, he had many troubles concerning the upkeep of his castle. 

The younger son went to America, invented some flaps for airplanes, and procured a generous upper-class lifestyle. He could easily have helped his brother with the castle, but did not. He was still mad that his brother got the inheritance/castle in the first place (as is customary in **Great** Briton) but did not share.

Sounds like an Aesop's Fable lesson in there somewhere. Better to share inheritances equally? But that breaks up the inheritance into pieces. In the USA, in our generation, many an inherited farm or nice house has had to be sold and forsaken by all family members for just such thinking. 

If King George left Europe, or just came part-time to America, as General Washington, or even full time as President, I don't know. I would love to know, seeing as my sons and daughters could possibly enjoy royalty by default, even though we were taught that George said he didn't want to be a King, he just wanted to be a President, that's all. Actually, I remember reading that he really wanted to get back to his gardening, sounding a bit like a retiree wanna-be, or even a very tired royalty.

You probably heard about that young home schooled girl's chart, that shows that all of our Presidents, except one or two, are related to royalty in Great Britain. 

OMG, now that I think of it, my dad's father was born in London! It was HIS mother that George wrote to. Wow, she may never have even lived in America. I never even thought that George's cousin was in ENGLAND.  I should find out if they had titles.

If you're like me, I never met my father's dad, and my parents and other grandparents hardly ever talked to us. Children were to be seen and not heard. I think I should have been told that my dad's father was an Englishman.

Oh well, and like other truth **lovers**, I am finally putting 2 and 2 together. I don't know as much as I want to yet, especially about Cousin King (?) George Washington.
Now that he has been identified as English, does anyone have ANY leads as to his actually being a King?? *


----------



## NigeWz (Apr 16, 2021)

Truth Lover said:


> *My relative President George Washington: possible royalty clues?
> 
> I am not an expert in this King/George/Washington intel, but 40 years ago my father got mail from his stepmother saying that HE  "should get the letter, that it was rightfully" his, from George Washington - that starts off with "My Dear Cousin, ... "
> 
> ...


Great comment. Thank you. King George III was known as 'The mad King who lost America'. I also heard the story of him having 'wooden teeth' (which is complete BS in my opinion). I'm trying to find more information, but it's said that he didn't go mad at all, and was never put into a nut-house, but instead he went to America and became George Washington. This could account for the English connection you mentioned. However, in my original post, I was not including cousins. A 6-generation descendant of one of the founding fathers (if they were even real to begin with), would be far more 'important' today than say, a 6-generation descendant of one of their cousins (if you get my meaning).
I know people in China who have traced their ancestry back some 20 generations, yet it doesn't seem to be possible in many Western countries. That, alone, should be a big red flag, lol.


----------



## NigeWz (Apr 16, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> NigeWz said:
> 
> 
> > Guys, I'll keep this one short, because it's basically just a question.
> ...


What I mean by 'taking advantage of', is, quite simply, by using their lineage in some way in order to profit from it.


----------



## NigeWz (Apr 16, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> I understand what you mean. But are you saying someone didn't exist because descendants aren't making off of the work done by their ancestor? Sounds like flimsy reasoning.


Kind of, but in a round-about way. I mean, if your great, great, great grandfather was a founding father, wouldn't you have tried to use it to your advantage at least at SOME point in your life? When I look at 'his-story' as a whole, I'm beginning to wonder if ANY of it is 'real' anymore.


----------



## Truth Lover (Apr 16, 2021)

NigeWz said:


> Truth Lover said:
> 
> 
> > *My relative President George Washington: possible royalty clues?
> ...





NigeWz said:


> Truth Lover said:
> 
> 
> > *My relative President George Washington: possible royalty clues?
> ...



 Thank you
 I am new here and did my best. I can see now that it's easy to bring in a lot of factors. Some are not as pertinent as others.  

I was told that there are five founding fathers in my lineage. (Think how many great great great grandparents we have,  and in early America there were way fewer people and the descendants of the families married each other.)  I used to be a member of DAR  (Daughters of the American Revolution,) due to my grandmother signing me up.  

I was trying to say that a lot of family history was not passed down, but some people would have tried harder if they knew annual incomes could be tied to the information.  Thus my examples of the English queen getting "hooked up," the Isle of Man brother being left out and leaving the country, and American families who could have been entitled to allowances possibly in a different culture   phew.  I see they have a bullet format here -  I might use it next time 


NigeWz said:


> Truth Lover said:
> 
> 
> > *My relative President George Washington: possible royalty clues?
> ...



 I have no idea why this Page has made some of my words and phrases much larger than the rest of them! LOL


----------



## Will Scarlet (Apr 16, 2021)

NigeWz said:


> If the 'founding fathers' were 'real', why are NONE of their descendants taking advantage of their lineage TODAY?



Those who claim ancestry from the founding fathers are now very much part of the American elite. I hate to link to Wikipedia but:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Brahmin
https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/brief-history-boston-brahmin/
(The obvious Indian connection ties into this old KD thread

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/f...ancisco-upon-the-union-pacific-railroad.1482/


----------



## cmgtech2525 (Apr 16, 2021)

NigeWz said:


> Guys, I'll keep this one short, because it's basically just a question.
> My grandmother was born in 1902, and she gave birth to my father in 1935, So let's go back just a few more generations and see what we get.
> So, let's assume that my grandmother's mother was around the same age when she gave birth. That would put her birth year somewhere around 1870
> Back to her mother, and we'd be around 1840. So that's only 4 generations.
> ...


I dated for a few years the 8th presidents great great grand daughter.   She did have some wealth. But nothing like 100mil.  She lived in the city and had a house at the beach.  Nothing to crazy and did not like the fact I would bring up she was related she and her mother would get pissed.   Her kids didn’t care but I remember them actually went to a statue unveiling at kinderhook for the dead president.   I think they said they were related to the first gov of New York as well.    I wish I was awake back then I would have found out something.   We ended in bad terms and she is married now.   So there that.   But yeah. It’s only a few generations back.


----------



## dakotamoon (Apr 16, 2021)

You ask why the descendants of the Founders - aren't taking advantage of their lineage?

Our Constitution is for "THE PEOPLE" -- (Capitonym on purpose) not for "the people" . you and I American Citizens are the people. 

Private Citizens who you won't find listed in any registry anywhere are THE PEOPLE, the progeny of this Country .. whom do you think the Elite are?


----------



## NigeWz (Apr 17, 2021)

cmgtech2525 said:


> NigeWz said:
> 
> 
> > Guys, I'll keep this one short, because it's basically just a question.
> ...


Thanks for that comment. Somehow I can understand why people related to certain presidents would not want it to be know, but I guess we're really talking about descendants of the Founding Fathers as opposed to presidents. For example, I would suggest that long into the future, no-one would want to be associated with Pretendident Biden.


dakotamoon said:


> You ask why the descendants of the Founders - aren't taking advantage of their lineage?
> 
> Our Constitution is for "THE PEOPLE" -- (Capitonym on purpose) not for "the people" . you and I American Citizens are the people.
> 
> Private Citizens who you won't find listed in any registry anywhere are THE PEOPLE, the progeny of this Country .. whom do you think the Elite are?


I KNOW EXACTLY who the so-called 'elite' are, (I prefer the word 'scum'), but that's going to have to wait for another post.


----------



## dakotamoon (Apr 17, 2021)

dakotamoon said:


> You ask why the descendants of the Founders - aren't taking advantage of their lineage?
> 
> Our Constitution is for "THE PEOPLE" -- (Capitonym on purpose) not for "the people" . you and I American Citizens are the people.
> 
> Private Citizens who you won't find listed in any registry anywhere are THE PEOPLE, the progeny of this Country .. whom do you think the Elite are?



For the facts on who or whom the Constitution was written for:  www.strawmanstory.info   There you can download Clint's epic tome on this topic for free - 700 page book.   Or visit my website:  Corporation Nation Radio Archives!!   Clint Richardson appeared on Republicbroadcasting for over 700 shows.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Apr 18, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> that is perhaps why the descendants of the Founding Fathers aren't doing it.



Or maybe aren't doing it overtly now and in quite the same way - who can say with any certainty?


----------



## NigeWz (Apr 18, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Slavery right now is a needlessly sensitive topic and a number of Founding Father owned slaves.
> 
> Here's my question: Are you comfortable gaining money from another person's work? If not then that is perhaps why the descendants of the Founding Fathers aren't doing it.


Yes, but not everyone thinks like we do. Do you not think that the great grandson of Thomas Edison might use his ancestry in order to promote his electrical business? Please don't take my original question out of context. We KNOW that his-story is nothing but a lie agreed upon.


mega1000 said:


> Slavery right now is a needlessly sensitive topic and a number of Founding Father owned slaves.
> 
> Here's my question: Are you comfortable gaining money from another person's work? If not then that is perhaps why the descendants of the Founding Fathers aren't doing it.


Yes, but not everyone thinks like we do. Do you not think that the great grandson of Thomas Edison might use his ancestry in order to promote his electrical business? Please don't take my original question out of context. We KNOW that his-story is nothing but a lie agreed upon.


----------

