What is the significance of a long bloodline to this story?
- The farther bloodlines go back the greater chance they are privileged, aristocratic. Historically only the privileged and wealthy had access to keeping family histories, births, deaths, etc. Of course the peerage/nobility justifiably kept track of itself because it was….the peerage and nobility!
In this specific instance, Lee Harvey Oswald was mentioned in the article and by several posters. Obviously a key figure, I think it’s fascinating that the multitude of narratives about the JFK assassination completely omit any mention of his relevant pedigree. “He is related to several U.S. Presidents, signers of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Army Generals, and U.S. Supreme Court Justices, among other famous people.” As it happens with other murderers and serial killers, he comes from aristocratic bloodlines and, a very likely privileged background. So his personal history narrative presented in the mainstream for sixty years - is at the very least questionable, and perhaps even fiction.
Who told whom that bloodlines are key? What fakery is pointed to, by what?
When the truth is intentionally hidden, as it relates to genealogy/ancestry/bloodlines, then I believe we’re being told that in fact they do matter, that the ancestry of famous people - even (especially) criminals - is of key importance. The most interesting thing about Oswald, (and the others described below), isn’t what we’re told about them; it’s what the mainstream “authoritative sources” don’t tell us about them.
Regarding the fakery comment, I’ll use Oswald, Henry Lee Lucas, James Earl Ray (who assassinated Martin Luther King), and Charles Manson. Four dangerous killers, all from aristocratic bloodlines, and any mention of these aristocratic lines is completely absent in their mainstream narratives. That's pure fakery! And how strange. 60 years for Oswald; Lucas is alleged to have started his murderous rampages in 1960, so 63 years for him; MLK’s assassination was in 1968, so 55 years for him; and Charles Manson’s evil deed was in 1969, so 54 years for him. Decades of articles, books, movies, interviews in the mainstream, and no one mentions that any of these men are from upper upper-class lineages - even nobility?
When "authoritative sources" lie about such important facts, what else are they lying about? How can we trust any of their information? When one begins to delve deeper into these events, we can find a lot of things that are not what the mainstream narrative tells us. It's often not difficult to find evidence of a deception.
http://mileswmathis.com/lucas.pdf (the first four pages are about the lineage of Lucas)
Lucas’ mother - who he is alleged to have murdered - was Nellie Viola Waugh, nee Dixon. Waugh was her married name; Waugh is a peerage name. From his paper above,
“These Waughs descend from Rev. John Waugh, who came to Virginia around 1650 from Scotland. They are also linked to Tyrone, Ireland. Which of course leads us to check for links to the famous Waughs of England, especially author Evelyn Waugh.”
The Waughs in the peerage don't go back to the 1600s, but we do find another clue with Rev. John Waugh of Virginia, whose mother was a Vandegastell. That links us to the Balls, and through them to George Washington. See Giles Vandegastell. These were the founding families of Virginia, the ultimate bluebloods. Confirming what I suspected coming in: Henry Lee Lucas wasn't from peasant stock, he was from aristocratic lines, like James Earl Ray and Lee Harvey Oswald. In fact, my assumption was that Lucas was related to Robert E. Lee, and that assumption is already being confirmed. The Lees were also Virginia bluebloods, related to the Balls and Washingtons.
You will tell me Henry Lee Lucas is only distantly related to these people, but he isn't. His great-grandmother was a Farley, in the direct line of these Virginia bluebloods. Through his father, Lucas was also a Cawood, linking us through the Hix to the Widdrington barons. Through that baron's sister, we link immediately to the Howards, Dukes of Norfolk—who take us to the de Veres in a second line. More evidence Lucas was an aristocrat was his brother Andrew Preston Lucas' wife Catherine Clontz, whose mother was a Houston. Her grandfather was James Milton Houston, and the Clontzes were also related to the Lees, indicating more cousin marriages. These Houstons take us directly back to Gen. Sam Houston. That link is scrubbed at Geni, which fails to list Andrew as his brother. But Findagrave gives us that information on the page for Henry's half-sister Freda Viola Waugh Bowser.
--------------------------------------------
James Earl Ray, assassin of Martin Luther King
http://mileswmathis.com/mlk.pdf (page 11 starts Ray’s genealogy info)
The Rays are also in the peerage. In 1850, George Ray married Alicia Judith Coghill, daughter of the Vice Admiral Coghill, 3rd Baronet. They were related to the Bushes. Also to the Butlers, Viscounts Lanesborough. His mother was Judith Jones.
So it is strange that most of the women in James Earl Ray's genealogy are scrubbed. Nothing is given past his mother on the maternal side. On the paternal side, no grandmother, no great-grandmother. However, if we go back several generations, Ray is a Hamilton. Get ready for this. . . he is also related to the Lindseys. If we go back to the Allisons of Lancaster, PA, in his genealogy at Geni, we find Margaret Allison married Robert Lawrence Lindsey in about 1804.
Why is that important? Because MLK was also a Linsey.
So it looks like James Earl Ray was related to MLK. Not that distantly, either.
On pages 11 and 12 he breaks down the genealogy of James Earl Ray, at one point stating…”Yep, all that was in the genealogy of James Earl Ray. You can click back in a direct line from James Earl Ray to Henry IV”.
(my note: that is Henry IV - King of England from 1399-1413. Dynasty: The House of Lancaster, a branch of the royal House of Plantagenet)
So I went to famouskin.com and searched Henry IV. That particular website doesn’t show James Earl Ray in the lineage of Henry IV; Miles Mathis’ research provided the connections. The search yields some very interesting results.
Also in the line of Henry IV are a couple of other famous murderers: Dr. H.H. Holmes (14th great-grand nephew)
(Wikipedia):
Herman Webster Mudgett (May 16, 1861 – May 7, 1896), better known as Dr. Henry Howard Holmes or H. H. Holmes, was an American con artist and serial killer, the subject of more than fifty lawsuits in Chicago alone. Until his execution in 1896, he chose a career of crime including insurance fraud, swindling, check forging, three to four bigamous illegal marriages, horse theft and murder.
On Holmes’ Wikipedia page, the section “In popular culture” outlines various books, movies, poetry (!), television, a song, and a video game - inspired by Holmes. The fact that he was a hardcore bad guy who was executed in 1896 doesn’t seem to affect his commercial viability in modern times. Popular culture seems to like him, for some reason...
Also in the Henry IV line is accused axe-murderess Lizzie Borden (2nd cousin, 18 times removed) - and so is actress Elizabeth Montgomery (17th great-grandniece), who portrayed Borden in a 1975 TV movie.
--------------------------------------------
As for Charles Manson who, while not kin of Henry IV, looks to be of aristocratic lineage. Miles’ paper on the Sharon Tate murders linked here
http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf; 95 pages. Pages 83-86 is where he delves into Manson’s genealogy in detail.
“For this reason, it looks like they partially scrubbed Charlie's genealogy, but not very well. As usual, of those people they left in, they didn't change the names. They only changed the places and bios, making it look like they were regular folks or poor folks instead of these people of recent nobility.”
“Collating all these names we come to the conclusion that the Scott line in Manson's genealogy is not just any Scott line, but the peerage line of Scotts that is closely related to the Stuart royal line in both Scotland and England. That is why we see the Campbells, Fraziers, and Hamiltons.“
Seeing a pattern here...
You do know the King family thinks James Earl Ray was framed, right?
https://www.bunkhistory.org/exhibits/1968-at-50/142/10503
he comes from aristocratic bloodlines and, a very likely privileged background.
Many Americans just prior to Oswald’s generation—before widely affordable travel and with limited immigration—were descended from 17th and 18th century settlers or 18th and 19th century prosperous notables, due to the sheer abundance of opportunity as the nation was being built. But bloodlines don’t carry much pull in the U.S. unless the money also continues down the line. Before the days of cradle-to-grave welfare pre-WW2, even a family of privilege could soon find itself cut off due to the death of the father and heir.
Lee Harvey Oswald’s Wikipedia page details a loveless, sketchy childhood, a father who died before Oswald was born, and scant privilege. That account says his mother moved the family often—by age 17, Oswald “had resided at 22 locations and attended 12 schools.” He was constantly in trouble and went from one disaster to another, filled with rage at having been born into a life of neglect and lack of affection even from his mother.
It’s true that much of his bio could have been altered or constructed out of whole cloth by the OSS/CIA. But the Kennedy assassination is one of the most widely-researched events in U.S. history from multiple sources well before our present age of legalized propaganda, “post-truth” scholarship and viral internet rumors. Many photocopies of school records, military and travel documents have survived that support much of his timeline up to his death at 24.
Unless you are from Europe or from one of several small pockets of ancestral-consciousness in America, such as parts of the South or a few enclaves in New England, the entire idea of “aristocratic bloodlines” or “nobility’ is widely viewed in traditionally patriotic U.S. as anti-American at its core—the stuff we fought for Independence over.
As we read history and current events, it is still true that we find people from all ranks of society among the best behaved, or among the worst. As the melting pot has been stirred for 400 years now, class and race stereotyping as a matter of blood is less and less relevant. Privilege in the U.S. has more to do with the lifestyle and resources that an individual’s efforts can produce or that his/her wealth can buy, whether inherited or self-generated.
Even the British aristocracy has dismantled its Empire and much of its class system, at least in its public declarations from the Palace or Parliament, renoucing many of its formerly firm beliefs that circumstances of birth are more morally or intellectually determiative than other aspects of individual drives, talents or character.
Regarding the fakery… Oswald, Henry Lee Lucas, James Earl Ray… and Charles Manson. Four dangerous killers, all from aristocratic bloodlines, and any mention of these aristocratic lines is completely absent in their mainstream narratives… pure fakery!
When "authoritative sources" lie about such important facts, what else are they lying about? How can we trust any of their information? When one begins to delve deeper into these events, we can find a lot of things that are not what the mainstream narrative tells us. It's often not difficult to find evidence of a deception.
For the reasons discussed above, the intense research done in hindsight about notorious killers often does turn up occasional distinguished ancestors; but it’s no surprise to me that ancestry is regarded as being of interest to in-depth biographers, but nonessential to mainstream media or pop-culture historic accounts (Bill O’Reilly’s Killing Kennedy comes to mind).
That the accounts differ widely is due to the deliberate Federal suppression of information, supposedly to shield the family of JFK; a bogus reason. The secrecy started out trying to stave off an explosion of rage by the electorate about who the culprits actually were, and why. It soon became an ass-covering psychodrama of televised hearings from the halls of Congress papering over culpability and inconsistencies, and brainwashing us with a cobbled-together narrative that has acted as a cancer on our Constitutional rights ever since. “Our democracy” has never recovered from this pageantry of deceit.
The universities, the media and our Federal government itself have in the past six decades given us so many reasons to distrust their output that I greatly sympathize with your suspicions about what we can or can’t believe. But I can’t go so far as to state that an omission of genealogical data is a “lie” or a “deception.” It’s more of a different lens through which the general public views the United States’ ethnography, and the extent to which bloodline is not among the top ten determinative factors in this story.
What is the most important target for outrage, and what most likely has been deceptive, is the extent to which the FBI, CIA, or powerful political figures were involved in these killings and the coverups; and what was the definitive political motive for the assassination.