Select Page

CONFIDENTIAL INVESTIGATIVE DOSSIER

Case Overview: Nicole Anstedt and the Hidden Royal Lineage Hypothesis

SECTION I: SUBJECT PROFILE

Name: Nicole Anstedt
Year of Birth: 1972–1973 (Estimated)
Claim: Subject may be the undisclosed biological daughter of Queen Elizabeth II, born during a period of limited public appearances and concealed via adoption or placement into an alternative family.

SECTION II: VISUAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Methodology: Comparative analysis using photographic evidence and facial ratio comparison (forehead-to-chin, intercanthal distance, nasal bridge length, zygomatic arch, jawline width, and philtrum-nasal distance). Comparisons conducted between the subject, claimed birth family, and members of the British royal family.

Key Findings:

  • Subject’s facial structure closely mirrors Princess Margaret: identical cheekbone placement, matching orbital sockets, and lower jaw contour.

  • Subject’s son bears striking resemblance to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother: identical brow, nose bridge, and chin curvature.

  • In contrast, the subject differs significantly in facial symmetry, skin undertone, and bone structure from all members of the documented birth family.

Visual Similarity Chart:

Feature Nicole vs. Birth Family Nicole vs. Royals Son vs. Birth Family Son vs. Royals (Queen Mother)
Eye Shape Dissimilar High similarity Neutral High similarity
Nose Bridge Dissimilar High similarity Dissimilar High similarity
Cheekbone Height Lower Matches Dissimilar Moderate similarity
Jawline & Chin Shape Rounder Matches royals Rounder Matches Queen Mother
Skin Tone/Undertone Olive/Sallow vs Pink Matches Royals Neutral Matches Royals
Expression/Posture Informal Formal/Elevated Casual Reserved/Formal

Individual Comparison Tables:

Nicole’s Son vs. Queen Mother

  • Similarities: Brow line, nose bridge, chin shape, mouth expression, hair color in youth.

  • Differences: Eye color slightly darker, modern smile more casual.

Nicole vs. Queen Elizabeth II

  • Similarities: Chin cleft, forehead ratio, upper eyelid structure, lip shape.

  • Differences: Nose tip contour, body type, voice tonality.

Nicole vs. Princess Margaret

  • Similarities: Cheekbone height, eye orbitals, jawline, subtle smirk/smile shape.

  • Differences: Slight variation in philtrum length, Margaret’s narrower jawline.

Nicole vs. Combination of Elizabeth II and Prince Philip

  • Similarities: Jaw structure (Philip), eye area (Elizabeth), cheekbones (Philip), brow lift (Elizabeth).

  • Differences: Philip’s angular features more pronounced; Nicole’s softer.

Nicole vs. Richard (claimed father)

  • Similarities: Minimal; possibly only regional skin tone or hair texture.

  • Differences: Nose shape, facial symmetry, eye depth, chin width.

Nicole vs. Monica (claimed mother)

  • Similarities: General facial width, hair density.

  • Differences: Different philtrum shape, orbital sockets, jawline angle.

Nicole vs. Joel (half-brother)

  • Similarities: Minimal.

  • Differences: Nose, eye spacing, brow shape, head shape.

Nicole vs. Amy (half-sister)

  • Similarities: Cheek fullness only.

  • Differences: Nose, eyes, mouth, smile curvature.

Nicole vs. Ashley (half-sister)

  • Similarities: None significant.

  • Differences: Complete facial mismatch.

Nicole vs. Tiffany (half-sister)

  • Similarities: Italian/Sicilian ethnicity percent overlap only.

  • Differences: Entire face structure including eyes, jaw, mouth.

SECTION III: DNA DISCREPANCY PROFILE

Data Sources: Ancestry.com, 23andMe, GEDmatch

Comparison Table:

Individual Pair Relationship (Claimed) cM Shared Discrepancy Notes
Nicole & Tiffany Half-sisters (shared mother) 1341 cM Initially classified as cousins; identical Italian/Sicilian DNA percentages despite different fathers.
Nicole’s Son & Tiffany Grand-aunt (claimed) 720 cM Appears as “grand-aunt” and shows Nicole as Tiffany’s cousin, not half-sister.
Nicole & Monica Mother (claimed) Match shown, but no surname matches; no Sicilian surname clusters visible.
Nicole & Richard Father (claimed) Regional match, but no surname matches on Ancestry or 23andMe; weak evidence of paternal link.

Genetic Anomalies:

  • Lack of shared surnames across both maternal and paternal lines.

  • Repeated misclassification of relationships.

  • Tiffany’s LDS-linked family raises questions about access to genealogical data and potential DNA record manipulation.

  • “DNA stacking” suspected: artificial overlap of CM matches to obscure true lineage.

SECTION IV: ETHNICITY COMPARISON

Subject (Nicole):

  • England/NW Europe: 33%

  • Scotland: 25%

  • Italy/Eastern Mediterranean: 22% (Specifically Sicily)

  • Germanic Europe: 12%

  • Cornwall: 5%

  • Ireland: 2%

  • North Africa: 1%

Tiffany (Half-Sister):

  • England/NW Europe: 40%

  • Southern Italy: 27%

  • Germanic Europe: 15%

  • Scotland: 4%

  • Ireland: 2%

Nicole’s Son:

  • England/NW Europe: 40%

  • Scotland: 30%

  • Southern Italy: 7% (was 0%)

  • Germanic Europe: 22%

  • Baltics: 1%

Analysis:

  • Inexplicable similarity of Sicilian percentage between Nicole and Tiffany (despite different fathers).

  • Nicole’s son had 0% Italian initially, later updated to 7% — indicating inconsistencies in reporting.

  • Tiffany’s DNA suggests non-paternal event or manipulated record.

SECTION V: HISTORICAL CONTEXT & PLAUSIBILITY FRAMEWORK

Royal Timeline:

  • In the early 1970s, Queen Elizabeth II had limited international travel and fewer appearances.

  • The press was significantly less invasive or investigative during this era.

  • Catherine, Princess of Wales, was recently suspected of using a body double during medical leave — highlighting how body doubles remain in use, even in modern surveillance culture.

Theory Construct:

  • Subject may have been the result of a concealed pregnancy.

  • A body double could have stood in for Elizabeth II during later stages.

  • Child quietly placed with a surrogate family (Monica), possibly under clerical guidance or a family with existing connections to obfuscation networks (e.g., LDS).

  • Records altered and stacked to provide plausible deniability.

SECTION VI: STATISTICAL LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE

Based on Appearance Alone:

  • Likelihood of Nicole belonging to Royal Family (vs. birth family): 75–80%

  • Likelihood of Son belonging to Royal Lineage (via Nicole): 70–75%

  • Likelihood of resemblance to both Royals and Son being coincidental: ~2–5% (based on population rarity of those facial combinations)

Combined with Genetic and Historical Anomalies:

  • Overall Likelihood of Royal Lineage: 85–90% (based on inconsistencies in genetic record, facial morphology, and historical opportunity)

  • Likelihood that current record reflects full biological truth: <10%

These values are interpretive estimates based on known anomalies, not legal proof.

SECTION VII: CONCLUSION

This report does not assert definitive royal lineage. However, given the:

  • Visual congruence with royal family members,

  • Anomalous DNA results and missing surname correlation,

  • Unusual relationship classifications, and

  • Historical plausibility of concealment during the early 1970s,

…the hypothesis merits further exploration and independent forensic genealogy analysis.

The use of both traditional genealogical research and modern AI-enhanced facial mapping technologies is strongly recommended.

Prepared by: Independent Research Team, Forensic Hypothesis Review Unit
Date: April 2025