Skip to comments.America's 'Lost Monarchy': The Man Who Would Be King
Posted on 10/11/2008 8:36:57 AM PDT by Oyarsa
The children of Paul Emery Washington think of their father as an unpretentious, generous guy who climbed the corporate ladder to become regional manager at CertainTeed manufacturing, a building-supply company. Now 82, he takes care of his wife, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease, while spending time on the San Antonio, Texas, property that he shares with his children. "I think he would've been a great king," says son Bill Washingtona statement, we admit, that might seem a little odd. Except that Paul Emery Washington is a direct descendant of George Washington, our nation's first president and perhaps the only man in history who turned down the position of monarch.
Had George Washington ascended to the throne, Paul Emery Washington (Joe Six-pack, incarnate) could now go by King Paul, the first. Lore has it that President Washington was so well liked after his Revolutionary victory that a group of citizens frustrated with the Continental Congress floated the idea of a coup-d'etat and the installation of King George and the creation of an American monarchy. But Washington, who believed that anyone (anyone!) might make for a good leader, staunched the idea and eventually relinquished his power as commander-in-chief.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Lemme guess, Pauly is voting Obama/Palin, right?
Certainly no legitimate children, and, therefore, probably, no illegitimate children either.
But, hey, historical facts are such boring things.
You’d know the answer if you had read the article.
I caught that error, but he is a descendant of one of Washington’s brothers.
It’s an interesting genealogical case, but I’m glad we don’t have a president.
Ignore “President”; should be “king”
Garbage published by the Liberal MSM is not worth reading.
Half of Free Republic is also not worth reading, because it is a republication of garbage published by the Liberal MSM.
This article is certainly part of that half.
It is stated later on in the article that he is descended from one of Washington’s brothers.
Then why did you bother to reply to a thread posting article you consider “garbage”?
> perhaps the only man in history who turned down the position of monarch.
Not so! Truth in Advertizing!
Julius Caesar refused to become Emperor of Rome. That didn’t stop him getting backstabbed, tho’.
and yet you spent enough time to post on an article you failed to complete reading.
So that would be NOT a descendant of George Washington, then?
Then the whole premise of the article disintegrates.
Aren't you a bundle of joy this morning. I thought this was very interesting. A nice break from the usual poll-watching and doom-mongering.
Not really; one can succeed a monarch without being a direct descendant of that monarch, so long as one is on the royal family.
Cheers, mate. I believe also Oliver Cromwell refused to become King of England, choosing instead to become the Lord Protector.
That said, George Washington was a truly great man.
That he was; and I’m glad he refused the title of Monarch.
A pity that many schoolchildren today learn so little about our founding fathers (other than that they were white, that circumstances really weren’t “all that bad” in America prior to Revolution, and that many of them were slave owners).
The Stuarts would have had as good a claim as Lawrence’s children.