Was the First Queen of Denmark a man?2002, Nov 1st | Emner: Pseudohistory
Some time ago I received an email announcing a lecture about the work of the Russian mathematician A.T. Fomenko. The title of the lecture was “Can the Viking ships be older than the Egyptian pyramids?”, this flew in the face of the normal view of history, which puts theses things very far apart in time, but just think about it: Viking ships and pyramids – that sounds almost as cool as the creationist stories about humans and dinosaurs living at the same time, so I had to check it out.
Before I went to the lecture I found Fomenko’s hypothesis summarized in a critique by Jason Colavito, Who Lost the Middle Ages?:
“Apparently to hear Fomenko tell it, in the beginning there were four books of history, which he refers to as A, B, C, and D. Apparently the latter three were imperfect copies of the True History, A. Over time, each became garbled as it was copied, and the four were assumed to be separate histories, not four copies of the same one. Therefore, when late medieval scribes set about writing history, they accidentally made history four times as long by repeating the same history four times.”
Boy, I wish that I had known about this theory when I attended school – it could have saved me from 75% of my history lessons!
The argument supporting Fomenko’s idea that was stressed the most in the lecture is based on similarities in the length of the reigns of kings and emperors of different empires and kingdoms. To illustrate this Fomenko has made some diagrams where the lengths of the reigns of two series of popes/kings/emperors are compared. One of these diagrams is reproduced here (source: New Tradition):
The distance from the vertical line indicates the length of the reign of each emperor. It was argued that since these graphs are so similar, that one of the periods could be a fictive copy of the other. Please note that to make these graphs Fomenko had to assume that two popes (Apastasius and Innocent) were actually one person, and that the order of two others (Felix I and Eutychianus) was switched around. In other places Fomenko uses a wealth of other ways of changing the sequences of rulers, such as switching the order of two kings even though there is a third king between them, and simply making a famous ruler like Frederick Barbarossa disappear.
When I saw this diagram I thought that it must be really embarrassing to be a Catholic – I mean they have walked around thinking that they have a very long history, and then it turns out that half of their popes didn’t really exist, but were just thinly disguised copies of other people.
Then it struck me…
What if the same thing has happened in my home country Denmark? I had to know, so I rushed home, pulled out an encyclopedia, found a list of all the Danish kings and got to work, some of the techniques used by Fomenko.
A couple of minutes after I had entered the information about the Danish kings into my computer, my worst suspicions were confirmed. Two series of Danish kings were definitely copies of each other. This is shown in this diagram:
Apart from the fact that copying has taken place in the Danish history, this diagram tells us that Christoffer I is a copy of Christoffer II, which means that Christoffer II’s number take the number of his own fictive copy into account. However it turns out that Christoffer II actually were a copy of Oluf III. This means that Christoffer I is a copy of a copy, which is a rather sad destiny for a former Danish king.
The diagram also shows that several kings both are part of the real history (the graph on the right) and of the copied history (the graph on the left). Perhaps they were only semireal?
I was shocked by these discoveries, but took comfort in the fact that it was only a relatively short sequence that had been copied, so I hadn’t been cheated as thoroughly as the Catholics – or had I? I continued my investigations, and felt my foundations shake when I unearthed the following gross example of copying in the Danish history:
This diagram shows that the great Danish king Canute II the Holy was in fact a fictive copy of Valdemar III. So I guess that from now on he should be known as Canute the Copy. Furthermore it turns out that Erik I the Kind-hearted was a copy of a period where there weren’t any king. Imagine being a copy of nothing – what a bummer. Perhaps Erik the Empty-hearted would be a better name for him?
The shocks didn’t stop there
Things were about to take a turn for the worse. The bearer of the terrible tidings was the following diagram:
This diagram proves that Frederik II really is a copy of the fusion between Frederik VIII and Christian X – note how cunning the copyists have been here, the difference between numbers of the two kings that were added together, is 10-8 = 2, which is the number of the king that is a copy of them.
The diagram demonstrates that Frederik I and II are fictive, and this tells us that Frederik III’s number actually take these two fictive copies into account. The problem with this is that Frederik II couldn’t have been invented before 1947 where Christian X died, since Frederik II is partly a copy of him. Therefore when Frederik III who lived in the 17th century got his number, a fictive person was taken into account who wasn’t invented until roughly three centuries after Frederik III died!
It should be obvious that this is impossible. The only possible explanation is that the historians who faked the Danish history used a time machine to travel back in time to convince the first real king Frederik to increase his “number” to III. I had no idea that historians were such sneaky bastards, and would you believe that they’ve had access to a time machine since 1947 without telling the rest of us? Now that I think of it I might inadvertently have explained the creationist stories I mentioned before: It could have been time travelling historians that lived together with the dinosaurs!
Now you might say that perhaps it is really Frederik VIII and Christian IX who are fictive copies of Frederik II, and therefore there is no problem with the numbering of the Frederiks. This can’t be true however, since it is absurd to think that it is possible to alter such a well known fact in so recent history – after all there are still a lot of people born before 1947, who are alive today.
The revelations don’t stop here, because we can conclude that since Frederik II was invented in 1947 or later, the fake part of Danish history must have been invented no earlier than 1947!
There is one final piece of information hidden in the diagram, and it is even more shocking than the previous fact, since it shows that the first Danish queen, Magrethe I, actually is identical to King Christian V. Does this mean that Denmark had a queen that was actually a man? A transvestite on the Danish throne! I’ll be very disappointed if this doesn’t make it to the front pages of the tabloids.
The complete picture
After looking at all these graphs I started to realise that an enormous amount of copying had taken place, but it was hard for me to get the complete picture of it. Therefore I made the following diagram, where all the Danish monarchs included in the diagrams above are shown. The arrows indicates who’s a copy of who (the person an arrow is pointing to is the real person).
I must say that I’m quite impressed by the skill of the historians who have faked the Danish history, because it must have been pretty complicated to keep things straight with all those different copies. Just look at Christoffer II: There are four kings, who are copies of him, and he is a copy of three other kings. It also turns out that Harald III is copy of Christoffer II who is a copy of Oluf III who is a copy of Frederik III, this means that Harald III is a copy of a copy of a copy, and he isn’t the only one who suffers this fate.
Not just the Danes…
After all this we can conclude that the Danish history is even more messed up than that of the catholics, and according to Fomenko other European countries have the same problem. This might lead American readers to get smug, but before they do that, they should read on, because Fomenko also uses similarities between different emperors to argue that they are actually one and the same person. Keep this in mind while considering the following subset of the facts presented here. :
The American presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy were both concerned with civil rights and had wives who lost children both during and after their terms in the White House. Both presidents were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson from towns that were 15 minutes from Johnson City in Tennessee, and both successors left the presidency in disgrace.
Lincoln was shot in the Ford theatre and Kennedy was shot in a Ford Lincoln. Both were shot in the head by a southerner on a Friday while sitting next to their wives. Both assassins were assassinated before the trials, and one of them ran from a theatre and was caught in a warehouse, while the other ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theatre.
These facts force us to the inevitable conclusion that Lincoln was a fictive copy of Kennedy!
Even though it is quite embarrassing to live in a country whose history has been faked, I’m actually quite proud: It only took me a few hours to prove that a lot of history has been faked, that a transvestite has been ruling Denmark, that time machines exists and that humans and dinosaurs just might have met each other as the creationists claim.