Cleopatra was Greek

I love how you are telling me what I read and didn't read. Too funny. I suppose you are omnipotent. Whatever. This debate is going in circles. All I know is:

I leave you with one last thought: all humans today can trace their DNA to Africa; we all come from a source that was African. Which means all this debating on who was what really doesn't matter. This thing called race is man-made, it doesn't exist; we are one

What I am telling you is that Strabo's statement is taken out of context. Strabo says the first one, as in the ELDEST, therefore became the true ruler, the word Strabo used was "presbutati/Greek:
πρεσβυτάτη". In other words since she (Bereniki) was the ELDEST and first in line to gain the throne she was picked as the true ruler over her siblings who were younger then her, NOT that her younger siblings, including Cleopatra, were "illegitimate". Neither Cleopatra nor her siblings had any African ancestry, they were the products of Greek-Macedonian royal inbreeding.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Not to mention I think Starbo is wrong in saying she was picked, in my view it was a Coup.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

reply share

add reply

formatting help

That is your opinion which is based on a modern Greek.. I choose not to take your word as truth. Until someone actually has scientific proof (i.e. DNA), my opinion will continue to be based on published scholars and professors that I've learned from - that Cleopatra's mother is unknown.

And again (since you don't seem to get it):

I leave you with one last thought: all humans today can trace their DNA to Africa; we all come from a source that was African. Which means all this debating on who was what really doesn't matter. This thing called race is man-made, it doesn't exist; we are one.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

That is your opinion which is based on a modern Greek.. I choose not to take your word as truth. Until someone actually has scientific proof (i.e. DNA), my opinion will continue to be based on published scholars and professors that I've learned from - that Cleopatra's mother is unknown.

And again (since you don't seem to get it):

I leave you with one last thought: all humans today can trace their DNA to Africa; we all come from a source that was African. Which means all this debating on who was what really doesn't matter. This thing called race is man-made, it doesn't exist; we are one.

Total nonsense. I've read the text in their original ANCIENT Greek text, for the record, modern Greek isn't that much different from ancient Greek. But the documents I've studied are based upon the Ptolemiac owns RECORDS, so no they had nothing to do with any 'modern Greek', unless you believe the Ptolemies traveled into the future and wrote these documents. Cleopatra's mother wasn't unknown, she was a Ptolemiac Queen. Some unknown native Egyptian or African mother's children wouldn't be recognized as rulers nor would they hold the high ranking royal status that Cleopatra and her siblings held.

As stated we have ancient Ptolemiac accounts from Cleopatra's time, such as the Ptolemaic OGIS 185 = iGPhilae that refers to the royal couples children (tekna: Berenike, Cleopatra, Arsinoe, Ptolemy XIII, Ptolemy XIV), which indicates that the royal couple had more than one legitimate child at the time, and the only children the royal couple had were Berenike, Cleopatra, Arsinoe, Ptolemy XIII, Ptolemy XIV. So yes the mother of Cleopatra and her siblings was mentioned and known by ancient sources and she was a Ptolemaic Queen. Again not one of the royal Ptolemiac children, least of all Cleopatra, had any African ancestry. They were all Greek-Macedonians their mothers royal Queens of Ptolemiac lineages.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Some people would say ancient Greek does have distinct differences. Kind of like Old English vs. Modern English. Anyhow, I don't really care what your interpretation is, or the fact that you choose to interpret one man's account. There are many people from the past and present, that people chose to believe. People once believed the world was flat, and Earth was the center of the universe. Just because some credentialed person once said it, didn't make it true. Can you imagine if O.J.'s testimony was the only surviving account for future generations to read. If that happened, should they automatically believe him? That isn't real research. And unless I witnessed you reading the original Ptolemaic writings (and Strabo's account) inscribed on it's original medium, I'm not trying to hear you. In addition, an accounting of children doesn't exclude the possibility that they could have been from different parentage. Royals throughout the ages have made concessions from tradition. Not to mention your source doesn't actually name the children (it just indicates that there were children). Also, I found a Greek rendition of Philae 50, and it said "teknon" (i.e., child - meaning singular). Like I said before, no one knows for sure who Cleo's mother is. I would rather hold out for DNA. And when it's all said and done, it really doesn't matter, because all humans can trace their DNA to a common African ancestor. This argument is mute, as there is no such thing as race.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Some people would say ancient Greek does have distinct differences. Kind of like Old English vs. Modern English. Anyhow, I don't really care what your interpretation is, or the fact that you choose to interpret one man's account. There are many people from the past and present, that people chose to believe. People once believed the world was flat, and Earth was the center of the universe. Just because some credentialed person once said it, didn't make it true. Can you imagine if O.J.'s testimony was the only surviving account for future generations to read. If that happened, should they automatically believe him? That isn't real research. And unless I witnessed you reading the original Ptolemaic writings (and Strabo's account) inscribed on it's original medium, I'm not trying to hear you. In addition, their accounting of children doesn't exclude the possibility that they could have been from different parentage. Royals throughout the ages have made concessions from tradition. Not to mention your source doesn't actually name the children (it just indicates that there were children). I found a Greek rendition of Philae 50, and it said teknon (i.e., child - meaning singular). Like I said before, no one knows for sure who Cleo's mother is. I would rather hold out for DNA. And when it's all said and done, it really doesn't matter, because all humans can trace their DNA to a common African ancestor. This argument is mute, as there is no such thing as race.

Some people have no clue what they are talking about. Ancient Greek does not have distinct differences and this coming from a student who can speak, write and understand both ancient and modern Greek fluently. Greek isn't like English, there has never been a break in continuing with Greek. The only interpretation being made around here is by you. Yes it does exclude the possibility that the children could have been from different parentage given the royal King and Queen in the inscriptions and Ptolemaic records were one the same Ptolemy XII and Cleopatra V and no other. Royals through the ages INBRED to preserve their royal lineages, they didn't produce heirs to their dynasties with people they viewed as INFERIOR to themselves. My sources actually do name the children, and the only children of Ptolemy XII and Cleopatra V were Berenike, Cleopatra, Arsinoe, Ptolemy XIII, Ptolemy XIV...unless you are now going to also claim FIVE other children to try and push whatever personal assumptions you have since all historical facts disprove your views. I've already told you were the original Ptolemaic writings (and Strabo's account) inscribed on it's original medium are found, one being the Ptolemaic OGIS 185 = iGPhilae that refers to the royal couples children (tekna: Berenike, Cleopatra, Arsinoe, Ptolemy XIII, Ptolemy XIV), which indicates that the royal couple had more than one legitimate child at the time, and the only children the royal couple had were Berenike, Cleopatra, Arsinoe, Ptolemy XIII, Ptolemy XIV. So yes the mother of Cleopatra and her siblings was mentioned and known by ancient sources and she was a Ptolemaic Queen, not some black African or native Egyptian. Again not one of the royal Ptolemiac children, least of all Cleopatra, had any African ancestry. They were all Greek-Macedonians their mothers royal Queens of Ptolemiac lineages.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I am aware that Royalty inbred. I made it abundantly clear that I am aware of that. I have stated that I believe Cleo was "most likely" all Macedonian, because of the family's incestuous practices. But, I have also said that we cannot be sure, because there is no sufficient evidence. And there is evidence that royal families have included illegitimate children in the line of succession.

Also, that's great you can read and speak ancient Greek. So are you telling me that you read the actual Ptolemaic stones that were inscribed in Ancient Kemetic symbols and Ancient Greek? And you can understand/speak/read Ancient Egyptian? Like I said in my updated post, I read a Greek version of Philae 50, and it stated "teknon," meaning child (i.e., singular). To me, that indicates one child was written about. Not to mention, the child's name wasn't inscribed. Too many questions that raise doubt. The only proof I'm interested in is DNA evidence.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I am aware that Royalty inbred. I made it abundantly clear that I am aware of that. I have stated that I believe Cleo was "most likely" all Macedonian, because of the family's incestuous practices. But, I have also said that we cannot be sure, because there is no sufficient evidence. And there is evidence that royal families have included illegitimate children in the line of succession.

Also, that's great you can read and speak ancient Greek. So are you telling me that you read the actual Ptolemaic stones that were inscribed in Ancient Kemetic symbols and Ancient Greek? And you can understand/speak/read Ancient Egyptian? Like I said in my updated post, I read a Greek version of Philae 50, and it stated "teknon," meaning child (i.e., singular). To me, that indicates one child was written about. Not to mention, the child's name wasn't inscribed. Too many questions that raise doubt. The only proof I'm interested in is DNA evidence.

The official Ptolemiac stones were inscribed in ancient Greek, the official language of Egypt under the Ptolemies. Anyone who has studied this Dynasty knows this. Especially given the fact the Ptolemies themselves didn't even bother to learn Egyptian. We can rule out any suppose claim of illegitimate children given nowhere is it mentioned that Cleopatra or her siblings were illegitimate. Royal families did not include illegitimate children in the line of succession. The region they INBRED was to preserve their lineages.

You might have supposedly 'read' the Greek version of Philae 50 but obviously you have no clue in uderstand what was written in Greek given it isn't written as TEKNON but its plural form TEKNWN/teknōn.
http://concordance.biblos.com/tekno_n.htm

It is written as "twn teknWn/teknōn" which indicated plural as in CHILDREN and the only Children known of the royal couple were Cleopatra and her siblings. Cleopatra's and her siblings mother was no other then a Ptolemaic Queen.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I actually saw the inscription and it included Kimetic symbols. I also looked up the word in it's original form and it's translation was child. It doesn't matter whether you interpret it to mean child or children, he/she/they weren't named. You act as though they didn't have problems keeping track of everyone in their clan back then. Cleopatra spoke Egyptian fluently, BTW. And, I do believe Strabo said there was one legitimate heir. Furthermore, I never said Cleopatra and her siblings weren't part of the royal family. I said, she could have had a different mother. The fact that you have been constantly misquoting, misinterpreting, and twisting my words in this thread doesn't speak to your trustworthiness. Seriously, the chances of me just taking your interpretation and exalting it above all others, given your propensity for putting words in my mouth, and the fact that they are PhDs (and you most likely aren't), are slim to none (closer to none).

Addendum: examples of people succeeding the thrown that were once proclaimed as illegitimate: Queens Mary and Elizabeth of England. King Henry VIII proclaimed them to be bastards, and had no legal right to the thrown. As far as the Ptolemies, many scholars believe Ptolemy Auletes XII was a bastard. Cleopatra, herself, broke "tradition" by killing her brother/husband, and producing heirs with two outsiders - with one being born while her brother/husband was still alive.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Plutarch is our only Source that CLeopatra could speak Egyptian (And his reliability is questionable) and he made it explicit when saying that that she was the ONLY Ptolemy to ever learn Egyptian, but she didn't do so out of any Pride in Egyptian culture as the modern Fantasy of her claims, she learned several Languages according to this same statement from Plutarch, including Hebrew much to my Surprise.

For some reasons Wikipedia consent indisputable that Auletes was a bastard, but fomr my study the Records he wasn't, his Mother was clearly CLeopatra IV, but Cleopatra III deliberate broke up IV and Lathurus, which was the basis for his Political enemies calling him a Bastard, at his accession to the Throne he was opposed by Cleopatra Selene who wanted her Son by Lathurus put on the throne..

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Plutarch is our only Source that CLeopatra could speak Egyptian (And his reliability is questionable) and he made it explicit when saying that that she was the ONLY Ptolemy to ever learn Egyptian, but she didn't do so out of any Pride in Egyptian culture as the modern Fantasy of her claims, she learned several Languages according to this same statement from Plutarch, including Hebrew much to my Surprise.

For some reasons Wikipedia consent indisputable that Auletes was a bastard, but fomr my study the Records he wasn't, his Mother was clearly CLeopatra IV, but Cleopatra III deliberate broke up IV and Lathurus, which was the basis for his Political enemies calling him a Bastard, at his accession to the Throne he was opposed by Cleopatra Selene who wanted her Son by Lathurus put on the throne..

Oh my goodness, you both need to stop with taking my words and spinning them to mean anything other than what they are intended to mean. I never said Cleopatra learned Egyptian based on pride, did I? I was simply refuting steve's claim that the Ptolemies only spoke Greek. I further gave three examples where people were considered bastards and succeeded to the throne. Wikipedia was not my source. If you cared, you can look for them yourself. If you have a problem with the authors that wrote the material, contact them and argue your many theories. You are both free to believe what you want. All I ask is for you to extend some courtesy and stop putting words in my mouth. Sheesh!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Which isn't refutable, cause the only source saying Cleopatra spoke anything other then Greek says she's the only one who did. And she was the last.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Ok, I never said ( nor believed) that her predecessors spoke Egyptian. I was refuting his broad statement. Seriously, what's up with your need to spin my words? No one said anything about pride in Egyptian culture, except you. The fact that you feel the need to express denial of her "pride" for Egyptian culture, not to mention, assuming that I give a crap about her "pride," lets me know what I'm dealing with.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

A Brad statement is not contradicted by 1 single exception, especially not an exception at the end.

The Pride comment was irrelevant to my point to you, I just threw it for sake of reference cause it's a false impression that often annoys me.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

reply share

add reply

formatting help

A broad statement is refuted by an exception. It's like saying all of one thing is a certain way, like a stereotype - which most of us are taught not to use. Anyway I can see you are nitpicking now. Not to mention you were responding to my post with the whole pride thing - which makes it look like you were addressing me. And even if you were just throwing it in for good measure, the statement and your agitation with it, is very telling.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I further gave three examples where people were considered bastards and succeeded to the throne.

Not one of those three example you gave were born bastards and their mothers were recognized Queens. You fail to understand that a bastard who's mother ISN'T of royal bloodline nor a recognized Queen WOULD NOT GAIN THE TITLE QUEEN OR KING.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Lady Jane wasn't born a princess. And like I said, Ptolemy XII was considered illegitimate. Plus, King Henry created laws that stated Anne was his mistress and not his true queen, making Elizabeth a bastard. He also had another son with a mistress, Henry Fizroy, that he made a duke - but he died while parliament was in the middle of enacting the Second Succession Act, which would have made him King. Understand, I never said that these people weren't born of "noble blood." Obviously they were. What I said was, they were considered illegitimate at one time, or they had been restored to the line of succession. It's all semantics - royalty is what they say it is.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Lady Jane wasn't born a princess. And like I said, Ptolemy XII was considered illegitimate. Plus, King Henry created laws that stated Anne was his mistress and not his true queen, making Elizabeth a bastard. He also had another son with a mistress, Henry Fizroy, that he made a duke - but he died while parliament was in the middle of enacting the Second Succession Act, which would have made him King. Understand, I never said that these people weren't born of "noble blood." Obviously they were. What I said was, they were considered illegitimate at one time, or they had been restored to the line of succession. It's all semantics - royalty is what they say it is.

Lady Jane was a RECOGNIZED QUEEN as was the mother of Ptolemy XII, and no he wasn't considered illegitimate. Understand that these people wouldn't have been recognized as Kings and Queens if they were truly BASTARDS or born to mothers who were NOT recognized Queens or of low status.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Did I say their parents were of low status? The theories that scholars have posited (with regards to Ptolemaic couplings) were with high ranking Egyptians. Furthermore, Henry Fitzroy's mother was not a queen, parliament was in the middle of creating a law to make him King, but he died before they could. Like I said before: royalty is what royalty says they are.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Did I say their parents were of low status? The theories that scholars have posited (with regards to Ptolemaic couplings) were with high ranking Egyptians. Furthermore, Henry Fitzroy's mother was not a queen, parliament was in the middle of creating a law to make him King, but he died before they could. Like I said before: royalty is what royalty says they are.

Here I am dealing with historical facts and EVIDENCE and you keep pulling all these dubious theories out of nothing but hot air because they fit whatever assumptions you believe in. What high ranking Egyptians? Stop making things up to fit what ever nonsense and fantasies you want. High ranking Egyptians would be important enough to be mentioned. If Cleopatra's mother was a royal of some other ethnicity or race it would have been such an unusual act, given the high degree of inbreeding among the Ptolemies, that a high born royal Egyptian princess or of nobility marrying into the Ptolemaic Dynasty would have been important enough to be documented and yet it is not because her mother was not some high ranking Egyptian but a Ptolemaic Queen. So far there is no credible evidence to suggest Cleopatra or her siblings had any 'African' or Egyptian ancestry or that their mother was anyone other then Cleopatra V, but there is plenty of evidence that clearly shows them as inbreeding Greek-Macedonian royals on both their patrilineal and matrilineal lines. Again stop making things up, there is NO evidence that parliament was ever in the middle of creating a law to make Henry Fitzroy King.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Wow. What part of "scholars posited," don't you understand. I am not making anything up, it was written before me. If you have a problem with their words, contact them and express your grievances. The Second Succession Act, the fact that Henry F. was a male, his father (King Henry VIII) made him a duke (one step towards making him legitimate), and parliament wanted a male heir (and were trying to remove the only heirs at the time), is proof. You are being deliberately glib with regards to Henry Fitzroy. There are other examples of illegitimate children succeeding the throne by force, or otherwise. But I'm done with that topic - you can search for them on your own. Too funny - you trying to rewrite history. LOL.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Wow. What part of "scholars posited," don't you understand. I am not making anything up, it was written before me. If you have a problem with their words, contact them and express your grievances.

Rewriting history is what you are good at. And what part that your suppose "scholars" haven't produced credible historical EVIDENCE to support their assumptions don't you undrestand? Yes you are making things up since you haven't produced any credible evidence that supports your opinions. Your suppose 'sources' are full of assumptions and their own personal opinions with no evidence to back up their claims.

The Second Succession Act, the fact that Henry F. was a male, his father (King Henry VIII) made him a duke (one step towards making him legitimate), and parliament wanted a male heir (and were trying to remove the only heirs at the time), is proof. You are being deliberately glib with regards to Henry Fitzroy. There are other examples of illegitimate children succeeding the throne by force, or otherwise. But I'm done with that topic - you can search for them on your own. Too funny - you trying to rewrite history. LOL.

No those are just ASSUMPTIONS. Where is the evidence that Henry Fitzroy was going to be made the King's legitimate heir? Nowhere since this claim has never been proven.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I am not about to get out my works cited and go listing all of the authors for you. Anyone on here can do a google search and they can find all the information they need. Fitzroy died, therefore he could not become king. At the time that the Second Successon act was being devised, there was him, Elizabeth, and Mary. Mary had already been deemed a bastard by the First Succession Act, Elizabeth was deemed a bastard by the Second Act. Fitzroy was the only bastard child that Henry VII recognized, and he was his only son at the time. HISTORIANS have concluded that Fitzroy would have been king had he not died. I am sure their is some long dissertation out there that you can go and disagree with. In addition to that, you can jump in a time machine and argue with those illegitimates that took the throne by force or otherwise.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I am not about to get out my works cited and go listing all of the authors for you. Anyone on here can do a google search and they can find all the information they need. Fitzroy died, therefore he could not become king. At the time that the Second Successon act was being devised, there was him, Elizabeth, and Mary. Mary had already been deemed a bastard by the First Succession Act, Elizabeth was deemed a bastard by the Second Act. Fitzroy was the only bastard child that Henry VII recognized, and he was his only son at the time. HISTORIANS have concluded that Fitzroy would have been king had he not died. I am sure their is some long dissertation out there that you can go and disagree with. In addition to that, you can jump in a time machine and argue with those illegitimates that took the throne by force or otherwise.

Again those are just ASSUMPTIONS. Where is the evidence that Henry Fitzroy was going to be made the King's legitimate heir? There is no evidence that Henry intended to proclaim Richmond his heir.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

That is your opinion. I'd tend to listen to someone with credentials. And like I said, he isn't the only one. Perhaps when I have more time, I'll compile a list. If anyone else is curious before then, Google is your friend.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

That is your opinion. I'd tend to listen to someone with credentials. And like I said, he isn't the only one. Perhaps when I have more time, I'll compile a list. If anyone else is curious before then, Google is your friend.

No I tent to follow the EVIDENCE, you on the other hand just post other peoples assumptions that match your opinions. I asked you to produced evidence to support your claim that King Henry intended to proclaim Richmond his heir and you haven't done so. All you did is give me the same assumptions and theories. Thanks but no thanks, you can keep your assumptions, unproven theories and opinions to yourself. I'll deal with what the evidence shows.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Probably the High Priests of Memphis, who had intermarried with the Ptolemaic Dynasty under Ptolemy VIII that's undeniable.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Probably the High Priests of Memphis, who had intermarried with the Ptolemaic Dynasty under Ptolemy VIII that's undeniable.

Nope, we have records of those offsprings and they didn't intermarry within the Ptolemiac Dynasty. Like I said the High Priests of Memphis would have been important enough that a high born noble Egyptian marrying into the Ptolemaic Dynasty would have been important enough to be documented, as the High Priests of Memphis were documented, and yet it is not because her mother was not a high born noble Egyptian but a Ptolemaic royal Queen.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

It's difficult to be certain your records are complete, in fact we know the not, for every record that has survived there are many more that have not.

When the chips are down... these "Civilized" people... will Eat each Other

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I actually saw the inscription and it included Kimetic symbols. I also looked up the word in it's original form and it's translation was child. It doesn't matter whether you interpret it to mean child or children, he/she/they weren't named. You act as though they didn't have problems keeping track of everyone in their clan back then.

You are going to argue with me on a language that I undrestand fluently and you do not know anything about? I love how you tried to argue with me about a language you don't even speak NOR understand its grammar. Stou kofou tiv borta oso thes bronda, etsi eisai esi poulimou, koufi kai palabi.

Katalaves h mipws thes va se dwso mathimata sta Ellivhka;. giati etsi pos milas sav kimizmevo plasma akougiese.

I'm not interpreting the word in any other way but how it is written and what it means in its original GREEK form. The only one who is doing any interpreting around here is YOU since the facts don't fit your assumptions and opinions. You don't understand what you saw given the word isn't written as TEKNON; it is written in its plural form TEKNWN/teknōn, you would recognized the 'o' used in Greek isn't an omikron (o) but an ogema (w) if you knew Greek you would know that is a BIG difference and it changes the word from singular to plural. Translations of WHAT the word means when it is written with a "w" as TEKNWN/teknōn=CHILDREN is found below.
http://concordance.biblos.com/tekno_n.htm

You continue to fail to understand the way the word is written it is NOT saying child but CHILDREN. It is written as "twn teknWn/teknōn" which indicated plural as in CHILDREN and the only Children known of the royal couple were Cleopatra and her siblings. Cleopatra's and her siblings mother was no other then a Ptolemaic Queen.

Cleopatra spoke Egyptian fluently, BTW.

Wrong. Nowhere does it state Cleopatra spoke Egyptian fluently. Ancient sources state about Cleopatra's proficiency with languages but nowhere is Egyptian mentioned, it is assumed by modern scholars but it is not mentioned by ancient sources. For the record if Egyptian was the only language that she was credited with speaking in addition to Greek, this might carry some weight to your argument but in fact ancient sources credit her with speaking 7 other languages but they do not explicitly state that she could speak Egyptian.

And, I do believe Strabo said there was one legitimate heir.

Again here is Strabo's original text IN GREEK:

"touton men oi Aleksandreis eksebalon, triwn d'autw thygaterwn ouswn, wn mia gnhsia h presbitath, tauthn avedeiksan basilissan: oi yigio d'autou duo vhpioi ths tote xpreias eksepipton telews."

NOWHERE does he claim any of the Ptolemaic children were mixed or "illegitimate bastards" or that they had a native Egyptian mother. Not to mention the fact that Strabo wouldn't mention the two younger brother were only excluded from serving as rulers at the time because they were too young if they were illegitimate as in having a mother who was not of the Ptolemaic bloodline.

Furthermore, I never said Cleopatra and her siblings weren't part of the royal family. I said, she could have had a different mother. .

What part are you having difficulty understanding that having a mother who ISN'T part of the Greek-Macedonian royal bloodline means Cleopatra would NOT hold high ranking royal status within the royal family, therefore not recognized as a Queen? The fact that she was recognized not only as having royal status but a Queen means her mother and that of her siblings was a Ptolemaic Queen herself. It was through the mother's line that the Ptolemies gained royal recognition, it would be highly unlikely that a child of a mother who was not of Greek-Macedonian origins would gained royal recognition.

The fact that you have been constantly misquoting, misinterpreting, and twisting my words in this thread doesn't speak to your trustworthiness. Seriously, the chances of me just taking your interpretation and exalting it above all others, given your propensity for putting words in my mouth, and the fact that they are PhDs (and you most likely aren't), are slim to none (closer to none)

I haven't misquoting, misinterpreting, nor twisting your words, you make a great job of doing all that on your own.

Addendum: examples of people succeeding the thrown that were once proclaimed as illegitimate: Queens Mary and Elizabeth of England. King Henry VIII proclaimed them to be bastards, and had no legal right to the thrown. As far as the Ptolemies, many scholars believe Ptolemy Auletes XII was a bastard. Cleopatra, herself, broke "tradition" by killing her brother/husband, and producing heirs with two outsiders - with one being born while her brother/husband was still alive.

Ptolemy Auletes XII was not a 'bastard'. Stop with your nonsense. I repeat in the Ptolemaic Dynasty it was through the mother's line that the Ptolemies gained royal recognition, this is why you had all the inbreeding going on. A child of a mother who was not of Greek-Macedonian origins would NOT rise to king status within the Dynasty. Queens Mary and Elizabeth of England were NOT bastards. Look at how desperate you've gotten to promote your personal opinions and agenda. Queens Mary was the eldest daughter of Henry VIII and his 1st wife Catherine of Aragon, she was born when both her parents were married to one another. The same thing with Elizabeth of England, she was born when Henry VIII was married to her mother wife number 2 Anne Boleyn. They were not born 'bastards' they were both recognized as royal heirs since they were both born legitimate royal queens....but thanks for given them as examples because Ptolemy Auletes XII was in a similar situation. When Ptolemy Auletes XII was born his father Ptolemy IX was married to his sister/wife Cleopatra IV, who he then cast aside and married his OTHER sister/wife Cleopatra Selene. The marriage between Ptolemy IX and his sister/wife Cleopatra IV produced Ptolemy Auletes XII=Cleo VII father; the marriage between Ptolemy IX and his other sister/wife Cleopatra Selene produced Cleo VII maternal grandmother Berenice III who then went on to marry her uncle Ptolemy X (who also happened to be the brother of Ptolemy IX, Cleopatra IV, and Cleopatra Selene); the marriage between Ptolemy X and his niece/wife Berenice III produced Cleopatra V=Cleo VII mother. Like I said the Ptolemies INBRED to preserve their royal lineages, they didn't go around producing heirs to their dynasty with people they viewed as inferior to themselves.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Please see above post for explanation of illegitimacy.

With regards to your interpretation of Greek text, what I said was: I DON'T CARE. How is that arguing? I don't know Greek, so I have no reference in which to determine if you are translating correctly. It's like, if I couldn't read English, and someone I don't trust offers to read something for me. Furthermore, I already told you that all of your theories go against every PhD and author I've been taught by or read. Are you telling me that you have a doctorate? Have you performed genetic testing or sampled DNA on remains? If not, there is nothing to discuss.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Please see above post for explanation of illegitimacy.

With regards to your interpretation of Greek text, what I said was: I DON'T CARE. How is that arguing? I don't know Greek, so I have no reference in which to determine if you are translating correctly. It's like, if I couldn't read English, and someone I don't trust offers to read something for me. Furthermore, I already told you that all of your theories go against every PhD and author I've been taught by or read. Are you telling me that you have a doctorate? Have you performed genetic testing or sampled DNA on remains? If not, there is nothing to discuss.

You don't care because it proves your opinions on this subject as being wrong, I gave you a link that shows the word spelled EXACTLY how it is found on the original Philae inscription which is with a w NOT a 'o', therefore meaning CHILDREN not child. The Greek inscription of the Ptolemaic OGIS 185 = iGPhilae clearly refers to the royal couples having CHILDREN (TENKWN: Berenike, Cleopatra, Arsinoe, Ptolemy XIII, Ptolemy XIV), which indicates that the royal couple had more than one legitimate child at the time, and the only children the royal couple had were Berenike, Cleopatra, Arsinoe, Ptolemy XIII, Ptolemy XIV. So yes the mother of Cleopatra and her siblings was mentioned by ancient sources and she was a Ptolemaic Queen. It your theories that go against every PhD and author on this dynasty, most of my claims are supported by historical facts. I'm still waiting for you to shows CREDIBLE historical evidence from Cleopatra's time that show her mom was some native Egyptian or African type. None of you guys who ignorantly believe this 'mixed' nonsense have produced anything credible to support your claims because she was not mixed. All you have to hang your hats on are modern PC assumptions and theories based upon dubious 'sources' who can't substantiate any of their claims with credible evidence. Meanwhile all evidence we have clearly shows Cleopatra and her siblings belonged to a Greek-Macedonian Dynasty who inbred to preserve their royal lineages.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

There you go putting words in my mouth again. Like I said before: 1.) I don't care if it said children - I didn't see any names of them. 2.) My thoughts are based on PhD professors, and authors of actual books that state the Cleopatra's mother is unknown, 3.) The only evidence I am interested in is DNA, and 4.) if you don't have either a PhD or genetic evidence, I don't find you or your claims credible. That's like me taking medical advice from someone that says they've been studying medical journals, but never went to med school - Not going to happen, captain.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

There you go putting words in my mouth again. Like I said before: 1.) I don't care if it said children - I didn't see any names of them. 2.) My thoughts are based on PhD professors, and authors of actual books that state the Cleopatra's mother is unknown, 3.) The only evidence I am interested in is DNA, and 4.) if you don't have either a PhD or genetic evidence, I don't find you or your claims credible. That's like me taking medical advice from someone that says they've been studying medical journals, but never went to med school - Not going to happen, captain.

So are you now seriously trying to claim that the royal couple had more children that we don't know about? You don't care because the original Philae inscription proves you wrong since it states very clearly the royal couple had CHILDREN (TENKWN: Berenike, Cleopatra, Arsinoe, Ptolemy XIII, Ptolemy XIV), which indicates that the royal couple had more than one legitimate child at the time, and the only children the royal couple had were Berenike, Cleopatra, Arsinoe, Ptolemy XIII, Ptolemy XIV. Unless you have evidence that there are some MORE unknown royal heirs that the couple had which we don't know about but you somehow do. So yes the mother of Cleopatra and her siblings was mentioned by ancient sources and she was a Ptolemaic Queen.

You don't care because it proves you WRONG. Your thoughts are based upon what you WANT the interpretations of those suppose "PhD professors and authors" to be, not what the historical facts and evidence really states, that why you can continue to throw such unproven theories out there. Cleopatra's mother isn't unknown, she was of Ptolemaic bloodline and a Ptolemaic Queen, otherwise her children wouldn't have been recognized as royal heirs, kings and queens. So far all you have done is throw out any dubious claims and see what would stick. To date not you nor your suppose 'sources', those suppose "PhD professors and authors" opinions are supported by any credible evidence.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Let me spell it out for you: I never said they had more children. I said it didn't specify the children's names. Not to mention, I don't trust you, nor this so called philae. I don't know where it came from, if it's been authenticated, if it's been carbon dated, etc. You claim none of the Ptolemies spoke Egyptian, yet the philae I saw had Ancient Kimetic symbols inscribed (as well as Greek). I found two Internet sites that mentioned this stone, and of course you. That's it. I trust that, as much as you trust the article regarding Arsinoe's skull and their assertions that her mother was African. In addition, you have no credentials, nor DNA evidence, which is the gold standard of evidence - everything else is conjecture, including your so called "evidence." And finally, since we all come from a common African ancestor, the whole argument of race is mute - because it doesn't exist. That's what I mean by saying I don't care.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Let me spell it out for you: I never said they had more children. I said it didn't specify the children's names.

You make absolutely NO sense. YOU said only the eldest daughter was "legitimate"; that can't be since the inscription talks about CHILDREN. The only children known that belonged to the royal couple were Cleopatra and her siblings. So unless you are trying to claim that the royal couple had some unknown children out there, the inscription is talking about Cleopatra and her siblings.

Not to mention, I don't trust you, nor this so called philae. I don't know where it came from, if it's been authenticated, if it's been carbon dated, etc.

You are so full of it that its hilarious. Of course you don't know from where the philae came from since you know absolutely nothing about the Ptolemies. The Greek inscriptions at Philae are dated to Ptolemaic era. They are authentic unlike the nonsense you've been trying to claim on here.

You claim none of the Ptolemies spoke Egyptian, yet the philae I saw had Ancient Kimetic symbols. I found two Internet sites that mentioned this stone, and of course you. That's it.

The Ptolemies DID NOT speak Egyptian. If you knew anything about the temple of philae you would know its construction is dated BEFORE Alexander the Great conquered Egypt and the Ptolemies became its rulers. The Egyptian inscriptions are dated to PRE-Ptolemaic Dynasty to the reign of Nectanebo I. The Greek inscriptions are Ptolemaic era.

I trust that, as much as you trust the article regarding Arsinoe's skull and their assertions that her mother was African. In addition, you have no credentials, nor DNA evidence, which is the gold standard of evidence - everything else is conjecture, including your so called "evidence." And finally, since we all come from a common African ancestor, the whole argument of race is mute - because it doesn't exist. That's what I mean by saying I don't care.

That article regarding Arsinoe's skull is BOGUS. The reason you 'trust' it is because it supports your fallacies. They didn't find Arsinoe's skeleton remains nor does the study state they did NOR does the study state that she had an 'African' mother as you dubious article incorrectly claimed. But then again unlike you, I've actually READ the actual study; unlike you who read that bogus online article that was full of misconstrued claims I've read the study and NOWHERE does it mention anything about 'race' or African origins. The bases of any suppose 'African' ancestry is made on a skull that more then likely isn't even Arsinoe and they come to their 'African' ancestry dubious claim based upon NOTHING more then the crania index. Any credible anthropologist will tell you that you can't tell a person's 'race' on crania index alone like these bozos did. BUT since you believe in skull sizes then you obviously agree that King Tut was a European because based upon the crania index of his skull it was typical one found in Caucasians people NOT Africans.

A lot of presumptions about these skeleton remains have been made but very little facts to back up any of these fallacies have been shown to definitively support anything claim of 'African' ancestry for Arsinoe. As it was explained to you many times, they based the 'race' part of the skeleton remains only on the bogus crania index a method that can't determine a person's race. They couldn't even say if that was really Arsinoe. Also the age of the remains was conclude to be that of a young teenage girl, this would make Arsinoe 8-10 or 11 at the time of the Alexandrian war, nearly 7 years earlier, which seems far too young for the leadership role she played during that war. Historical evidence puts Arsinoe at a much older age during the war then that of a young child of 11. They also conclude the skeleton remains had no evidence of a violent death:

"Stress markers, like Harris’ lines were absent and no signs of peri- or premortal traumas were found."

This one is just as strange as the age discrepancy, given we know based upon historical evidence Arsinoe died a violent death, so premortal trauma and stress markers would be present on the skeleton remains. These two discrepancies even bothered Thur, the lead researcher on the project. Like I said, you didn't read the report, didn't study their results, don't know anything about the historical facts of the Ptolemies so you base most of your conclusions on misinformation and misconstrued claims from bogus online sources.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You are dancing around everything. No carbon dating, no DNA evidence, no credentials, your pecious philae has kimetic symbols, yet according to you know one knew the language. I never said I trusted the article. I made an analogy to inform you that I trusted you and your claims as much as you trust the article on Arsinoe. Remember when you said that you're not putting words in my mouth? Remember when I said DNA is the gold standard of evidence? Remember when I said this discussion of race is mute because we all come from a common African ancestor?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You are dancing around everything. No carbon dating, no DNA evidence, no credentials, your pecious philae has kimetic symbols, yet according to you know one knew the language. I never said I trusted the article. I made an analogy to inform you that I trusted you and your claims as much as you trust the article on Arsinoe. Remember when you said that you're not putting words in my mouth? Remember when I said DNA is the gold standard of evidence? Remember when I said this discussion of race is mute because we all come from a common African ancestor?

You are the one doing all the dancing. You have no evidence to support your claims so all you've been doing is DANCING. You've been throwing whatever unproven theories there are to try and make an argument and in the end all you have done is shown how little you know about this Dynasty. You can't even understand the simple fact that the 'kemetic' symbols are from Pre-Ptolemaic Dynasty. The Greek inscriptions in the philae temple date to the Ptolemaic era. If you knew anything about this period you would know this, but since you don't like the rest of your claims, you're full of hot air. I suggest you learn about genetics if you naively believe humans being don't have genetic differences that makes us cluster closer to certain groups over others. Cleopatra and her siblings had NO African ancestry, they were the products of inbreeding European Greek-Macedonian lineage.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

First off, the Kemetic symbols are not Greek. We've already established that they are two different languages. I never said I thought the Egyptian symbols were from the same date - I never dated them at all. I want to know what they're doing on the philae if, according to you, no one spoke the language nor followed Egyptian culture. Also, I never claimed that I trusted that slab of stone to begin with. Secondly, I have stated that I don't trust your sources, anymore than you trust those that conflict with your theories. Lastly, I have studied genetics. What does your claim of "clusters" have anything to do with the fact that we all come from a common African ancestor?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

First off, the Kemetic symbols are not Greek. We've already established that they are two different languages. So, what are they doing on the philae? Secondly, I have stated that I don't trust your sources, anymore than you trust those that conflict with your theories. Lastly, I have studied genetics. What does your claim of "clusters" have anything to do with the fact that we all come from a common African ancestor?

No kidding Kemetic symbols are not Greek, but the inscriptions that talks about the royal couple ARE in Greek. Hello? When the Ptolemies were ruling Egypt the kemetic symbols from previous Egyptian Dynasties didn't get erased you know. The temple was build BEFORE the arrival of the Greek rulers, so of course it will have Egyptian symbols but the Greek inscriptions date to Ptolemaic era. Coming from a common ancestor who arose in Africa doesn't mean we cluster genetically together. None Africans have mutations and alleles that arose outside of Africa after our common ancestors migrated out of Africa that are not found in Africans. Certain groups cluster closer to certain people over others. For example a Japanese would cluster genetically closer to a Chinese then he would do an African or European.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Actually there are Africans with DNA markers that match other ethnicities. While there are people with different ethnic markers, there are no definitive races. Race isn't based on science, only the archaic opinion of ethnocentrists.

For example, in America, there are African Americans that are more genetically related to European Americans (and/or they are multi-ethnic), than they are to Africans - yet we all receive the racial label "Black." The fact that we are not ethnically homogenous, nor do we share the same features, doesn't seem to matter, because racial labels were created by xenophobes.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

We actually have 0% of the original Documentation of Ptulamic History.

reply share

add reply

formatting help