BS: Qu for our American cousins

Subject: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 04:08 PM

Hi,

On numerous threads over the years various people have stated that the Americans would love to have a royal family. So I have a question for you. If you could "elect" a family to serve as a royal family and that the crown was passed down from one generation to the next would you consider it a good deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 04:18 PM

Do you mean North Americans or South Americans?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 06:15 PM

the Americans would love to have a royal family.

WHAT people??? They must have been pulling your leg.

Anyway, we do - the Trumps.

;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 06:30 PM

most of the people suggesting it have been from the uk greg

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Janie
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 06:42 PM

Scratching head.

Are you referring to a particular country in the Americas, Raggytash? Also, please link to particular threads where this wish has been expressed over the years, regardless of country. Don't doubt your assertion, but have somehow missed the threads to which you refer.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 06:47 PM

the dear old US of A Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Janie
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 07:23 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Raggytash.

I live in the USA, but can only speak for myself. I have no desire, or even thoughts, regarding a royal family. Have also never heard family, friends, colleagues, neighbors or clients express any longing for royal bloodlines.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: meself
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 08:29 PM

They doth protest not enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: maeve
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 08:45 PM

Raggytash, I have never heard of such a thing at anytime or in any part of North America.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: ChanteyLass
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 09:28 PM

I don't know who in the US wants a royal family. I don't, nor do my friends as far as I know. Many people here do seem to have fun observing royal families in other countries, especially the UK. And many in the US seem to enjoy following famous people

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 09:39 PM

If the yanks want a royal family they can have ours. Don't worry about their foreign origins. They're already foreign here, too, but no-one worries too much about that. Anyway, if their name sounds worryingly like it comes from a country that we fought world wars against, no problem. Change it! So Battenberg became Mountbatten overnight, and I can't even be arsed to find out where they dug up "Windsor" from.


Well, Windsor, I suppose...


Anyway, if you want 'em, send a large ocean-going liner over - there are quite a lot of 'em...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 09:47 PM

Don't want 'em. Keep 'em for yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 09:59 PM

Oh dear... under our electoral system and court system, I'm afraid any royals might be named Koch... and they already consider themselves to be in charge.

No... just the thought of "changing of the guard at the Treasury Gates" would make the entire project laughed out of town.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 10:33 PM

FWIW, I'm an American, and I don't want a royal family. And I have never heard any other American express such a wish.

When we have the urge to support expensive, dysfunctional families, we get pandas for the zoo.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 11:36 PM

You've got Hollywood instead.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 11:40 PM

It must be Canada, not the USA. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 12:35 AM

You might note that when USAians toss around the term 'American royalty' it has to do with accomplishments. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 01:04 AM

It sounds like some in the UK wish the residents of the US envied them their royal overlords. Not so. Americans like to visit to take a look-see at the bounty your royals have raked in, but never would wish for such a relationship with powerful unelected individuals. (It's bad enough these days with rich industrial leaders - who needs royals?)

Mexico tried it and it didn't turn out well. At. All. "Off with his head" unwell. They could have executed him for his facial hair alone. By this time, Texas had fought itself free of Mexico, and there is no way Texas would have craved a UK overlord. In this instance, you can safely assume that as Texas goes, so goes the rest of the US.

The Hawaiians had royal rulers and from reports I've heard, wanted to keep them. But the US interferred. President Denali had a hand in that particularly bungled appropriation of sovereign lands. As you can see, the tumultuous history, briefly represented here, shows no inclination for the weight of an overlord royal family. Disabuse yourself of the idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 06:03 AM

Oh dear... under our electoral system and court system, I'm afraid any royals might be named Koch

Well our royals are not called Koch but the heir to the throne is the biggest cock in the country. In fact, he could have been invented to define the word. Can we do a deal? Leave all the rest of 'em here but just take him? Please?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 08:21 AM

Just as good a parallel are the Kims in North Korea. Royalty should be elected for a fixed term, not for life and not hereditary.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: GUEST,#
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 08:48 AM

I fail to understand what the term 'royalty' really means.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: gnu
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 08:58 AM

A payment to the owner of mineral rights for the privilege of extracting the mineral from the ground based on a lease agreement. The royalty payment is based on a portion of earnings from production and varies depending on the type of mineral and the market conditions.

You dig it up and process it and Her Majesty gets a cut or cuts your head off.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 09:31 AM

Nah she won't. She'll be up in Scotland watching her husband shoot at specially-bred silly birds on a big fenced-off estate stolen from the Scottish people. She'll get somebody else to cut your head off.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 10:53 AM

When we have the urge to support expensive, dysfunctional families...

Like the Republican Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 01:18 PM

I do not want a royal heir.
I do not want it anywhere.
A free elected democracy,
should replace all sovereign legacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 04:59 PM

I dunno. I kinda like the idea of having a President like Ireland has. Irish presidents seem to be above the political squabbles, people who are widely respected and who can serve as a human symbol of the ideals of the nation.
Jimmy Carter was a failure in the squabbles of politics, but he has been an admirable symbol of our nation's ideals since then. Indeed, several of our former presidents have served the country far better once their term had ended - Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, Jerry Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton. So, maybe the American equivalent of a Queen or an Irish President, is our list of ex-presidents.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 05:33 PM

The difference being Joe is that they shuffle off this mortal coil there is not one of their offspring to follow them ad infinitum. Bush excepted.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 05:36 PM

Raggy:

We don't do monarchies; we have found them a bit risky over time.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 05:38 PM

there is not one of their offspring to follow them ad infinitum. Bush excepted.

Yup- them Bushes just keep a-comin' & comon' & comin'..... like a plague of bedbugs.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 06:19 PM

Some prefer paying homage to entertainment celebrities, like movie stars, sports folks, and wacky singers.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 06:26 PM

As a USAian, I say we don't need 'em. I've never
heard one of my countrymen express any such yearning.

Of course the Royals we're most familiar with
are those of Great Britain, which in this era have
no real power, other than that of exasperating the
public* (alternating with entertaining them) so perhaps the hereditary feature wouldn't do all that much harm.

As to the entertainment value, if it were to be a
hereditary position the American people would get bored
and want to change the channel.

*Charles, for example

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 06:32 PM

So instead you have a couple of families taking turns at providing a President.

I've always been keen in the idea of countries having animals as head of state. The British could have a horse, and the existing royals could stick around to ride it on state occasions, like the opening of parliament, and the Trooping of the Colour (which is fun, so I'd hold on to it.)

The Americans might do better to have a grizzly bear.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: mg
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 08:27 PM

bushes and clintons are out out out. Kennedys...have not been heard from in a while. They would have to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 08:55 PM

Hey leenia... http://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/webcams/giant-panda.cfm Live cam

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 10:39 AM

mg, I'll point out that we've only had ONE Kennedy
president. I suppose that if Robert K. had not been
assassinated he would have run for that office, but
there's no way to know what his success might have
been. I'm a Democrat, but I doubt that I'd have voted
for Robert even had he lived and secured the nomination.
I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall there was another
member of the Kennedy tribe who was trying to get there
but fell far short of being even a remotely possible
candidate.

Historically, we had the Adams father and son, back in
the early days. We had the two Roosevelts, not father and son
but related. We've had two Johnsons, but unrelated,
so no dynastic threat. We've had two Bushes (so far),
but we may be able to avoid a third if we're lucky and
have learned our lesson. We just might get another
Clinton, and I would vote for that. Have I missed
any in my inventory?

In most of the above I see no threat of a continuing
"royal family". I'm not aware of any more Clintons
who might follow a possible President Hillary. The
Bush family seems to be the only candidate for
hereditary royal status lying in the weeds. Again
I say, "luck to avoid".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 12:09 PM

I'm always bemused when I read of the Bush dynasty or the Clinton dynasty or, for that matter, the Kennedy dynasty. Doesn't it take more than a second heir to make a dynasty? And doesn't a dynasty require a somewhat closer series of events?

I grant you that if Hillary Clinton became president and then Chelsea became president immediately after, given Bill Clinton's presidency, that might constitute a dynasty, but just barely.

Or if, with Geo HW receding into the past but here and W still on the scene, JEB became president and followed into the presidency by his son George Prescott Bush- yeah, that could be called a dynasty.

Heaven forfend.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 12:54 PM

yeah, that could be called a dynasty.

No, that would be called an effing disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 01:02 PM

Not much enthusiasm for royalty in US then.
If you read the thread about our queen, you will learn that it would soon change with a bit of spin, and coverage of weddings and births.
Apparently, that is the only reason that most people here are happy to keep ours.
We are so feeble minded!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: GUEST,Brucking Bronco
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 01:06 PM

Only some of you Keith are feeble minded as you've shown time and time again

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 01:20 PM

Thanks !

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Cool Beans
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 04:14 PM

Never heard anyone here in America express a desire for a royal family; I think we once fought a war about that. We are a bit obsessed with celebrities, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 05:28 PM

The thing is, while Americans might get obsessed at time with British stuff like the Royal Family, and the British get the same about American personalities, including the President, and Hollywood royalty, I doubt very much if there is any appetite for swapping. It's very much a love-hate relationship, on both sides.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: cnd
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 06:34 PM

Personally, no desire for royalty here. I remember being in the British Virgin Islands when that baby boy was born in 2012/3... George, was it? Anyway, I got a kick out of it at first. Every customs office we went through, and all the stations on radio, etc, everything was focused on this one little boy. I got pretty sick of it to be honest. Then, for 2 weeks, I was largely out of communication with the outside world, and when we hit land again, they were still blathering about him!

I'd like to think that if the serving president had a baby we wouldn't be so focused on it, but then again, you never know.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 07:23 PM

McGrath is right. We Americans are very happy having the Windsors as royalty, and we're very happy they're an ocean away from us. We'd be most upset if you English did away with your royalty, though.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 07:25 PM

If you do get rid of your royalty, how will you do it?
Guillotine?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 07:26 PM

CND, That sounds like our national news 24/7/52. Little wonder that some of us are not enthralled by it.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 07:30 PM

One expects that they'll get rid of themselves. Quite possibly by Prince Charles doing what he does best, opening his big mouth once too often about something he knows nothing about (which is everything), or doing something disreputable. He has form on both accounts, which means we can live in eternal hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: LadyJean
Date: 09 Sep 15 - 01:33 AM

We don't wantour own royal family. Though many of us enjoy other people's. My cousin Ruby Caldwell began keeping a scrapbook on Princess Elizabeth when she was serving as a nurse in Shrivenham in the second world war. She spent most of her life in rural Kentucky, reading up on the British royals.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: GUEST,Bert
Date: 09 Sep 15 - 02:02 AM

No we don't want a Royal Family.

The Bushes were way too much.

We had a George I and a George II, we don't need another George III.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 15 - 09:20 AM

"...we don't need another George III."


...and "King Jeb" just has a bad ring to it from the start.