Heimdall

I suppose when the U.S. returns all the land that was stolen from Native Americans, there may be a precedent for the U.K. to follow. ;-)

nytraveler

flanneruk -

You are mixing apples and orange. What you are saying is awful about the president is a function of his being the head of government AND the head of state AND the commander in chief.

You need to compare not to the royal family but to the royal family plus the prime minister/government.

Really - there is no way to compare the two - since the way they came about it so different.

thursdaysd

I grew up in England, and before I moved to the US I was a republican (small "r"). It didn't take me long to change my mind and I am now a big supporter of constitutional monarchy (only constitutional, lol). Apart from anything else, the amount it costs to elect a US president surely dwarfs the cost of the UK monarchy, with no tourist-attracting pageantry to show for it. Then there is the ridiculous amount of deference shown the president - I couldn't believe the lack of probing questions at press conferences when I first arrived. The whole US system is creaking at the seams, and is now apparently hopelessly locked into unproductive stasis.

PatrickLondon

>>Yes but those Crown Estates were stolen by the royal family long ago<<

Only in the sense that all land was stolen from someone by someone else until some authority decided that the then current pattern of ownership constituted a legal title. What there is now - and since, at the latest, the seventeenth century, is the product of a great many commercial decisions and developments under the legal and fiscal rules in force at that time, as approved by Parliament. And since the late eighteenth century, a good two-thirds of the income has gone back to the Treasury, i.e. the people.

Michael

<i>(none of us spend billions on tailor made Presidential helicopters</i>

and when England thought of itself as the world power, it spend an awful lot of money on all sorts of equivalents--that's why we now visit historical sights and wonder at the luxury that it represents.

As a tour guide pointed out in the Würzburg Residenz, Empress Maria Theresa traveled with her own bed and a caravan of 50 or more wagons to carry her stuff, and Reagan brought his own bed when he visited Europe, and our current resident in the White House has 10 planes behind Air Force One to support the presidential style and requirements.

PalenQ

Georeg W Bush it is says has more English royal blood in him than does QE 2 or any of the Windsors - both thru his poppy and more thru Barbara Bush's family (Walkers) - real blue-blooded royals and thus George W Bush could be King of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Berwick-on-Tweed - now that is what I mean by a doltocracy - any system where George W Bush could be king just because of blood lines - now of course that he was elected - actually selected President by our Supreme Court is even more a shame on The United States of America's voters and the Supreme Court that negated Al Gore's victory in Florida and awarded the Presidency to W.

PalenQ

AH YEH KING DUBYA THE LAST!

"His Royal Highness, King Dubya

Burke’s publishing director, Harold Brooks-Baker says Bush’s royal connections are startling.

“[Bush] is closely related to every European Monarch both on and off the throne,” says Brooks-Baker.

Some of the governor’s royal kin include Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen Mother, Dutchess Sarah “Fergy” Ferguson and even the late Princess Diana.

His most prominent ancestor may be England’s King Charles II, who shared the governor’s vision of a strong military.

Going back nearly 1000 years, Brooks-Baker points out both the Bush and Pierce families [Barbara Bush’s maiden name is Pierce] were high society.

“Not one member of his family was working class, middle class, or even middle, middle class,” he notes).

Correcting my post above this one - Bush's mum was a Pierce not a Walker.

Improviser

Well actually, my own family tree is directly descended from James VI & I and that makes me much closer in line of succession than GW Bush I'd guess.

But then I might also be in the line of succession (if there was one) of Genghis Khan as well. After all, 1 in 200 men is a direct descendant of him. Not bad odds. I'm wondering which I would rather claim descendance from.

PalenQ

Well we are all ultimately descended from the King of Kings - who created Adam in His own image - so does that make me a potential Pope?

This baloney about blood determining the Head of State is just so so ridiculous in not only this day and age but any day and age and generations from now they will be looking back at such hysterical celebrations as the royal baby's birth and just think how primitive those folks were.

Can a Catholic become monarch of Britain - I think not and that in and of itself seems like blatant discrimination against many British folk.

MmePerdu

"This baloney about blood determining the Head of State is just so so ridiculous.."

My personal belief is that every office should be filled by draft, anyone on the street as likely to do a decent job as those who run for office. I'll extend the thought to include blood, so anyone born into a royal family has just as good a chance at being a decent head of state as by any other method. We are all human with the flaws and failures that entails. Being head of state, or of anything else, succeeds or fails by co-operation & the sharing of power and the goodwill of the people involved.

PalenQ

Off with their heads - all heads of states!

someday Britain will indeed be a democratic state later rather than sooner, alas!

latedaytraveler

Underhill, Patrick London, Flanner, PeterSale (neat video) et al, thanks for the clarification and your views.

ThursdaySD (always enjoy reading about your solo journeys) wrote: “Apart from anything else, the amount it costs to elect a US president surely dwarfs the cost of the UK monarchy, with no tourist-attracting pageantry to show for it.” Very true.


I had a glimpse of that “tourist-attracting pageantry” this June when I was in London strolling by Buckingham Palace on my way to the adjacent Queen’s Gallery. Suddenly I noticed hundreds of well dresses folks – women with those large hats or fascinators and gents in spiffy suits or old military uniforms. These were just ordinary Brits who really went out of their way for a special occasion.

I was told that some 5,000 had been invited that afternoon to the Queen’s Garden Party to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Grenadier Guards Association. They were so excited, reminded me of my students on prom night. I was really touched by their enthusiasm, pride, and love for the Queen.


Count me as among those American tourists who just loves the history and the show…

Gardyloo

<i>Here Stuarts once in glory reigned,
And laws for Scotland's weal ordained;
But now unroof'd their palace stands,
Their sceptre's sway'd by other hands;
Fallen indeed, and to the earth
Whence groveling reptiles take their birth.
The injured Stuart line is gone,
A race outlandish fills their throne;
An idiot race, to honour lost;
Who know them best despise them most. </i>

- Robert Burns

PatrickLondon

>>and thus George W Bush could be King<<

Except that Parliament (you know, representatives of the people) set the rules otherwise.

>>Well actually, my own family tree is directly descended from James VI & I and that makes me much closer in line of succession than GW Bush I'd guess. <<

Through the Electress Sophia? That's the only link that counts in this game.

hetismij2

The big difference is the British would have GW as king because he was the son of the monarch, with minimal power.

They wouldn't go out and vote him in - twice.

MissPrism

Let's face it, they are all part of the international conspiracy
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/me...vingios_02.htm

Improviser

A PalenQ, those not of the blood royal have always resented those of us who are.

Does the term 'sour grapes' ring any bells? Nananananana, I can, you can't, yourrrrrr just jealous. ;-)

Underhill

Diana, Princess of Wales, and Sarah Ferguson were royal only by marriage.

Peter_S_Aus

The House of Stuart was pretty late on the scene, James VI of Scotland becoming James I of England in 1603. A mere blink of the eye in English / Scottish / British history.

In 1920, a feller created a family tree for my mob, linking us back to the Plantagenet kings, 1272. Doubtless the researcher was paid some sort of bonus for dredging up some royal connection. So there is possibly the odd shard of royal DNA in my system, but I’m not about to contact Burke’s Peerage any time soon to make a claim.

brizzieLizzie

Peter, my children ( via their paternal relatives in Western Australia) can also trace back to The Plantagenets ( Henry 111)

While is was fun to take photos when they were young with " relatives" at Madame Tussuads, they are also not looking to give up their day jobs any time soon.