Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America's 'Lost Monarchy': The Man Who Would Be King
Newsweek.com ^ | 10/08/08 | Kurt Soller |

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 Washington—a 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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: genealogy; georgewashington; godsgravesglyphs

1 posted on 10/11/2008 8:36:57 AM PDT by Oyarsa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oyarsa
Paul Emery Washington is a direct descendant of George Washington, our nation's first president

Lemme guess, Pauly is voting Obama/Palin, right?

2 posted on 10/11/2008 8:41:44 AM PDT by itsthejourney (1 of every 10 people you pass in the mall is here illegally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oyarsa
George Washington never fathered any children, so this man is NOT a direct descendant.
3 posted on 10/11/2008 8:42:11 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

Certainly no legitimate children, and, therefore, probably, no illegitimate children either.

But, hey, historical facts are such boring things.


4 posted on 10/11/2008 8:44:29 AM PDT by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: itsthejourney

You’d know the answer if you had read the article.


5 posted on 10/11/2008 8:44:50 AM PDT by Oyarsa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

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.


6 posted on 10/11/2008 8:46:07 AM PDT by Oyarsa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oyarsa

Brain freeze

Ignore “President”; should be “king”

My error.


7 posted on 10/11/2008 8:46:39 AM PDT by Oyarsa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Oyarsa

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.


8 posted on 10/11/2008 8:47:04 AM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Philo-Junius

It is stated later on in the article that he is descended from one of Washington’s brothers.


9 posted on 10/11/2008 8:47:21 AM PDT by Oyarsa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: devere

Then why did you bother to reply to a thread posting article you consider “garbage”?


10 posted on 10/11/2008 8:48:17 AM PDT by Oyarsa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Oyarsa

> 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’.


11 posted on 10/11/2008 8:50:37 AM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oyarsa
Not wasting my time. I stopped reading at “direct descendant”.
12 posted on 10/11/2008 8:51:27 AM PDT by itsthejourney (1 of every 10 people you pass in the mall is here illegally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter

Good point.


13 posted on 10/11/2008 8:51:48 AM PDT by Oyarsa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: itsthejourney

and yet you spent enough time to post on an article you failed to complete reading.


14 posted on 10/11/2008 8:52:59 AM PDT by Oyarsa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Oyarsa

So that would be NOT a descendant of George Washington, then?

Then the whole premise of the article disintegrates.


15 posted on 10/11/2008 9:01:42 AM PDT by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: devere
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.

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.

-ccm

16 posted on 10/11/2008 9:02:24 AM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Philo-Junius

Not really; one can succeed a monarch without being a direct descendant of that monarch, so long as one is on the royal family.


17 posted on 10/11/2008 9:02:57 AM PDT by Oyarsa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Oyarsa

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.


18 posted on 10/11/2008 9:05:49 AM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter

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).


19 posted on 10/11/2008 9:09:10 AM PDT by Oyarsa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Philo-Junius

The Stuarts would have had as good a claim as Lawrence’s children.


20 posted on 10/11/2008 9:12:10 AM PDT by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Oyarsa

By English precedent, parliament would have established the succession, which could as likely passed through Martha’s children, adopted by George.

Once that line daughtered out, the Stuarts would have been as likely successors as Lawrence’s descendants.


21 posted on 10/11/2008 9:14:10 AM PDT by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Oyarsa

I’m the third cousin six times removed of Bushrod Washington, George’s nephew and one of the worst Supreme Court justices in our history. So what does that make me? A princess?


22 posted on 10/11/2008 9:31:22 AM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mercat
So what does that make me? A princess?

Pretty close

His uncle George Washington sponsored Bushrod's legal studies with fellow Founder James Wilson. He inherited Mount Vernon from George after the latter died in 1799.

You should lay claim to Mt. Vernon!

23 posted on 10/11/2008 9:51:25 AM PDT by Bommer (Who was Obama's diction coach? Bevis or Butthead? Uhhhhhh.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Oyarsa
Frivolous article by a stupid writer. The story itself admits that George Washington had no children, but talks about 8,000 descendants. The term is relatives, not descendants, moron.

1) There is no evidence that a monarchy was seriously considered by the Constitutional Convention.

2) There is no evidence that Washington would have accepted the throne if offered to him.

3) Yes, Washington may have been able to pull an Oliver Cromwell and use the Continental Army to overthrow the Continental Congress(would the army have followed him? Your guess is as good as mine.), but he didn't so that ends that. George III called Washington “the greatest man in Christendom” for resigning his commission and disbanding the army, which still was waiting on payment of back pay. Eventually the soldiers got their money.

4) If offered the throne, and if accepted by Washington there is no reason to assume it would be hereditary. It may have been elective, like Poland or the Papal States.

5) Assuming it was hereditary, since Washington had no descendants either the Constitutional Convention would have had to provide a mechanism for the succession, perhaps picking the successor themselves, or leaving it to Washington to designate a successor. Perhaps he would have picked someone like Alexander Hamilton instead of a relative?

6) And finally there is no reason to assume that this new monarchy would not have joined the the Empire of Mexico, the Empire of Brazil, the Empire of Haiti, the Kingdom of Patagonia, or the Kingdom of Hawaii on the trash heap of history in a generation or two. The only monarchies that still rule any territory in the New World are monarchies of the Old World, like the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands.

It may be cool to be a relative of George Washington, but I suggest these people not worry about what might have happened and get on with their lives.

24 posted on 10/11/2008 10:00:18 AM PDT by Cheburashka (Democratic Underground: where PCP is not just for breakfast anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka
Frivolous article by a stupid writer.

Well put.

The whole concept of a national government at that time was paper-thin. Real power rested with the states. Slight support for a monarchy might have been found in places like Charleston or some parts of the Chesapeake tidewater.

But in New England, it was absolutely out of the question. New Englanders simply would not have stood for it.

Also, the great inland settlement running from Philadelphia down central Virginia all the way to Georgia, settled initially by the Scotch-Irish, would not have permitted it. By the close of the Revolution, their hatred for the British king was white hot. They would not have suffered an American king.

25 posted on 10/11/2008 11:23:37 AM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Oyarsa

The U.S. presidency is for all intents and purposes an elected monarchy and has been for some time. It does not have some of the superficially trappings of European style monarchies, but that’s just a matter of style.


26 posted on 10/11/2008 12:25:34 PM PDT by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
Note: this topic is from October 11, 2008.

Blast from the Past.

Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

·Dogpile · Archaeologica · LiveScience · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


27 posted on 05/28/2010 6:41:05 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oyarsa
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.

No, "Paul Emery Washington" is NOT a direct descendant of George Washington. Washington had no children.

He can be a indirect descendant but not a direct descendant. Words mean things.

28 posted on 05/28/2010 6:45:16 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (there are huge chunks of time...at night...where I'm just asleep...for hours...it's ridiculous....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oyarsa
And, just to put a finer point on it all, Washington's brothers were half brothers (different mother).
29 posted on 05/29/2010 7:52:42 AM PDT by Pharmboy (The Stone Age did not end because they ran out of stones...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Oyarsa
Washington had no children, therefore no direct decendants.
30 posted on 05/29/2010 8:18:30 AM PDT by metesky (My retirement fund is holding steady @ $.05 a can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill
The U.S. presidency is for all intents and purposes an elected monarchy and has been for some time.

And every four to eight years we get to metaphorically commit regicide.

31 posted on 05/29/2010 8:25:18 AM PDT by metesky (My retirement fund is holding steady @ $.05 a can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Oyarsa
Brain freeze
Ignore “President”; should be “king”
My error.

That's OK. We don't have a president either.

32 posted on 05/29/2010 8:26:34 AM PDT by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson