Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Kerry going to oust Bush because of blue blood?; John Kerry’s family
Topic Started: Aug 20 2004, 05:42 PM (179 Views)
Ngagh
Member Avatar
Huh?
Quote:
 
LONDON - When it comes to American presidential elections, blue blood counts.

So say British researchers who predict Democratic challenger John Kerry will oust President  Bush on Nov. 2 simply because he boasts more royal connections than his Republican rival.

After months of research into Kerry’s ancestry, Burke’s Peerage, experts on British aristocracy, reported on Monday that the Vietnam War veteran is related to all the royal houses of Europe and can claim kinship with Russian czar Ivan the Terrible, a previous emperor of Byzantium and the shahs of Persia.

Burke’s director Harold Brooks-Baker said Kerry had his mother, Rosemary Forbes, to thank for most of his royal connections.

“Every maternal blood line of Kerry makes him more royal than any previous American president,” Brooks-Baker said. “Because of the fact that every presidential candidate with the most royal genes and chromosomes has always won the November presidential election, the coming election — based on 42 previous presidents — will go to John Kerry.”

Similar research carried out on Bush ahead of the 2000 presidential race showed that he beat Al Gore in the royal stakes, claiming kinship with Britain’s Queen Elizabeth as well as with Kings Henry III and Charles II of England.

In the company of kings
Kerry is a descendant of bygone kings of England, Henry III and Henry II, and is distantly related to Richard the Lionheart, who led the third Crusade in 1189, according to Burke’s.

He is also descended from Henry I, King of France, and his wife, Anne of Kiev, giving him kinship with the royal houses of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the House of Rus.

Burke’s research showed Kerry also has historical political connections in the United States.

He is closely related to John Winthrop, the first Massachusetts governor — the state for which he is now a senator — and his maternal grandmother was the granddaughter of Robert Winthrop, who was speaker of the House of Representatives from 1847 to 1849.


Article
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
:huh:
:D :D
:lol: :lol: :lol:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


:beam:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
And I thought all USA presidents were members of the blue blood set. It's a given isn't it ?

Joe Blow off the street has a snow flake's chance in hell of ever becoming the Prez or anything worthwhile in the USA's executive branch of government as you have to be extremely wealthy to get so much as a look in.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Yes, a man who was born in a log cabin and relative poverty could never become President.

Posted Image

Neither could a man who was raised on a peanut farm that had no electricity or indoor plumbing.

Posted Image

Nope, you have to have a silver spoon in your mouth when you are born if you are to have any hope of becomming President.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Are they the only two examples of men who weren't bluebloods who became presidents ?

Honest Abe - different times - a much more aggregorian American society then, he got the job because of his ability.

Carter - might well have been raised on a peanut farm in the South, but was wealthy when he ran for Prez, and was certainly wealthy when he was finished. (The package is pretty lucrative and pays very well - and isn't there a very lucrative pension paid to all ex-Prezs - for the term of their natural lives - great Super these guys have.)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I wouldn't call Jimmy Carter a wealthy man by means of his presidential salary. Hell, I made more than he did last year, but then again I don't have speaking engagements.

Carter was the governor of the state of Georgia when he was elected, as I remember. That job did not pay very well.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Somerled,

I will have to disagree with you. Of the modern presidents (post WWII) Harry Truman, Lindon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton all were raised in modest (meaning middle class or lower) circumstances.
| Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
^^^
That's a fine list, but wasn't Eisenhower of modest means also?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Methinks perhaps somerland doesn't believe that poor or middle class folk can build themselves into individuals who can be educated or influencial enough to come to positions of power. While this is perhaps true when the poor are exposed to the narcotic of a nanny-state, it is not true when a lack of said government forces the poor to take the initiative and improve their lives.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
doctortobe
Aug 21 2004, 01:41 PM
Methinks perhaps somerland doesn't believe that poor or middle class folk can build themselves into individuals who can be educated or influencial enough to come to positions of power. While this is perhaps true when the poor are exposed to the narcotic of a nanny-state, it is not true when a lack of said government forces the poor to take the initiative and improve their lives.

We are quickly approaching that point in the U.S., but not yet. And I feel if we were to ever reach that point is when we'd find ourselves in a new revolution.

There's still time to turn back from the socialistic Leftist lunacy foisted upon some much of the world, but it will take strength of character and resolute principles to do it. As well, it will also take calling a spade a spade, by realizing that not all allies are really allies.

Many have their sights set on the United States, and they're waiting for the right time to pull the trigger.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Dwayne
Aug 21 2004, 01:38 PM
^^^
That's a fine list, but wasn't Eisenhower of modest means also?

You are right (according to my sources). Add him to the list.

So really, the only modern "blue blood" Presidents since WWII have been Kennedy, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Aug 21 2004, 04:53 PM
Dwayne
Aug 21 2004, 01:38 PM
^^^
That's a fine list, but wasn't Eisenhower of modest means also?

You are right (according to my sources). Add him to the list.

So really, the only modern "blue blood" Presidents since WWII have been Kennedy, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.

We can't forget FDR...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 21 2004, 07:33 PM
gvok
Aug 21 2004, 04:53 PM
Dwayne
Aug 21 2004, 01:38 PM
^^^
That's a fine list, but wasn't Eisenhower of modest means also?

You are right (according to my sources). Add him to the list.

So really, the only modern "blue blood" Presidents since WWII have been Kennedy, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.

We can't forget FDR...

When I said "since WWII" I was not including WWII. But you are certainly correct that FDR was a blue blood just like JFK and the Presidents Bush.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I included FDR because both he and Truman were president during WWII, and I also consider Roosevelt a "modern" president (only partly because he died less than 15 years before I was born). Franklin Roosevelt serving three full and one partial term tips the "blue blood" scale a bit.

One thing all will notice, by and large, is that presidents from both sides of the aisle usually rise from modest means and make something of themselves. It has only really been of a more recent time that people had the ultimate goal of being president from childhood (either through parents... like JFK, or by their own ambition... like Bill Clinton).

Here's a question I'll ask for those evaluating this presidential race: Do you think that either candidate had aspirations from a young age of being president? If so (or not), indicate why.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 22 2004, 08:58 AM
I included FDR because both he and Truman were president during WWII, and I also consider Roosevelt a "modern" president (only partly because he died less than 15 years before I was born). Franklin Roosevelt serving three full and one partial term tips the "blue blood" scale a bit.

One thing all will notice, by and large, is that presidents from both sides of the aisle usually rise from modest means and make something of themselves. It has only really been of a more recent time that people had the ultimate goal of being president from childhood (either through parents... like JFK, or by their own ambition... like Bill Clinton).

Here's a question I'll ask for those evaluating this presidential race: Do you think that either candidate had aspirations from a young age of being president? If so (or not), indicate why.

I arbitarily chose the end of WWII as a starting point. FDR is certainly a modern President. So there's no disagreement there.

In response to your question, I really don't have enough information on either candidate's childhood to know, but if I were to speculate I'd say that George W. Bush seems like the least likely of the two to have Presidential aspirations from a young age. I don't really have a problem either way though.

I also don't know for sure but it seems like a safe bet that the branch of government with the highest historical percentage of "blue bloods" is the Legislative branch.
| Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus