(October 18, 2015 at 1:47 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:(October 18, 2015 at 1:42 pm)JBrentonK Wrote: Well....The most prominent Killingsworths were landowners in Northumberland. Not royalty, just had a bit of land. So why couldnt you have chosen a better lie like being a Plantaganet or Tudor rather than lousy nobody with a name you find posh.
I do know that Killingsworth is English royalty, because Killingsworth is royalty where ever you go. The name just sticks out like a rock in a hard place. It's evidently the name of the son of God. And yes, this proves there is a God too.
Yep, he's right. I only claim amateur genealogist status, but confirming that only takes a few searches. But even if he's Henry the 8th's long-lost distant grandson, (you know they think he had an illegitimate son, right?) it doesn't mean anything. Most western Europeans and Americans have some "royal" blood. For the American side, it's really easy to map out: the Colonies presented the opportunity of LAND . . . a chance to make money. Who needed land and extra income, and HAD the income to book passage on a ship? Minor nobles. A lot of the late-1600 -> 1760 British colonists were 4th or 5th sons of Earls, Dukes, etc.
I must admit that I get a little kick out of being the 24th Great-granddaughter of Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine and King Henry II of England. Plantagenet, a direct descendant of William the Conqueror on BOTH my Mother's and Father's side. But so what? This is common!!! Many of my other 'Muricans have much closer and richer ancestries than that.
And if J Bent Killmyself thinks that "royal blood" even means "decent human being" he needs to read more history books. LOL!! They were inbred SCUM.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
