>>4530491 pb
Do you really think that her "brother" wouldn't be "in on it?"
>>4530484 pb
Just not true
no
I found an entire long line of Portugeuse royals who were with Jewish names / and family names.
Many other instances, but I come across again I'll take a screen shot.
The database I use doxes me, So I usually use it for my own knowledge and don't write about it.
See if you are on a tree yourself with notable ancestors and maybe you can check it yourself. Or find a friend who can do it for you?
Right.
It's dumb. And deliberate.
The "proponents" are not making the dumb mistakes over and over by accident.
No, not my marriage.
Some royals were just Jewish.
The "Jewish" clan was a royal clan.
"[J]esus" was a King, though the falsifiers of history hide that.
One book which touches on some of the argument, though I don't agree with it all, it's a very large improvement on the official tale
"
Jesus, King of Edessa: Jesus discovered in the historical record (King Jesus Trilogy) (Volume 3) Paperback – September 1, 2012
by Ralph Ellis
>No, not BY marriage.
Meant to write:
They did not become royal by a marriage into a Royal family; in some cases they were the royal family; It seems by the record.