Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Prince George of Cambridge: is a Jew destined to ascend the Throne?

While the media obsess about the duration of Kate’s labour pains, her breast-feeding plans, her post-baby weight loss regime and the order of the bath/shower at Bucklebury, there is something about His Royal Highness The Prince George of Cambridge which merits rather more attention than all this tedious tabloid trivia.

There was some intriguing correspondence last month in The Times (15 June 2013) concerning the family tree of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Former BBC court correspondent Michael Cole suggested that her genealogy evidences a very significant strand of DNA which places this new third-in-line to the British Throne in direct succession not only to William the Conqueror, but also to the Throne of Israel and the Sceptre of Judah.

It was a strange letter for The Times to print, but the reasoning went thus:

Catherine’s mother is Carol Middleton (née Goldsmith), who is the daughter of Ronald Goldsmith and Dorothy Harrison. According to Mr Cole, both of these were Jews. The parents of Dorothy Harrison were Thomas Harrison and Elizabeth Temple, both of whom were also, according to Mr Cole, Jews.

Elizabeth Temple was the daughter of Thomas Temple and Elizabeth Myers, who was the daughter of Joseph Myers, who was the son of another Joseph Myers. This was apparently a well-known 19th-century name in English Jewry meaning ‘son of Mayer’. In fact it is a patronymic surname of Jewish Ashkenazic origin, derived from the Hebrew ‘Meyer’, which is etymologically linked to ‘Meir’ (as in Golda).

All of this means that Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, is a Jew on her matriarchal side. Ergo, Prince George of Cambridge is a Jew according to Jewish religious custom and law.

Contra this is the expert opinion of Doreen Berger, the chairwoman of the Jewish Genealogy Society, who is ‘100 per cent sure’ that Catherine is not kosher; that these generations of Goldsmiths and Myers were not Jews at all. Not only are these surnames shared by Jew and Gentiles alike, but, according to Ms Berger, the Goldsmiths and Myers were ‘not from Jewish areas’. The Jewish Chronicle authoritatively informs us: ‘Ms Berger said her research was definitive but she acknowledged that it would not prevent people clinging to the idea that Prince William had married an authentically Jewish princess.’

It is odd that Ms Berger suddenly inflates Michael Cole’s claim of Semitic blood lineage to the spurious appropriation of a royal title: ‘Jewish princess’ appears to have come out of nowhere. That aside, Ms Berger’s 100-per-cent certainty is undoubtedly bolstered by the undeniable fact that Ronald Goldsmith and Dorothy Harrison were married in 1953 at Holy Trinity Church in Southall; and that Thomas Harrison and Elizabeth Temple were married in 1934 at Ludhoe Parish Church in Co Durham; and that Thomas Temple and Elizabeth Myers were married in 1894 at Tudhoe Parish Church in Co Durham; and that Joseph Myers and his father the other Joseph Myers seem to be farm labourers from Tudhoe in Co Durham, who were probably also married in their local parish churches, but His Grace really can’t be bothered to find out.

Of course, like many of that era, the family might have converted to the Church of England for social reasons. Yet such pressures were usually restricted to the middle and upper classes: Joseph Myers was a farm labourer, and they tended to accept their God-given lot and weren’t overly concerned with climbing the social ladder. Of course, they may never have been religiously-observant Jews at all.

On the face of it, the weight of evidence inclines toward Ms Berger, who is, as we know, ‘100 per cent sure’ about her 'definitive' research. And what on earth does a former BBC court correspondent know about genealogy anyway?

So what possessed the Editor of The Times to print such unadulterated tosh?

If a Jew were to inherit the Throne of the United Kingdom, a son or daughter of Abraham would once again rest upon the Coronation Stone – also known as the Stone of Scone, the Stone of Destiny or Stone of Jacob.

There are a number of mythical beliefs and cultural legends surrounding this block of sandstone: some believe it to be the very one mentioned in Genesis (28:10-22), upon which Jacob rested his weary head and received a vision from God that his descendants would inherit the land around him, and that through them all nations of the earth would be blessed. He used it as a pillow (it is also known as Jacob’s Pillow), and then established it as a monument at Bet-El (the ‘House of God’: it is also rather confusingly known as Jacob’s Pillar).

The stone was situated in the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey from 1308 until John Major gifted it back to Scotland in 1996 as a sop to the Nationalists. It was certainly used for the coronations of Scottish kings throughout the Middle Ages, and by the kings of Ireland before that.

Without knowing the personal religious beliefs of the Letters Editor at The Times, it is difficult to know why he considered Mr Cole's letter worth printing. But there are certainly some Christian groups who believe not only that Prince George of Cambridge is Jewish, but that the entire Royal Family is descended from ancient Israelites, and that the British Throne is the de facto throne of King David.

British Israelism (or Anglo-Israelism) is predicated on the belief that the indigenous people of Western Europe are direct descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, who were ‘cleansed’ from their land in 721BC (don’t knock it: even the BBC reports Israeli immigration in these terms).

They moved through Assyria and Parthia, and in the early centuries AD settled in what is now Western Europe. The Ten Tribes British-Israel theory used to be a foundational doctrine of Herbert W Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God, and it remains the belief of its offshoots the Philadelphia Church of God, the United Church of God, and the Living Church of God. The theological and historical reasoning may be read HERE.

That articles says: ‘The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by evidence from modern genetic, linguistic, archaeological and philological research.’

As with Ms Berger, Wikipedia sounds ‘100 per cent sure’ and 'definitive' (adducing no footnotes of authoritative refutation at all) that the Royal Family is not descended from the line of King David.

And yet..

Professor Stephen Oppenhiemer in the Department of Anthropology at Oxford University wrote a book in 2006 entitled The Origins of the British, in which he argued that neither Anglo-Saxons nor Celts had much impact on the genetics of the inhabitants of the British Isles, and that British ancestry mainly traces back to the Palaeolithic Iberian people, now represented best by Basques. Professor Oppenheimer knows a thing or two about genetic, anthropological, linguistic and archaeological research.

He repudiates the accounts of Gildas (6th century AD) and Bede (7th century) that tell of Saxons and Angles invading over the 5th and 6th centuries: ‘Gildas, in particular, sprinkles his tale with “rivers of blood” descriptions of Saxon massacres. And then there is the well-documented history of Anglian and Saxon kingdoms covering England for 500 years before the Norman invasion.’ For Oppenheimer, there is no truth in the myth that the English are almost all descended from 5th-century invaders, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, from the Danish peninsula, who wiped out the indigenous Celtic population of England.

He is of the view that the English derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots: ‘There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix.’ He writes:
Many archaeologists still hold this view of a grand iron-age Celtic culture in the centre of the continent, which shrank to a western rump after Roman times. It is also the basis of a strong sense of ethnic identity that millions of members of the so-called Celtic diaspora hold. But there is absolutely no evidence, linguistic, archaeological or genetic, that identifies the Hallstatt or La Tène regions or cultures as Celtic homelands. The notion derives from a mistake made by the historian Herodotus 2,500 years ago when, in a passing remark about the “Keltoi,” he placed them at the source of the Danube, which he thought was near the Pyrenees. Everything else about his description located the Keltoi in the region of Iberia.
The Professor’s genetic analysis links maternally-transmitted mitochondrial DNA found in Italy, France, Spain with that found in Cornwall, Wales, Ireland and the English south coast:
Further evidence for the Mediterranean origins of Celtic invaders is preserved in medieval Gaelic literature. According to the orthodox academic view of “iron-age Celtic invasions” from central Europe, Celtic cultural history should start in the British Isles no earlier than 300 BC. Yet Irish legend tells us that all six of the cycles of invasion came from the Mediterranean via Spain, during the late Neolithic to bronze age, and were completed 3,700 years ago.
He finds greater genetic similarities between the southern English and Belgians than the Anglo-Saxon homelands at the base of the Danish peninsula: ‘The most likely reason for the genetic similarities between these neighbouring countries and England is that they all had similar prehistoric settlement histories.’
When I examined dates of intrusive male gene lines to look for those coming in from northwest Europe during the past 3,000 years, there was a similarly low rate of immigration, by far the majority arriving in the Neolithic period. The English maternal genetic record (mtDNA) is consistent with this and contradicts the Anglo-Saxon wipeout story. English females almost completely lack the characteristic Saxon mtDNA marker type still found in the homeland of the Angles and Saxons. The conclusion is that there was an Anglo-Saxon invasion, but of a minority elite type, with no evidence of subsequent “sexual apartheid.”
So, based on the overall genetic perspective of the British, it seems that Celts, Belgians, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings and Normans were all immigrant minorities compared with the Basque pioneers, who first ventured into the empty, chilly lands so recently vacated by the great ice sheets.

How does that correspond with historical analysis of the migration of Lost Tribes of Israel?

Of course it is not possible to be certain or sure: these are largely matters of faith or conjecture upon which His Grace is entirely agnostic. But it does seem rather maladroit of the genealogical expert Ms Berger to assert rather feverishly that she is ‘100 per cent sure’ of her 'definitive' research that the Duchess of Cambridge is not of Jewish descent, when we all may be.


Blogger Martin said...

As to why the Times should print such. They are, of course, of the same stable as the Sun.

Just be grateful their page 3 does not follow their stable mate.

24 July 2013 at 18:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Could be worse you know ! Kate could have been a taig woman. A popish thing. A Catholic !!!

24 July 2013 at 18:53  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace how wonderful, if the young Prince could confer some of the blessing of the Jewish race we would all benefit.

"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." Genesis 12 : 3

24 July 2013 at 19:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The current Inspector General’s lineage can be traced right back to a single tree...

24 July 2013 at 19:18  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Whatever Mrs Berger may say, Goldsmith and Meyer sound very Jewish to me. Bravo for Kate !

24 July 2013 at 19:30  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

>>So what possessed the Editor of The Times to print such unadulterated tosh?<<
Journalism! Now no doubt a mohel watch will be next.

24 July 2013 at 19:38  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Some genetic diseases are much more common in Jews than in the British so it’s unlikely that the British are of Jewish descent. Michael Cole used to work for Mohamed Al-Fayed; Cole’s letter could be another round in Al-Fayed’s vendetta against the Royal Family.

24 July 2013 at 19:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

New World Order etc etc! :O

24 July 2013 at 20:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "The current Inspector General’s lineage can be traced right back to a single tree..."

It's a pity they only made two short planks out of it in the end. :(

24 July 2013 at 20:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, droll.

How’s yer bum in this heat ?

24 July 2013 at 20:31  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, your communicant wonders if there are any Jewish dogs from whom he may descend. One doesn't like to feel left out.

24 July 2013 at 21:08  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! Inspector, that really is quite rude! Poor Danjo... Just rejoice we have a fine prince named after our country's patron saint too...wonderful.

24 July 2013 at 21:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Quite Mrs Proudie. The Inspector meant to say “how’s you FLAT in the heat”, of course...

24 July 2013 at 21:23  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

A mate of mine specialises in dark age archaeology, and he is firmly of the opinion, and I have no specific reason to doubt him, that the whole Celtic nationhood stuff is much of a myth. Genetically, there is very little difference between the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish, because the Anglo Saxons, rather than coming over in vast numbers and displacing the Romano- British population, came over in fairly small numbers and interbred with it.

Whether they did or did not, is there any particular reason to give a toss about it? We are now what we are.

The English/British aristocracy is only datable to 1066 because from that point onwards the noble House of Cerdic was snuffed out. Go back far enough along anyone's family tree, even the new Prince George's, and you will find people much like everyone else - in his case Norman military leaders who believed they had a better claim to rule England than the Godwinsons.

Is the new Prince George jewish? I don't know. I don't particularly care. Any claim of royalty or nobility is only one generation removed from a group of wandering barbarians who took status by the sword in post-Roman Europe.

Good luck to the little blighter.

24 July 2013 at 22:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Leave aside the Coronation myths. Isn't the proper response "Why does this matter?" So she might have Jewish ancestry. So what? This should be an interesting substory which no one should any great interest in disproving. It is neither scandal nor non-scandal. It simply is.


24 July 2013 at 22:34  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Amen, Carl.

Is not America founded on the rejection of the principle that hereditary bloodlines do not govern the future potential of any person?

24 July 2013 at 22:38  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Darter Noster

Well, we must remember that there are always limits. I mean ... what if she was secretly Canadian?

carl :D

24 July 2013 at 22:52  
Blogger Darter Noster said...


Lol :o)

Though of all the Commonwealth Realms the Canadians seem to be amongst the most monarchist (unlike Australia where it's hanging by a thread).

Though of course that might be just to piss off the Quebecquois :oD

24 July 2013 at 22:56  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Ah, my parents still remeber Emipre Day :o)

24 July 2013 at 23:07  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

This is news to His Grace:

"Queen Victoria, convinced that the British royal family was descended from King David, had all her male offspring circumcised. The tradition continued through Edward VII, the Duke of Windsor and Prince Charles, who was circumcised by Rabbi Jacob Snowman at Buckingham Palace in 1948. His brothers Andrew and Edward were also circumcised."

24 July 2013 at 23:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well, Eminence, the same happened to lads born in England in the 1950s. As a result, this man is able to say he has been spared penile cancer...

24 July 2013 at 23:13  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Well, it's no surprise the Royal Family wants to think they're descended from David. Gives them a claim to divine providence.

None of them has any claim except that which they gained by force of arms after the fall of the Roman Empire or later, so their pretensions don't really signify do they?

24 July 2013 at 23:15  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

There’s a story that the Queen wanted Princes William and Harry to be circumcised but their mother refused, nipping the tradition in the bud.

24 July 2013 at 23:24  
Blogger Ivan said...

It may well be that almost everyone is Jewish. Jewishness, similar to being black, seems to derive from the one drop rule. That coupled with genetic matrilineal descent and periodic bouts of proselytising, should ensure that the Banu Israel is the largest there is in the world.

24 July 2013 at 23:41  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

The answer to the question is, for me as any rate, "who cares?"

There are nuts out there who think that the Royal family, Jews and others are really shape shifting reptiles from Alpha Draconis...

Secondly, given that the Duke and Duchess (and as this articles notes, the Duchess's mum and mum' mum) were wed according to Anglican religious rites and legality, I see no problem here, from the legal supreme gov bit.

Of Jewish linage perhaps, but not Jewish in terms of religion or practice.

There is a difference.

24 July 2013 at 23:57  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Ivan,

There are apparently no more than 12,000,000 people who are a world of 6,000,000,000 people or less than 1% of global population.

Jewish Orthodoxy says you are Jewish if your mother was Jewish or if you are a convert to Judaism. Although of course, if you broaden this out to all branches of Judaism, e.g. Reform Jews go by either parent, there is no firm agreement as to what makes a person Jewish... such is the wonderful nature of a ethno-religious fusion.

My bro's second wife is a Celtic Welsh girl, who converted to Judaism. Ergo her DNA is more King Arthur than King David, but she is still Jewish...

25 July 2013 at 00:04  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Johnny,

Yes, I know the genetic diseases are awful... I note our oily skin and our big noses, which are the size of the Giant's Causeway are such a giveaway!

25 July 2013 at 00:11  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Darter,

Without wanting the wrath the entire Cyber Swiss guard, I did chuckle in Ernesty sized gwarfs at this :

"Gives them a claim to divine providence.None of them has any claim except that which they gained by force of arms after the fall of the Roman Empire or later, so their pretensions don't really signify do they?"

You know, that is EXACTLY how Carl, Len and Ernsty would would view your Popes... But of course they are wrong and you are right.

Because.... because ...

25 July 2013 at 00:15  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Hannah Kavanagh (00:11)—Breast cancer and Tay-Sachs.

25 July 2013 at 00:18  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Johnny,

Just as well, my sister said your avatar made you look a bit dishy apparently...

25 July 2013 at 00:31  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 July 2013 at 00:35  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

PS, I'm happy to say that I don't have Tay Sachs (as I'd be dead by now) and I don't have breast cancer either (I do check my boobs frequently, though, as every woman should).

Interestingly Tay Sachs also affects Irish Americans and the French (Catholic) Quebecans and the Cajun.

Of course as Wiki notes :

'Jewish immigration to the United States peaked in the period 1880–1924, with the immigrants arriving from Russia and countries in Eastern Europe; this was also a period of nativism (hostility to immigrants) in the United States. Opponents of immigration often questioned whether immigrants from southern and eastern Europe could be assimilated into American society. Reports of Tay–Sachs disease contributed to a perception among nativists that Jews were an inferior race. Reuter writes "that Jewish immigrants continued to display their nervous tendencies in America where they were free from persecution was seen as proof of their biological inferiority and raised concerns about the degree to which they were being permitted free entry into the US."'

Which is clearly not the viewpoint you are hinting at here, is it Johnny?

25 July 2013 at 00:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The answer to the question posed is : Who gives a dam? I couldn't care less, quite frankly. And of course we all know Jesus is Jewish on his mother's side and English on his father's...

25 July 2013 at 01:14  
Blogger raggedclown said...

Thanks to science, we now know that the whole concept of "race" is bogus. It was invented to justify foreign conquest and slavery. And of course religion had to add its own twisted perversion, "the chosen race." Even the self-styled son of God believed in this nonsense, comparing gentiles to dogs only fit to eat the crumbs from Jewish tables. No wonder the "religion of love", to give it its Orwellian name, has been the bloodiest ideology in human history.

25 July 2013 at 03:02  
Blogger Naomi King said...

If Prince George's jewish ancestry confers on him some of the intellectual and artistic gifts that go with the race the Windsor family (aka Mountbatten, aka Battenburg) will be greatly enhanced. Charles and Diana barely has two O levels to rub together. Everything about Kate suggests her bloodline is a welcome improvement.

25 July 2013 at 04:23  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Interesting information about the royal tradition of circumcision Your Grace, this would explain the fashion for the practice during the 1950's I would expect.

25 July 2013 at 04:30  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The Middletons are of Huguenot ancestry with a long line of English Dissent.
There is a tribe in Burma that claim to be one of the lost Tribes of Israel.
George is a nice name.
One of my favorite movies is about George the III.

Georgie Porgie, Puddin' and Pie,
Kissed the girls and made them cry,
When the boys came out to play
Georgie Porgie ran away

25 July 2013 at 04:39  
Blogger Ivan said...

Hannah, your criteria is one that I thought was the sole one until a few years ago. Mine is in keeping with the spirit of the article.

25 July 2013 at 05:29  
Blogger Darter Noster said...


The Papacy is not hereditary. I don't object to monarchy as an ofifice, only the fawning tendency to treat the families who happen to hold it as if they are some sort of separate and superior species of humanity. A monarchy is a political office just like a presidency, held either by the consent of the people or by force of arms - it's just that no one was playing 'Hail to the Chief' around Obama's crib.

Royals are people just like anyone else - I should know, I was at school with a couple of 'em (not British ones though, I didn't go to Eton).

25 July 2013 at 08:23  
Blogger David B said...

Another resounding 'If so, so what?' from me too, regarding royal Jewish ancestry, or anyone else's including my own.

Of rather more interest to me regarding a future potential Head of State is the question of whether he will use such influence as he has to promote quackery and general crackpottery.

I remain the opinion that, to avoid the Bliar's of this world ever becoming Head of State, the Crown should retain the position.

I just don't see that anyone has to wear it.


25 July 2013 at 08:26  
Blogger David B said...

Looking down the thread, I see that Inspector has something in common with....was it Randolph Churchill?

That is to say, he had the only non-malignant part of him removed.


25 July 2013 at 08:32  
Blogger Richard Bartholomew said...

Where did you find that crank map? "Barkochba rebels of Judah to America post 164AD"?

25 July 2013 at 08:40  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Is a Jew destined to ascend the throne? Already happened, see Psalm 2, Ephesians 1 etc.

Whether there will be a throne for little George in this poxy little EU province/satrap of the renewed Caliphate in 60 years is another matter. Aprez Lizzie, the deluge.

President Tatchell anyone?

25 July 2013 at 08:50  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The Book of Mormom?

25 July 2013 at 08:54  
Blogger Naomi King said...

…Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. Romans 9 : 4 -5

25 July 2013 at 09:05  
Blogger Martin said...

Of course if you go back far enough we are all descended from Noah and through him Adam.

The Bible teaches us that we are all one race, all one blood.

25 July 2013 at 09:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Queen Victoria, convinced that the British royal family was descended from King David, had all her male offspring circumcised. The tradition continued through Edward VII, the Duke of Windsor and Prince Charles, who was circumcised by Rabbi Jacob Snowman at Buckingham Palace in 1948. His brothers Andrew and Edward were also circumcised."

Bad idea according to St Paul (Galatians 5).

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is required to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

25 July 2013 at 09:46  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

I have been involved in personal family history research for a good number of years, and also belong to a number of Family History Societies. One thing that I have learnt over the years is that you can never be 100% sure of anything in genealogy. So many people in the past changed "facts" to suit themselves, usually minor details such as pretending to be older in order to get married, but sometimes, before formal adoption, passing an illegitimate child to another member of the family who pretended it was their child. My own father always insisted that my grandfather was born in Wales, but the 1911 census showed that he came from Switzerland!
One thing I am sure of is that if someone says that they are 100% sure about a family tree, they are totally mistaken and I would be disinclined to believe any of their research.

25 July 2013 at 10:27  
Blogger Michael said...

Most boys were circumcised post WWII for reasons of hygiene rather than religion. The practice only abated from the mid eighties onwards. So settle down Jay.

25 July 2013 at 10:35  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Hannah (00:31)—All credit goes to Donatello and his David, my favourite statue.

@ Hannah (00:43)—I hint at nothing. I merely observe that if the British had Jewish DNA they would enjoy similar levels of inherited disease to Jewish populations. Glad to know you’re in the rudest of rude.

@ Naomi King (04:30)—Circumcision became de rigueur for all classes in Britain during the Victorian era but it fell out of favour after the First World War. The upper classes continued to practise it, though, and I had always assumed that was why the Royal Family circumcised its sons. Queen Victoria’s obsession with King David is news to me.

25 July 2013 at 10:43  
Blogger IanCad said...

Not necessarily Jewish, but as a future Supreme Governor of the Church of England then he will, at least, be Israel.

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
Galatians 3:27-29

25 July 2013 at 11:10  
Blogger Drastic Plastic said...

If the royal family are all Jewish, then they must be circumcised. The only real way for us to know for sure is to get Prince William to drop his trousers and, erm, show us the evidence! LOL.

I don't think it matters a damn either way.

25 July 2013 at 12:13  
Blogger Drastic Plastic said...

Just to be on the safe side, Prince Harry had better marry Yasser Arafat.

25 July 2013 at 12:13  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Darter,

Hooray then! G-d save the Queen!

25 July 2013 at 12:51  
Blogger BrianSJ said...

The lack of interest in 'the matter of Britain' reflects the continuing success of the Fabian agenda.
There is of course the Goldsmith connection on his father's side. Odd it wasn't mentioned.

25 July 2013 at 14:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Drastic: "The only real way for us to know for sure is to get Prince William to drop his trousers and, erm, show us the evidence!"

Actually, his crown jewels were photographed some time ago.

25 July 2013 at 17:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ragged Clown. Thanks to science, we now know that the whole concept of "race" is bogus.

Don’t thank science for that, thank socio political engineering.

And there’s more, they are now saying that the whole concept of “gender” is bogus…

Now shove off, you lefty creep…

25 July 2013 at 18:21  
Blogger Martin said...

One has to wonder why any Christian would think the concept of race anything other than bogus. We certainly don't need science for that.

25 July 2013 at 19:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Martin. Racial differences, that is, quantifiable inborn attitudes, are as real as your pink hairy behind. Of course, you might not realise your behind is pink and hairy, or even want to hear it is. So then it’s best to deny what might disturb...

25 July 2013 at 19:33  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


In other news "Is Prince George German?"

Buckingham Palace has responded by saying he is as British as Queen Victoria... heh.

I did see the Israeli newspapers picked up on this story as well and it seems that Michael Cole who suggeted all of this did so because the middletons has 'Jewish sounding surnames' & that they were Jewish because they 'were good at business' & because of some reports in the Iranian press. Readers might be interested in this article :

26 July 2013 at 10:15  
Blogger Manfarang said...

because they 'were good at business'
As were many other Protestant Dissenters.

26 July 2013 at 10:35  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


'As were many other Protestant Dissenters.'

Don't I know. You Goy are light years away from business acumen compared to us Yids. Which is why my business partners are Baptists (or Methodists? Well he's of the denomination that doesn't drink) and Anglo-Chinese...


26 July 2013 at 20:42  
Blogger SkintMum said...

Prince William looks exactly like James Goldsmith and Jemima Khan, as did Diana, so I think there is some Jewish blood in George Cambridge anyway.

Only a problem if you are stupid enough to believe in some kind of Jewish conspiracy. Which I don't. So meh.

28 July 2013 at 15:30  
Blogger Martin said...


So how do you get multiple races out of Noah & his 3 sons?

29 July 2013 at 12:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, you mean the great flood when the Atlantic broke through and formed the Med. Rather think you’ll find that although humanity in the area found that a bit of a pain, at no stage was it reduced to just one man and three sons...

29 July 2013 at 19:03  
Blogger Martin said...


No, I mean the Flood as described in the Bible (do you remember that book) which flooded the whole Earth and destroyed the world that had been. The Flood that resulted in sedimentary rock at the Summit of Everest and the vast majority of the mantling rock.

I mean the Flood that resulted in the destruction of all but eight persons, Noah and his family.

Now if you want to believe in the idiocy of long ages and Evolution it is up to you, but I'll stick with what God says rather than men's guesses.

29 July 2013 at 22:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Martin. The limestone that exists at the summit of Everest is explained by plate tectonics, when the Indian plate smashed its way into the Eurasian plate. It’s actually still happening, in case you didn’t know.

You must appreciate that much in the OT is allegory. What particular impresses is the story about the aforementioned flood of the Med. That story must have been handed down thousands of years before man could write in the form of nightly entertainment by the fireside. A good example of this passing of knowledge down the line by the fireside is what the Black and Tans did in Ireland long before television. This man’s own father heard some of that.

So, there you have it. do you believe in a book which contains allegory, or man’s attempt so far at science...

29 July 2013 at 23:03  
Blogger Martin said...

Yes, of course the limestone is explained by plate tectonics, because Everest was created after the Flood.

It is absolute nonsense to claim that 'much in the OT is allegory', there is no evidence to support that claim in the text. Genesis 1-3 is clearly historical narrative, a description of the events. Else there would be no first Adam to stand alongside Paul's second Adam, no reason for mankind needing salvation.

If you want to take the ideas of men, not much better than mumblings around the fireside, as you authority, fair enough. I'll take God's Word.

29 July 2013 at 23:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Martin. Yes, of course the limestone is explained by plate tectonics, because Everest was created after the Flood.

Brace yourself old chum. When the following was googled, “How old is Everest” the answer came up “50-70 millions of years. And it is continuing to grow taller”

Even at 50 million years, that predates humanity by around 48 million years. Now you can see why this man has problems with the OT.

30 July 2013 at 17:57  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

Let us hope that this lineage is of the fulfilled Jew.

6 August 2013 at 23:03  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older