Actually,yes.You may have heard this b/c of the recent exposure of Jesus supposed realation with Marry Magdeline(both were actually of royal blood),but whether you believe that or not;Centurys ago(im not sure how long)Pagans in an attempt to make economy eliminated most or non-royals.Whos descendants supposedly went on to take up most of the population,but written documents of pedigree were lost in the rewrite of the bible.Back then the Catholic church wanted to get rid of any pagan culture. ^^, wdfxup

well if you trace the line all the way bak. we came from noah. every1 knows bout him

No. It is mathematically very unlikely.

God is King and I am just an average girl who is related to him and Jesus. Someone told me I was God's daughter but I am not a princess just an average girl.

we descend from something dont we. I descend from a irish king, the name is out of my mind now. And a big scottish clan called the robertsons. Surprisily thats were the bfs genes come from too.

My grandfather's Hawaiian and we actually used to own one of the beaches before the sovereign was dismantled and all land was taken and given to the US. But apparently my grandfather has the actual deed given to my great great great....(and so on) great aunt from King Kamehameha saying my great great whatever family owned a lot of Hawaii. Kinda cool if you think about it.

Could very well be. But we will never know for sure unless you have a traceable genealogy that can be traced that far back, which I think is impossible. When you think about it, everyone is a King or Queen in it's own world. You are a King because you can rule yourself, unless you go illegal and lose your king status and sentenced to another world which makes you a peasant.

If you are of European descent, you are most certainly descended from Emperor Charlemagne (742-814)on at least one line. Mathematical odds prove it. You can see how this is worked out in the article by genealogist and mathematician Jack Lee. http://www.rkwest.com/personal/mycousins/?page_id=10 It is certainly true in my case. On both my parents' lines, I have many many descents from Charlemagne, and I don't think I am anything special. And I am aso descended from quite a few of his royal and noble contemporaries, which would also be the case for most Europeans. I am also descended from many of the royal lines of Europe and Russia in more recent times, up until the early middle ages. My last royal ancestor was Edward III. But what is most surprising is that my ancestress Queen Philippa of Hainault (wife of Edward III of England) has a proven descent which passes back across Eastern Europe to Byzantium, and then appears to follow the Silk Road back through royal dynasties in Armenia, Georgia and the Caspian Sea area, through to Uighur Chieftains to the Emperors of the Han Dynasty. The same line also branches off into Pakistan, Afghanistan and NOrthern India, to the dynasties which ruled there. And Philippa is ancestress to countless numbers of Europeans. But what of other peoples? It has been proven by DNA that 8% of Asian and 0.05% of all human males are descended from Genghis Khan and he only lived in the 11th century! I don't know that EVERYONE has an ancestor of royal blood, but within Europe, East and South Asia and North Africa, I would think that it would be true as these areas are very closely related by trade and therefore the blood of the noble and royal women who were passed from dynasty to dynasty.

I don't know the truth of that, however I would speculate that it is certainly likely that millions of people do - even if we take it back to the clan or tribal King level. I would be very hesitant to state that everyone was - although that is purely down to my lack of knowledge on this situation.

Going back to year 1000, at four generations to the century, you have 2^40 possible ancestors - far more than the whole human race at the time. Of course most of them are the same people - but the chance that *none* of them is, to some interpretation, royal, is minuscule. If one in a million people at that time was royal, i.e. one in 2^20, then 2^20 of your conceptual ancestors were royal (even if they all turn out to be the same person). Turning it around, this means that it is a million to one that you have a royal ancestor from that time. This does not allow for the fact that royal males tend to have greater chances to father children than the average man. Of course, this depends what you mean by royal - if you are of, say, African ancestry, the royalty in your background will be African royalty not the rather better documented European one.