Posted on 05/09/2007 11:27:05 AM PDT by JZelle
Americans got the royal treatment for 144 hours, give or take a few minutes. But it's all over. Queen Elizabeth II is gone, along with her beribboned hats, sensible pumps and kindly civility that commanded the attention of 700 dithering journalists, the White House and the citizenry itself.
Our nation will never have a queen. But we liked this one just fine. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released yesterday found that eight of 10 of us favor the British monarch -- more than British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who garnered 70 percent, and Prince Charles at 62 percent. The survey of 1,028 adults also revealed that 41 percent of us thought we'd be better off with a royal family.
Still, there was an awful lot of telltale hubbub over curtsying and protocol during the six-day visit, which ended as the queen thundered out of Andrews Air Force Base last night aboard a custom jet, accompanied by three tons of luggage and 35 attendants.
"This is no simple flash-in-the-pan celebrity watch. Americans are drawn to the queen's calm demeanor and her basic etiquette -- respect, consideration, honesty," said manners maven Peggy Post, spokeswoman of the Vermont-based Emily Post Institute.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
‘They became President because enough of those 300 million people freely voted for them, not because of their family tree.’
I guess the hard bit is becoming the candidate with daddys help; once you’ve narrowed the choice down to two, that’s when the voters come into play.
Oh, and it self-evidently wasn’t a non-sequitor as you did respond and calculating the odds of a father and son both becoming president is eminently possible. . . . . ;-)
I bet the Clintons long for a monarchy and wish it was them.
Ah, yes. It's certainly different when you get to BE monarch.
True.
I think we can safely posit with absolute certainty that there's no chance of another Bush ever getting in the White House again.
But why am I even wasting my time with one obviously so clueless...
The part about 41% wanting royalty here really scares me.
What do you think the Kennedys, Clintoons, Kerrys, and Bushes are? Plumbers and electricians?
See post #24
“The part about 41% wanting royalty here really scares me.”
They’ll get it if the voters are stupid enough (and last November proves they are) to elect Her Thighness, Hillary Rotten Clinton.
Do I wish this nation had a monarch? Unlike that 'fine' gentleman Hamilton, no I don't. But do I admire and have a fondness for the English monarchy? Yes.
Still, there was an awful lot of telltale hubbub over curtsying and protocol during the six-day visit, which ended as the queen thundered out of Andrews Air Force Base last night aboard a custom jet, accompanied by three tons of luggage and 35 attendants
Nope, no bias there. Minus the 'three tons of luggage' (which I imagine wouldn't be far off) how many 'attendants' swarm around Bush when he 'thunders' off on his travels on his 'custom jet'? I'd garner it's far more than 35.
"This is no simple flash-in-the-pan celebrity watch. Americans are drawn to the queen's calm demeanor and her basic etiquette -- respect, consideration, honesty," said manners maven Peggy Post, spokeswoman of the Vermont-based Emily Post Institute.
Oh I don't know. Perhaps it's because we don't have politicians that are respectful or honest from either party? And we see something that we've missed for many years?
I doubt you have anything to worry about.....
Paris Hilton...... proof that you don't have to be poor to be white trash....
Neither Commonwealth monarchists nor American nationalists are completely rational in how they have appointed the object of their adoration. They don't need a queen, and we don't need fancy-pants buildings in Washington, DC or pledges of allegiance to the flag, or de facto hymns to the same before baseball games. But rationalism was never the point.
“Elizabeth, he said, is the “antithesis” of what America stands for.”
The money quote of this article.
Even “friendly” Europeans, like SOME of the Brits, have a really hard time understanding this most basic characteristic of REAL Americans; we despise class stratification. Even our cousins in Canada, can’t seem to grasp this about us.
All the more shocking to me then, when an openly traitorous, arrogant effete, elitist snob (”Don’t you know who I am?”), like John Kerry received votes from tens of millions Americans.
If I hang four lanterns in the steeple, I need for you to ...
Umm did I miss something? Are you saying that many conservatives must be disappointed with GWB just because you are? Well you don’t speak for me or my family and many others! How presumptuous of you!
A lot of us are also conservatives. We are not babies or idiots, and we have a right to decide how we are supposed to feel, and what we are supposed to think. How about just taking care of yourself and your opinion, and leaving the opinions of the rest of us to US! OK?
Thank you
(Good grief!)
‘Here’s a hint - his father could only vote ONCE, in one state, in those primaries just like any other US citizen’
Oh, yes, I understand now - it’s Bush SNR’s vote that mattered! Not his deep pockets! :D
‘But why am I even wasting my time with one obviously so clueless...’
It must be your ego making you do it. ;-)
“I imagine that most of the 41% who said they’d like American royalty had never thought about it before and would have been strongly opposed if the question included the information that their tax dollars would be required to subsidize the lives of these parasites.”
What makes you think American taxpayers mind subsidizing parasites?
I rather like the British monarchy.
Wouldn’t want it here, but it seems to have worked well for the British.
Stable monarchies can add a measure of social stability to nations. As well, we’ve learned in the 20th century that monarchies are not antithetical to representative democracy. In fact, we learned last century from the Spanish example that in extremis, the monarch may serve as the defender of constitutional, representative democracy, as when King Juan Carlos led the putting down of a coup in defense of Spanish democracy.
Finally, looking at the United Kingdom, it seems that the worst aspects of Prime Minister Blair’s governance have been associated with a strain of anti-elitism, even anti-monarchism.
So you are happy with his high discretionary spending, expiring tax cuts, open borders and calling minutemen vigilantes, trying to push through Harriet Meirs and then telling us we are sexist if we don't like it?
I didn't say you hate the guy, but you must be disappointed?
Not really. The laws that drove the Revolution were passed by Parliament, a body in which the colonists were not represented. Painting George III as the lead villain was a calculated political decision, as the Americans didn't want to alienate their remaining Whig allies.
The part about 41% wanting royalty here really scares me.
I'm not frightened. It just means that all the people who drool over the tabloids and watch Extra would like to see someone with a little of QEII's dignity to break up the parade of Brithenys, Parises and Anna Nicoles.
Some democracies, notably Germany and Israel, have a sort of elected monarch -- a president, with mostly symbolic duties, who is expected to remain above the fray and outside politics. The chancellor and prime minister, respectively, are the heads of government.
If the US had adopted something like that at the beginning, I don't think it would have harmed us any; I think it would be a transparently pointless move now. For that matter, if the US had been founded as a constitutional monarchy, I don't think that would have changed the nation's development much -- but founding a royal house in the US was a logistical impossibility, as the only contender, George Washington, had no children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
