Kings were Clones or Biorobots?

Timeshifter

Well-known member
Messages
416
Reactions
1,319
From wiki, this is a portrait of him, not an adult, but does this look like a 3 year old? Born 1663, portrait - 1666. The only living portrait of him...

James,_Duke_of_Cambridge_-_Wright_1666-7.jpg


Waki

Also, he died aged 3, from some kind of infection/ virus/ spots... perhaps a bad clone/ copy?

Cloned Royals are not a new debate, although some of these are stretching it a bit, and could as just as likely be in breeding, nothing would surprise me.

e8a5bef28f02a4663b1fd95fac30c777.jpg


I would guess this has always been the way, hence why they are the rulers. Perhaps they are the ones who made/ modified us?

More
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,569
Reactions
5,055
From wiki, this is a portrait of him, not an adult, but does this look like a 3 year old? Born 1663, portrait - 1666. The only living portrait of him...

View attachment 25970
There is no way a 3 year old stood still in this pose for hours on end, day after day after weeks for an artist to draw this. A 3 year old would be entirely out of patience after just getting them dressed in all this garb. I don't know who this picture is of but it's not of a 3 year old.
 

Banta

Active member
Messages
44
Reactions
158
I personally think this says more about the nature of "royal blood" and raises the question of genetic manipulation more than clones/biorobots, but frankly, the difference may be mostly moot. I mean, I could very easily see a world in the somewhere near future (or, uh, currently) where embryos are made with various source material ("Michael Jordan, with a splash of Mike Trout, and Dave Chappelle's sense of humor!"... example simplified for the sake of brevity). That sort of individual would be a clone, in some sense of the word.

As for biorobots, maybe that's what is IN the blood. There are dozens of rabbit holes surrounding blood, of course, and well beyond the scope of this particular topic.

It's somewhat a question of what came first, the divine right of kings or the recognition that there was something physically different about these "entities"? The conventional explanation would insist, OBVIOUSLY, people bestowed God-like attributes on their Kings to legitimize the claim, but who was bold enough to make the claim in the first place and how did they get away with it? This is where it gets hazy and the claims tend to sound more allegorical than historical.
 

Ice Nine

Well-known member
Messages
752
Reactions
3,229
It's all the inbreeding with the royals, I'm sure I'm most likely generalizing here, but not in the case of this bunch.

I'll really hammer home the point with a good example(s). The first time I ran across this years ago it was certainly a WTF moment. It's almost cloning without the use of a lab. Much like selective breeding of dogs, what have you, breed for characteristics and a certain look, like how most all dogs, cows, horses of the same breed look almost identical.

Anyway, first cousins King George and Tsar Nicholas.

cousins.jpgb72fee0770d55e4ebc5ff0f958468962.jpg181815-Prince_George_later_King_George_V_of_England_and_Tsar_Nicholas_II_of_R.jpg3 kings.jpg
 

zxcv0

Member
Messages
11
Reactions
50
My interpretation of that passage is that it's exalting/eulogizing the virtues and supremacy of royalty.

I believe cloning is little more than a hoax, and that it has not, and never will be, achieved. Dolly the Sheep was most people's introduction to cloning, and it's veracity is about as believable as the official moon landing narrative.
 

Obertryn

Well-known member
Messages
145
Reactions
351
It's all the inbreeding with the royals, I'm sure I'm most likely generalizing here, but not in the case of this bunch.

I'll really hammer home the point with a good example(s). The first time I ran across this years ago it was certainly a WTF moment. It's almost cloning without the use of a lab. Much like selective breeding of dogs, what have you, breed for characteristics and a certain look, like how most all dogs, cows, horses of the same breed look almost identical.

Anyway, first cousins King George and Tsar Nicholas.

They say they are first cousins but that kind of similarity suggests twins as a more likely scenario. Separated at birth, perhaps?
 

Ice Nine

Well-known member
Messages
752
Reactions
3,229
They say they are first cousins but that kind of similarity suggests twins as a more likely scenario. Separated at birth, perhaps?
According to all info about their ages, births, etc...
Nicholas is 3 years younger than George. Nicolas was born May 18, 1868 in London and George June 3, 1865 in London.
 

Ruby Rhod

Active member
Messages
57
Reactions
231
I posted about this in another thread, but, I think it has to do with the civilization-wide conception of blood in times not so distant. After Europe's monarchies were destroyed, an erasure-fantasy concept was put in place which continues to this day—kings and nobility are still portrayed as bad/oppressive.

The Mystique of Race in Ancient Rome

The single, atomic, deracinated individual does not exist. When he presumes to be a being in itself, he is deceived in the most pathetic way, because he cannot even name the last of the organic processes that condition his life and finite consciousness. The individual is part of a group, a folk, a gente. He is part of an organic unity, whose most immediate vehicle is blood, and is extended both in space and time.​

There is a “life” of life, a mystical force of blood and folk. It subsists beyond the forces of the life of the individuals that are dissolved in it at death or that are given by it through new birth: it is therefore a vitae mortisque locus [a place of life and death]—a place that encompasses life and death and that for that very reason stands beyond both.​

...we can for example recall the undeniable relation of the genius with the popular Christian conception of the “guardian angels” or of the good and evil angels, these images that have become absolutely mythological and deprived of the essential and concrete relation with the blood and mystical forces of the race.​

It is perhaps very difficult to understand, even more difficult to explain, but what we are talking about is the Soul. This is the true meaning of the "Collective Unconscious"—the original term was "genius." Memories and experiences of your ancestors exist within your blood, and when you have children your "spirit" (mind) will become part of their "subconscious"—their intuition (is your "internal dialogue" really just yourself?) But more—your family/tribe/racial collective soul exists beyond the individual and its vehicle is blood.

Before the concept of instinct was absorbed into the evolution framework it fit into this concept of ancestral memory, which, by the way, has now been demonstrated to be true.

I must also agree with Ice Nine. It would take too long to find it, but I did happen across a very old article about human inbreeding and how the mating of first-degree relatives produces offspring with uncanny resemblence.
 

Ice Nine

Well-known member
Messages
752
Reactions
3,229
It is perhaps very difficult to understand, even more difficult to explain, but what we are talking about is the Soul. This is the true meaning of the "Collective Unconscious"—the original term was "genius." Memories and experiences of your ancestors exist within your blood, and when you have children your "spirit" (mind) will become part of their "subconscious"—their intuition (is your "internal dialogue" really just yourself?) But more—your family/tribe/racial collective soul exists beyond the individual and its vehicle is blood.

Before the concept of instinct was absorbed into the evolution framework it fit into this concept of ancestral memory, which, by the way, has now been demonstrated to be true.

I must also agree with Ice Nine. It would take too long to find it, but I did happen across a very old article about human inbreeding and how the mating of first-degree relatives produces offspring with uncanny resemblence.
Of course it produces offspring with uncanny resemblances. I'm a lifelong dog person and you can get another of the same breed dog you love that will almost look exactly as your last beloved pet, no cloning necessary, just selective breeding of close relatives, mother son, brother sister, dad daughter..etc..and that is also why pure bred dogs have genetic problems down the line.
Also I believe it's why humans have so damn many ailments. But a glaring, contrary example to point out is how long members of the British Royal family live!

I also want to say I totally think that is true about our genetic memories, if we could tap into them, we would have all the knowledge of all who came before us, at least in our direct linage. We can't know everything. It seems to be our lot in life, The Great Unknowing.

I also think we can tap into this stream of knowledge via dreams, I'm working on it.
 

Top