An interesting article on the internet shows the geneological tree of not only our presidents; but also many of the other great leaders of the world, as well as many of our most famous entertainers.......all share a family connection. This , in itself is almost incredible; but there is more ! These people seem to all share an unusual bloodtype --- RH negative. The people with RH- bloodtypes in the whole world amount to about 7% of the world's population. In the United States, we have about 15% of the people with those blood types, and African Americans with RH- blood are less than 5%. So, considering this, what is the likelihood that so many of our presidents (all of them since Eisenhower) would have had a negative blood type ? Entertainers include Marilyn Monroe, O J Simpson, John Lennon, Madonna, Clint Eastwood, and Morgan Freeman. Many more well-known entertainers are also on the list. Considering that less than 5% of black people have this blood type; the percentage of them on the list is maybe even more amazing. When you look into the European Royalty, then you will find that many of them are/were also Rh- bloodtypes. There even seem to be similarities of character traits of people , and the page I am linking to this post also has a list of the common traits . http://rhesusnegativity.blogspot.com/2012/03/rh-negative-celebrities.html
That European royalty have similar blood types is hardly surprising considering that its continuation is based largely on in-breeding. Royal families have inter-married in Europe for centuries, something that explains quite a lot of things.
Yes, there was some inbreeding in royal lineages as some historians will attest to. If we were to look up some of the European family trees of royalty we would probably find a whole lot of cousins marrying cousins if not closer family members. Sounds a bit odd to us, but for them this was a way of keeping the royal bloodline going. Perhaps not the healthiest of ways but back during that time they didn't know the danger associated with inbreeding.
Actually, the thing that was most interesting to me is not the fact that they are all related; but the interesting fact that they all have Rh negative blood types, and Rh- make up less than 15% of the population. However, all of our prsidents since Eisenhower have had a Rh negative blood type. How likely is that to be a coincidence ? It certainly makes you wonder if we are actually electing people as our president, or whether they just give us a "choice" between the possible candidates that they want us to choose from. Do we really accomplish anything when we vote , or does the agenda just go on, but carried out by a new president ? Think about it........
Over here, that royal bloodline finding is manifesting somehow. Our president now, who incidentally is giving his state of the nation address right now, is the son of Cory Aquino, a former president. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the predecessor of Noynoy Aquino is the daughter of the former president Diosdado Macapagal. An expected presidential candidate next year is Mar Roxas, a grandson of a former president. Is there a connection somehow? I guess there is. With popular personages in entertainment, I also see some bloodlines such as the Padilla clan where the most popular young actor now is the nephew of a once popular action star named Robin Padilla. Showbiz clans, as they call it here, is prominent in movies and tv over here.
Royal families are removed from power and replaced by republics and presidents. Now we have dynasties of presidents. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
We learned earlier that all of the presidents to date (except Van Buren) were related through their bloodlines, and many also share the rh negative blood factor. Now, it turns out that both Hillary Clinton (through her father) and Donald Trump (through his mother) are also distant cousins. I am sure that there are a lot of other people that we have never heard of that might also share common ancestors; but it is still pretty interesting that the presidents, European royalty, and even many of our famous entertainers all have this common ancestry, and some of it is not that far back that they are related. If you have looked at the first link that I posted in the opening post, it shows the relationships, and explains more about the bloodlines. This short video also ties in Clinton and Trump into the list. This is not welcome information for most of us to hear.
I think my sister in law from England is RH negative. My brother was positive, they had one girl who is 35 today! Your link doesn't work anymore, @Yvonne Smith Anyway, I read that The highest concentration of RH negative blood occurs in the Basque people of Northern Spain and Southern France, and in the Eastern/Oriental Jews. Only 15% of the entire world's population are known to have RH negative. It's probably just a coincidence that our presidents are Rh negative....nothing special about these people ...my SIL is nice but not a "chosen" type person.
I've really enjoyed these comments there very interesting. I remember it talked about on both sides of the family, we weren't RH- but we are Sephardic Jews (Mediterranean) we can trace our roots from the Inquisition in Spain to Southern France. They settled in Bayonne, France. When they left Spain and brought coca with them. I don't think they were chocolateers like many were. Chocolate was a big cure for royalty.
The RH (positive) factor was found in Rhesus monkey in the 1940s, so there is no way you can know what the RH factor was for previous presidents. Many RH negative people have RH positive children, like I did. But I had to have a shot after their birth. To claim that all past presidents are RH negative is totally unrealistic.
Yvonne, I believe that the U.S Presidents were already pre-selected and that the people were lead to believe that they had a choice in choosing them. The other reason why the Royals and Aristocrats interbred was not just to keep the blood line going but also to keep the wealth within the family. The women were also dying in childbirth due to the blood type incompatibility between the RH negatives and the RH positives,
I am B Rh negative but unsurprisingly not royalty or well known. See...UK below There are four primary blood groups: O, A, B and AB. In addition, people are either Rh negative or Rh positive, this means there are eight blood types present in the population: A Rh positive or A Rh negative B Rh positive or B Rh negative O Rh positive or O Rh negative AB Rh positive or AB Rh negative In the U.K., the most common blood group is O positive, with 44 percent of people carrying it. A further 42 percent have A, 10 percent have B and 4 percent have AB. Around 85 percent are Rh positive, and 15 percent are Rh negative. The type of blood a person has determines what type of blood they can receive and who they can donate to. As O features neither A nor B antigens, it can be donated to anyone. However, this also means O carriers can only receive O blood. In contrast, AB carriers can donate to few people, but they can receive blood from anyone, providing the Rh factor is correct Receiving blood from the wrong group can cause the recipient to die as a result of the body generating life-threatening antibodies. Someone who is Rh negative should also receive Rh negative blood.
Mike, That was once correct but lately in the emergency rooms they found that they were short of the O RH negative blood type and have had to administer the O RH Positive blood with a shot of rhogam. By the way I'm an A RH Negative blood type.
Good point about O negative blood being in short supply, especially since it is the Universal donor blood. Any blood type can accept O negative blood without having to be tainted by Rhogam!!! WHY??? NO doctor has ever asked me my blood type. (I am A negative) One exception: during my pregnancies. While it is critical to know that to prevent Blue Baby Syndrome, why am I never asked as a part of the initial appointment when all vitals should be noted. If we we're all asked this question, we could be registered with the Red Cross! I have found out through recent research that A negs are more prone to certain cancers. So critical, life-saving data is being ignored??? I recently turned 65, and switched to a new provider. When I asked the doctor why she didn't need to know this she said "I don't know, I guess because most people have rh positive". What kind of answer is that? I asked her what is her blood type and she said "I don't know probably O positive". This is not just one incompetent doctor, this is the norm in Western medicine. Now we all need to ask ourselves why. If anyone knows I'd love to hear!!!