Statistically, we're all descended from Charlemagne. Or someone.

Patrick, you are at least half right.
However, some of us are descended from SOMEONES, not just someone.

Cheers

Peter (who does not care in the slightest who he is descended from, and is just glad to be alive).

Bring back the lounge

One interesting thing is that the Queen is not afraid to drive through London in an open carriage. Actually, Putin was not afraid to sit beside her.

I've read that most English people are descended from John of Gaunt. The upper classes had large families and more importantly, they tended to survive. The population was greatly diminished by the Black Death, so we probably all have noble blood.
What amuses me is that no American claims to be descended from Albert the rat catcher. Everyone of Scottish origin is descended from the laird and not from one of his ghillies

Most of us also have Neanderthal genes, but who goes around boasting about that?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm
:-))

>>One interesting thing is that the Queen is not afraid to drive through London in an open carriage.<<

And in her time has ridden past/through gunfire (blank shots, as it turned out, but she wasn't to know that):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5FD3-CsMbc

Most of us also have Neanderthal genes, but who goes around boasting about that>

Wellme thinks Neanderthals are indeed on the British throne.,

Queen Victoria also had physical courage. I think that there were 7 attempts on her life.

As monarchs go I think QE 2 is the exemplar of decorum and carrying out duties but if Charles becomes king that could change.

It's always a bad day when PalQ forgets the meds.

PalenQ , QE 2 (the ship), retired from its duties in 2008. QE II (the monarch) is still going strong. ;-)

Good horsewomanship in that clip! And riding side saddle.

Knowing who will be head of state for the rest of the 21st century does give the British a sense of stability. We know that those in the frame are all eligible.

Why are Americans so obsessed about this? It doesn't affect them in any at all. Is it just that they cannot accept that other nations are quite content to do things in a different way from them?

Strangely, the only faltering in the functioning of the monarchy in the past hundred years was caused by a promiscuous American woman.

Strangely, the only faltering in the functioning of the monarchy in the past hundred years was caused by a promiscuous American woman.>

always blame the woman and not the bloke - blame the institution and its recalcitrance to change and sheer hypocrisy - here is a King who married for love and then was deemed unfit to be king - yet British kings have whored with multiple partners for eons and no one said anything - as long as it ain't in public it's OK.

no chartley the cause was not an American woman but the institution - put the blame where it belongs - right in the UK not on some Yankee broad whose crime was being divorced and also at that time not a blue blood.

This is why this whole thing is so farcical and to much of the world a laughing stock!

In my view the problem with these hereditary monarchies the preservation of the bloodline.
A lot of these royal families have been around for a long time and, as Palenq so eloquently puts it, there have been quite a few "interactions" between them over the past centuries.

To avoid what might be termed incest you´ll have to find a mate that has no direct connection to you or your family if you want to keep the line going.

Ultimately I think this has been understood for a long time and in some way explains the string of extramarital fun and games recorded in the history books.
Charlie boy found himself Diana Spencer who was dismissed after producing the "heir and the spare" and William has married a nice Berkshire lass with no regal ancestry.

To be honest, and despite everything, I quite like the idea of a line of succession spanning the centuries.
I have no special affinity with the House of Windsor and their desperate attempts to appear local by wearing kilts and killing the local wildlife but if I look at the circus the US goes through every 4 years in the name of democracy it´s a bearable alternative.

I think the secret is not to take the whole thing too seriously.

IMHO an interesting article on how DNA can be an influence on societies:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotlan...rt-4-1-1503458

This does however leave the door open to Americans who claim to be Scots to now claim they are Viking as well though :)

Hi Chartley,


You wrote: “Why are Americans so obsessed about this? It [the monarchy] doesn't affect them in any at all. Is it just that they cannot accept that other nations are quite content to do things in a different way from them?”


Au contraire, I think that most Americans that I know are fascinated by the British monarchy, especially since THE wedding and THE recent royal birth. (We will let what happened in Las Vegas, stay in Vegas.) Of course, we know that model wouldn’t fit us so we lumber on with what we have – those horrid four year election cycles which begin shortly after the newly elected president is sworn in.


I often read the scandal sheet DAILY MAIL on line and notice that most articles about the royal family are met with derision and contempt by Brits in the comments below.

God save the Queen…

Of course, we know that model wouldn’t fit us so we lumber on with what we have – those horrid four year election cycles which begin shortly after the newly elected president is sworn in.>

well don't think it is much different in the U K where Cameron, especially with a coalition government, starts looking to the next elections and that's the kicker - QE II is Head of State yet the real head of state is the PM - why does someone by sheer birth even technically be head of state - without being head of state would the Queen and the monarchy go away - no - so why not keep the Queen or soon to be King and just give them no office - they are queen or king of Brits. Period. Their visages could stay on coins and stamps and there could still be a changing of the guard, etc.

Just why are the monarchs Head of State by sheer birth circumstances? That's the foolish part of it all (besides a large number of subject being ineligible to be monarch simpoy because of their religion.

<<Strangely, the only faltering in the functioning of the monarchy in the past hundred years was caused by a promiscuous American woman>>

Um, the hideous American slut married a bloody fool who was, nominally, English . . . and a Nazi sympathizer to boot. It was the stupidity of the English crown prince to (a) fall for the harpy, (b) stay with the harlot (the length of the list of her affairs would make Pamela Harriman jealous) and (c) throw away his options for her.

And that faltering in the monarchy issue was worsened by Churchill's decision to take Edward's side . . . which blew a large wad of the great man's political capital - a stash it took the old man three years to rebuild.

Churchill's mum was American, right?

And Pamela Harriman's first marriage was to Randolph Churchill, son of Winston, the British prime minister during World War II.

The Churchill family alternated between Winston and Randolph for the first name of a son from one generation to the next. It all gets confusing.

Head of State and Head of Government are NOT the same in many countries. If that's the way their specific history grew the political system - so be it.

Elizabeth does NOT govern - she reigns. Big difference. (In fact she takes the place of the flag in american culture - although bringing in a lot more tourist $.)

Yes, Churchill's mom was American. Unlike her husband, she actually liked Winston to some degree and he worshiped her. Not unlike Pamela Harriman or Wallis Simpson, Lady Randolph reputedly violated the Seventh Commandment with some frequency.

"...a promiscuous American woman." chartley on Aug 12, 13 at 10:46am

Likely because the gentleman in question was having a hard time finding a British woman willing to give him the spanking he craved. Leave it to one of us to be up to the task.

In the '70s there was a wonderful BBC series called "Jennie".... about Winston Churchill's mother.
the lovely Lee Remick was the star.

As far as one's lineage goes... my husband could trace back directly to an ancestor who came to the states in the 1630's. As of 1901 there were 13M descendants of this man. Just think what there are now! So I should think anyone hoping to aspire to the British thrown on the basis of family history is at the back of a very long line. -:)

Chartley, Big Russ, PalenQ et al,

Highly recommend THE CHURCHILLS IN LOVE AND WAR by Mary S. Lovell which covers the whole gamut of Churchill lore. Speaking of American women, let’s not forget CONSUELO VANDERBILT who married Winston’s first cousin Charles Spencer-Churchill, 9th Duke of Marborough and became mistress of Blenheim.

The couple were miserable – he married her for her money and she married him at the insistence of her wealthy family for the Duke’s aristocratic connections.

Yada, yada….

<<< The couple were miserable – he married her for her money and she married him at the insistence of her wealthy family for the Duke’s aristocratic connections. >>>>

Sounds like the perfect lose/lose arrangement. Sad.

>> without being head of state would the Queen and the monarchy go away - no - so why not keep the Queen or soon to be King and just give them no office - they are queen or king of Brits. Period. Their visages could stay on coins and stamps and there could still be a changing of the guard, etc.<

That is the situation we have. Did your history books stop at 1776, or something?

Amazing that this issue causes more perforative comment and debate from those it doesn't affect. Seems some are stuck in the past, fighting Revolutionary Wars, while the real word has evolved and moved on.

Anyway, how does the itererary sound

(Useless slow slowing Fodors page...)

Amazing that this issue causes more perforative comment and debate from those it doesn't affect. Seems some are stuck in the past, fighting Revolutionary Wars, while the real word has evolved and moved on.

Anyway, how does the itinerary sound? I want to visit 12 countries (but I'm not telling you which ones) in 3 days, and can I get travellers cheques from an ATM at the airport…. >)

Of course you can get travellers cheques (in dollars) at the ATM in Europe, but there is a 2% service charge which is outrageous.

Fortunately the trip is entirely free of other charges since the flights and hotels are paid for on points, the museums are free (but, oh! those dreadful long lines) and I will reclaim the VAT on any purchases.

They ought to love my tourist dollars over there, and become more like the USA.

....Yes, Churchill's mom was American...
She also married our late lamented CW's uncle George.
He ditched her for Mrs. Patrick Campbell.

Perforative? I didn't think anyone was actually waving a sword around - have I missed something?

nytraveler: <Elizabeth does NOT govern - she reigns. Big difference. (In fact she takes the place of the flag in american culture - although bringing in a lot more tourist $.)>

Not quite as politically passive as the US flag. The Queen still retains the power to sack a prime minister, and actually signs into law any new legislation in the UK, although by convention she does these things on the advice of the PM.

Her Majesty is also the "Defender of the Faith" of the Anglican Church, which is why Catholics are disbared from this position - Ever since Henry VIII fell in lust with Anne Boleyn there has been a need to keep Papal authority away from British affairs.

Ah the main reason Brits love their monarchs is because they are cash cows - that's it apparently - the bottom line oh and Brits love for pomp and circumstance.

PatrickLondon
<<Perforative? I didn't think anyone was actually waving a sword around - have I missed something?>>

Should be pejorative (chuffing autocorrect)

Don't forget to exhale PQ

Hi PLondon,

I thought I was missing something too. Looked up “perforative” – maybe used as adj. form of the verb PERFORATE

“to make a hole or holes through by boring, punching, piercing, or the like”

Thanks for the clarification.

>>Should be pejorative (chuffing autocorrect)<<

I rather guessed so, but on the other hand perforative is a great word for some of the remarks we get on here.

>>The Queen still retains the power to sack a prime minister<<

I don't think that's ever been tested, certainly not in the UK since before William IV, AFAIK. Australia's Governor-General did it on his own account when it was a question of what sort of election should resolve a deadlocked dispute between two houses of parliament.

the day the queen or king sacked a PM is her/his last day in office - off with er head it would be I feel.

No - she does not have the power to sack the PM - she could try but the PM wouldn't go.

She needs to recognize the election of a new one - but it's all a formality. She has no active role in government, other than through force of personalty.

(There are all sorts of laws on the books - just because they have never been removed - that could never be enforced.) And with the British system of organic growth - rather than a specific Declaration of Independence and Constitution - obviously a lot of things are loose.