HVYMTL wrote:Allowing 25 years per generation, give or take, in 500 years you would have 20 generations. Your two parents each have two parents, going back 19 generations doubling each time from a starting point of 2, you get the number 524,288. There is one problem with the model; working backwards like that eventually you reach a point where the number of ancestors needed to go back another generation is more than the total number of people alive at that point in history, so clearly the model is flawed and too simplistic to be the actual reality. Clearly a lot of your ancestors must of had common ancestors and have been inbreeding, otherwise if you go about another 20 generations you get 274,877,906,944 (274.9 Billion) Which is clearly nonsense as its over 39 times the currently modern total population of 7 Billion.
llewop wrote:lol the statistics / model is not flawed. its simple. you need a man and a woman to create a child. and the simplicity of it shows the model in the link is correct.
llewop wrote:like it or not, most people in UK are related to royalty - this taking into account your ancestors only and does not take into account how someone could be related to royalty through cousins etc...
1.618 wrote:And on the subject of the monarchy, i'm in agreement with SI, in that as much as i don't like the way it's operating at the moment...i appreciate just how lucky we are to have it in place and how it stops us becoming just a province of the European superstate and to just do away with the monarchy would be a huge huge mistake that we surely would never be able to rectify at a later date.
HVYMTL wrote:It does more than just keep us out of being subjugated entirely by the EU,we are already subjugated by EU. british citizens have to abide by rules set out by the EU, even some absurd rules about the size and shape of our vegetables. why british citizens should be ruled by people from a different country is beyond reasoning. just consider for a moment what would of happened if Gordon Brown the unelected prime minister did not have the Crown above him to prevent him from staying another term, or 5... or announcing himself dictator for life. nope, impossible since the people would recognise this and higher numbers of people would enter into a form of lawful rebellion against the dictatorship. as it is, most people are under the illusion that there is no dictatorship... yet politicians have to take an oath to serve the queen. Serve the queen and not the people!The Royals present a politically neutral restraining mechanism on parliament which every would be dictator or idiotic fool would love to see removed it is not neutral at all. politicians oath is to serve the queen and not the people. people who do not take the oath to serve the queen are not allowed in parliament. therefore there is no politically neutral restraining mechanism as you seem to believe, since this is not needed. we vote for the politicians who then in turn serve the queen. not the people.either because they have personal mental hygiene problems or because they know exactly why the system has been setup the way it has and knows the only way to ultimate power is to remove the Royals from the equation.ultimate power is to govern yourself and not have people in parliament, the monarchy or EU govern you.
Part of treason act: any person whatsoever, within the United Kingdom or without devise or intend to deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen from the style, honor or Royal Name of the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests