www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall George Washington rumor

Alex,
I think Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn or Russel Kirk made similar observations to yours, in a complimentary way since whoever said it was in favor of monarchy. I think Henry Adams was so thoroughly disgusted with our system that he was in favor of monarchy...not to his own benefit, even though he was a scion of our first presidential dynasty. By his time mere lucre was having too much inluence. C. S. Lewis observed that the US's fascination with celebrity is filling a vacuum left by monarchy. I agree, but now that everyone is famous for 15 minutes, as a famous Rusyn said, they would be lost in the shuffle as is the case in the UK.
I confess that I stopped voting some time after I married nearly 9 yrs ago. I used to vote 3rd party a lot, and I live in a part of the US where the largest city has very loopy politics for all of its economic strength. I think less vote here than in Canada...people here have narrower political choices. Things have the appearance of running themselves not to care to vote. For all this talk of red state, blue state, after in office long enough all politicians are "purple". Supposedly there is more of a prolife strength here than in Canada, but for all that there is little result. I think both of our countries get a lot of immigrants who end up voting the same left of center way -- often contrary to the values they brought with them. But, the left of center, at least in the US is just more adept at running things since the right of center makes too big a point of not wanting to run too much.
At one time in this country there was a class of people (WASPs) who all went to the same schools, ran things, but practiced self-restraint and were self-effacing...so self-effacing they are pretty much now out of the picture. Under them the center held, but with more people getting higher education, making more money, and the real decline of proestantism, this could not have lasted.
Sorry I went on too long off subject. I'm a little weird.

[quote=Michael_Thoma]Dear Alex,

If the USofA were to select monarch to be Head of State today, I think that our society has become so extreme to both ends that this monarch would have to be bi-polar, multiracial, an American war hero who is antiwar, a male who is lesbian, and an atheist minister. He or she would have to drink beer, smoke a little weed, watch basketball, thump their Bible, while also for abortion and gay marriage.



If it were up to me, I'd prefer a Royal from the line of His Imperial Majesty the King of Kings of Ethiopia, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Elect of God; not any of the European powers.

I'd certainly cheer anyone from the line of the King of Kings of Ethiopia! (The only problem then might be that Americans will say that Obama put the fix in for this . . . ).

The Habsburgs were not not a bad Royal line - but then your Congress could declare a King (many, if not all of your Presidents are actually somehow descended from the Royal lines of Britain, are they not?).

You remind me of an acquaintance of mine who has a website dedicated to Crosses of all kinds.

He even has the "atheist Cross." This is just the plain Cross - his reasoning is that even if the atheist doesn't accept it, it is still the Cross and it is still there as such . . .

God bless a future Royal America!

Alex

Oh my gosh, Michael Thoma, thank you, thank you for a little laugh today! You know what they say: if you can't cry, then laugh...

All that you said is soooo true! What a sick mess our once noble country has become.

Dear Mark,

You are not weird at all, but raise quite fascinating points of social history and political sociology as a whole!

And i'm not, for one minute, am suggesting that monarchy is the panacea for all of everyone's ills.

I like the idea that authority is something that "comes from above" rather than emanates from "the people" whoever they really are (and they are never "everybody").

There seems to be a republican (small "r") bias in history. For example, far from what I was taught about the end of World War I, monarchies were being established rather than "forgotten about" as a result. The Kingdom of Iceland (which fell in a referendum sponsored by the Nazis in 2944(, the Kingdom of Poland, of Lithuania, of Finland etc.

Monarchy was not an idea whose value had gone past the "best before date."

As someone once said, "There is a king-sized void within us that only a . . . king can fill."

And I would much rather pledge allegiance to a person, a king or queen, rather to a constitution or a flag etc.

I just rather would.

That is not to say there is so very much about the U.S. and its history that is to be admired.

Alex

I hate to brag, but my wife is related to all pre-Reformation European monarchs, inluding Alexius Comnenus, Vladimir and Olga, Mieszko, Charlemagne. It is the blessing of having lots of English blood. On the Continent, only nobles married nobles. The genius of the English system allowed younger sons of younger sons of royalty to marry nobles, and younger sons of nobles to marry rich commoners. Many Southern families like my late father-in-law's are descended from younger sons who received land grants from kings. This is one reason why many American presidents have some royal blood. (The other is that settlers of Boston were upper crusty, unlike the Pilgrims of Plymouth.)
This should not be a big deal for most people with English blood because it is so common among them. But because marriage patterns were so different on the Continent, it is a big deal to someone 100% Continental like me.