[Ter]

Is Queen Elizabeth descended from the Prophet Muhammad?
Britain's Queen Elizabeth II, June 16, 2015. (AFP/BEN STANSALL)

New study revives old claims tracing the British monarch's lineage back 43 generations to the founder of Islam



Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the Church of England, but she might also be able to claim a role in Islam after a recent study asserted she is a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad.

A March report by the Moroccan newspaper Al-Ousboue traced her lineage back 43 generations to the founder of Islam, sparking widespread interest across the Middle East.

“It builds a bridge between our two religions and kingdoms,” Abdelhamid Al-Aouni said, according to The Daily Mail.

The claim is not new, and was originally published in 1986 by Burke’s Peerage, the noted guide to royal genealogy. The link was also reportedly verified by Ali Gomaa, the former grand mufti of Egypt, which would make Elizabeth a distant cousin of fellow monarchs King Abdullah II of Jordan and Mohammed VI of Morocco.


Britain’s Queen Elizabeth meets with Jordan’s King Abdullah, in Buckingham Palace London Tuesday November 15, 2011.(AP Photo/ Lewis Whyld/Pool)

According to the family tree, she is descendant from the Prophet’s daughter, Fatima.

According to the Economist, much of the purported link revolves around a Muslim princess called Zaida, who fled an attack on Seville in Muslim Spain in the 11th century and found refuge in the court of Alfonso VI of Castille.

There, “she changed her name to Isabella, converted to Christianity and bore Alfonso a son, Sancho, one of whose descendants later married the Earl of Cambridge,” the Economist said.

However, the report notes that Zaida’s own origins are not without debate.
“Some make her the daughter of Muatamid bin Abbad, a wine-drinking caliph descended from the Prophet. Others say she married into his family,” the report said.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/is-the-uk ... -mohammed/

Oy vey.
She does not look much like Mohammed but 43 generations can change a person.
And who knows what those royals have been up to.

[noir]

Sign of times. There was a time when the people of the British isles were so fascinated by the Hebrew Bible that they claimed to be descended of the lost tribes of the Israelites

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

[Heisenberg]

I'm pretty sure that if you go back 43 generations, your number of potential direct ancestors is in the trillions. This is not news. Most of us on here are probably "descended from Muhammad" too.

[Ter]

I'm pretty sure that if you go back 43 generations, your number of potential direct ancestors is in the trillions. This is not news. Most of us on here are probably "descended from Muhammad" too.

Talk for yourself, Heisenberg.
My ancestor is probably Mozes (did he have kids ? I am not up to date with my bible reading)

[noir]

I'm pretty sure that if you go back 43 generations, your number of potential direct ancestors is in the trillions. This is not news. Most of us on here are probably "descended from Muhammad" too.

It's news in s sense that Islam is slowly but surely appropriating Europe.

[Decky]

England hasn't had an English monarch since 1066 so it's hardly surprising.

[One Degree]

Genealogy is fun, but believing not one woman in 43 generations lied about who the father was is a bit too much.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

It wouldn't be about 43 generations of "who is the true father", since when the line is being traced through the mother (assumed to be reliable - actual baby switching is incredibly rare), it doesn't matter who the father is.

Plus women in royal families tended to be better guarded than average, so the chance of them getting a bit on the side was lower than average. Of course, it could work out the other way too - someone could be secretly a descendant, thanks to a bit of unofficial access from a male descendant to someone else's wife.

Anyway, if this is all true, it makes me a descendant of Mohammed too! I'm descended from Anne of York, sister of Edward IV and Richard III, and granddaughter of the 3rd Earl of Richmond, whose mother was Isabella, daughter of Pedro the Cruel. It probably goes for about half of Britain too; it's just that that is the one line of my family tree I can trace back that far.

[Heisenberg]

"Pedro the Cruel"

[Prosthetic Conscience]

"Pedro the Cruel"

I'm a bit disappointed he didn't have long mustaches to twirl, or a good goatee to stroke:


https://www.biography.com/people/peter-the-cruel-38384

[Albert]

Well you have to appease the Muslims.

[One Degree]

I can understand why he is called ‘Peter the Cruel’. Surely, no one expected a 15 year old king to act cruelly.

[Oxymandias]

@noir

Ah yes, Islam is appropriating Europe, 43 generations ago. What masterminds Muslims have been to control the genealogy of the British royal family!

[Paddy14]

England hasn't had an English monarch since 1066 so it's hardly surprising.

But weren't the Saxons who settled in the British Isles in the 5th century, and ruled until 1066 - really Germanic tribes? That's what we learnt in class. And there wasn't one country called England in pre-Roman times (43 AD) - was there? And it seems that the tribes who populated ancient Britain were not 'Celts', and the name 'England' came from the Old English 'Anglaland' which means land of the Angles, after one of the Germanic tribes who settled the larger part of the British Isles. But the southern parts were settled mainly by Saxons, so there really wasn't one country called England in those times. So I guess it can be said that England never had an 'English Monarch' ever.

At the end of the Iron Age (roughly the last 700 years BC), we get our first eye-witness accounts of Britain from Greco-Roman authors, not least Julius Caesar who invaded in 55 and 54 BC. These reveal a mosaic of named peoples (Trinovantes, Silures, Cornovii, Selgovae, etc), but there is little sign such groups had any sense of collective identity any more than the islanders of AD 1000 all considered themselves 'Britons'.

However, there is one thing that the Romans, modern archaeologists and the Iron Age islanders themselves would all agree on: they were not Celts. This was an invention of the 18th century; the name was not used earlier. The idea came from the discovery around 1700 that the non-English island tongues relate to that of the ancient continental Gauls, who really were called Celts. This ancient continental ethnic label was applied to the wider family of languages. But 'Celtic' was soon extended to describe insular monuments, art, culture and peoples, ancient and modern: island 'Celtic' identity was born, like Britishness, in the 18th century.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/peoples_01.shtml

[noir]

@noir

Ah yes, Islam is appropriating Europe, 43 generations ago. What masterminds Muslims have been to control the genealogy of the British royal family!

It’s all about creating a narrative, they see which way the wind is blowing and they want to shift into place beforehand so that the prevailing force. Ever since EU rapprochement with the Arab League (1973), these directives meant to absorb the Muslim immigrants by adapt or change the story of the host nation.

Eurabia writes about it extensively in the chapter "Andalusia Myth", but recently
Douglas Murray also refered to it.

The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam. By Douglas Murray. Bloomsbury; 343 pages; $26.00 and £18.99

Spoiler: show

When people realised that the newcomers were not going anywhere, there was also some native resistance to their presence, and any suggestion that the migrants should change their ways was inevitably tainted by association. If the immigrants were going to stay then they should be made to feel at home. To do so it was necessary to do a whole range of things. But it was easier to do the abstract things than the practical ones. Among the abstract things was a clear effort to adapt or change the story of the host nation. Sometimes this was simply a process of rewriting history or changing its emphases. On other occasions it seemed to involve an active denigration of it.
One such effort, as practised by President Wulff, involved talking up any and every aspect of non-European culture in order to raise it to a level at least of parity with Europe. So, for instance, the more Islamic terrorist attacks occurred the more the influence of the Islamic neo-Platonists was raised and the more the significance of Islamic science was stressed. In the decade after those attacks the rule of the Muslim Caliphate of Cordoba in Andalusia, southern Spain, between the eighth and eleventh centuries moved from historical obscurity to being the great exemplar of tolerance and multicultural coexistence. This itself required a careful new version of history, but the past was being conjured up to provide some hope in the present.
Such aspects of Islamic culture soon had to sustain an almost unbearable burden. An exhibition called ‘1001 Islamic Inventions’ toured London’s Science Museum among others, insisting that almost everything in Western civilisation had in fact originated in the Islamic world. Ahistorical though such claims were, they developed the aura of faith. People needed them to be true and ceased challenging all such claims. It became a matter not merely of politeness, but of necessity to stress and indeed over-stress how much was owed by European culture to the cultures of the most troubled communities. When in 2008 a French medievalist academic, Sylvain Gouguenheim, published an essay arguing that the texts from Ancient Greece often said to have been saved by Arab Muslims with no knowledge of Greek had in fact been preserved by Syriac Christians, the debate became a heated political issue. Public petitions and letters denounced Gouguenheim for his ‘Islamophobia’ in coming to this finding. Few other academics even spoke out in support of his right to say what the evidence he provided showed. Cowardice aside, this was just one demonstration of an urgent need – as with the argument ‘we’ve always been a nation of immigrants’ that took hold at the same time – to change Europe’s fairly monocultural past to fit in with its very multicultural present.

At the same time there were people who took these methods to their extremes. For a further way of trying to arrange a point of equal standing between the incoming cultures and the host culture was to talk down the host culture. One notorious as well as high-profile example of this came from the Swedish Minister of Integration, Mona Sahlin, while speaking at a Kurdish mosque in 2004. The Social Democratic minister (who wore a veil for the occasion) told her audience that many Swedes were jealous of them, because the Kurds had a rich and unifying culture and history, whereas the Swedes only had silly things like the festival of Midsummer’s Night.10 Another way of achieving the same effect was to insist that there was in essence no such thing as European culture. In 2005 a journalist asked the Swedish government’s Parliamentary Secretary and lead integration official, Lise Bergh, whether or not Swedish culture was worth preserving. The reply she gave was, ‘Well, what is Swedish culture? And with that I guess I’ve answered the question.’11

[Decky]

But weren't the Saxons who settled in the British Isles in the 5th century, and ruled until 1066 - really Germanic tribes? That's what we learnt in class. And there wasn't one country called England in pre-Roman times (43 AD) - was there? And it seems that the tribes who populated ancient Britain were not 'Celts', and the name 'England' came from the Old English 'Anglaland' which means land of the Angles, after one of the Germanic tribes who settled the larger part of the British Isles. But the southern parts were settled mainly by Saxons, so there really wasn't one country called England in those times. So I guess it can be said that England never had an 'English Monarch' ever.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/br ... s_01.shtml

Wow you have shit schools out in the colonies.

English does indeed refer to the Ango-Saxons and there absolutely was one unified country known as England. Æthelstan unified the Saxon kingdoms into one state, so Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria etc became England. When the evil Viking Frenchmen invaded in 1066 the heptacracy was already history.

You need to do some serious reading. Claiming that the Ango-Saxons were not English is completely bizarre. They were the first English people, they are where the word comes from. I can't even imagine how someone could claim the people who founded Englishness in the first place were not English.

Before the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes turned up from northern Germany and Denmark we were all basically Welsh (shudders).

Your point that there were no English kings before English people existed is of course as true as it is useless. There were no presidents of the USA in Roman times either. What was your point exactly?

[Oxymandias]

@noir

The big issue is that these claims have actual clout and have been backed by actual evidence. It wouldn't be the first time when the unexpected occurs. The king of Jordan for example is related to Julius Caesar in blood and there has been a Persian family who's descendant is Alexander the Great. This isn't a revision of historical narrative, this is actual history with no strings attached.

Also 1001 inventions has never said that every invention in the West is derived from the Middle East and that requires citation. Unless you're claiming that the West has only created 1001 inventions

[Decky]

I have made an excellent discovery that I wish to share with Pofo! Before Christianity existed there was no pope! Amazing discoveries are being made here every day.

[Paddy14]

Wow you have shit schools out in the colonies.

Lol, it is only in the past nearly two years we have lived in Australia - before that, I went to school in Hampshire. And your manners are totally awesome!

English does indeed refer to the Ango-Saxons and there absolutely was one unified country known as England. Æthelstan unified the Saxon kingdoms into one state, so Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria etc became England. When the evil Viking Frenchmen invaded in 1066 the heptacracy was already history.

OK, we did learn about Aethelstan (but I forgot) and he did unite England, but wasn't that as part of the North Sea Empire of Cnut the Great, a union between England, Denmark and Norway?

You need to do some serious reading. Claiming that the Ango-Saxons were not English is completely bizarre. They were the first English people, they are where the word comes from. I can't even imagine how someone could claim the people who founded Englishness in the first place were not English.

Lol, fair 'nuff - I don't claim to know everything. Did you not see the question marks in my post?

Before the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes turned up from northern Germany and Denmark we were all basically Welsh (shudders).

Your point that there were no English kings before English people existed is of course as true as it is useless. There were no presidents of the USA in Roman times either. What was your point exactly?

Not sure - I think I got sidetracked by the fact that the ancient Celts were not Celts. But I was just trying to contribute to the topic - maybe I won't bother in future.

[annatar1914]

I think that the House of Windsor has been positioning itself for an Islamic England for some time, so maybe they can even restore some political power to their Monarchy when they convert. Rumors of Prince Charles being a crypto-Muslim, Meghan Markle (to show they aren't adverse to dusky princesses and new blood), and now this. Hmm...