The Man Who Would Be King

Oliver Cromwell turned down the Crown of England, preferring the title Lord Protector.
He is my direct ancestor.

Oliver Cromwell also turned down the Crown of England, preferring to be known as Lord Protector.

To Mr. Soller and Newsweek:
Thanks for the amusing diversion in this time of financial and (U.S) political turmoil.

To commenters as a whole:
Such emphasis on direct descent, such ignorance of rules of succession...
Such (thankfullly only a few) attempts to express your hate of one (yes, only one) presidential candidate???
Lighten up, people!

To Macuna???ima (10/08/2008 1:27:17 PM), who mentions Atat???urk:
I wish *I* had written that!

Can you *** yanks learn to writer proper English??

write english properly you *** yanks

Simon Bolivar is another man who turned down the monarchy, he did so when we was offered the throne in Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru and what is now Panama, then part of Colombia.

The reason that George turned down being made king is stated clearly in the records in the library of Congress. George said he turned it down because he did not have the proper BLOODLINE to rule as king. He and a few other founding fathers believed that the right to rule was in the bloodline of the house of Stuart. Emissaries were sent to the head of the Stuart line in France, who declined for the reasons stated in the record: because he had no children yet so he feared he would be an assassination target and because our country was so new. The references are in the book "the Bloodline of the Holy Grail" and so this is the true story of who would be the king of America today if we did not follow our Constitution. I've seen this man speak several times on TV, the man who would be King of England if the Stuarts hadn't been overthrown by the House of Hanover, the Fisher-King line that our forefathers also believed had the God-given right to rule.

While this is an interesting article, its contents once again support the notion that public schools are not doing the job. Kurt Soller says in reference to George Washington's reaction to being named the new monarch, that he " ...staunched the idea and eventually relinquished his power as commander-in-chief." But of course Mr. Soller meant "STANCHED," not staunched. Staunch means to be strong, as in "I am a staunch believer in a constiutional monarchy." To "stanch" and idea would be to stop it by "rising up a wall" to something.

Get it straight Kurt baby.

Though this article is obviously intended to be fanciful, it is indeed amusing that a single sentence contains two glaring errors: "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." As the article itself later mentions, George Washington had no children and therefore could not possibly have direct descendants alive today (or in any other day). Moreover, it is a well known fact of English constitutional history that Oliver Cromwell was offered, and adamantly declined, the office of king following the execution of Charles I, scarcely more than a century before the American Revolution.

I'm a genealogist. People should get their definitions straight to avoid confusion. It always bothers me when people claim there are descendants of a man who had no children. George Washington had no children, therefore no descendants and no one is descended from him. As the article plainly states, they are descended from George Washington's brother. They are not George's descendants, although they may be his heirs.

I thought this article was fun. Not everything has to be illuminating and serious. As a side note: Dictionary.com has this to say about the use of the word "myriad." Usage Note: Throughout most of its history in English myriad was used as a noun, as in a myriad of men. In the 19th century it began to be used in poetry as an adjective, as in myriad men. Both usages in English are acceptable, as in Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Myriad myriads of lives." This poetic, adjectival use became so well entrenched generally that many people came to consider it as the only correct use. In fact, both uses in English are parallel with those of the original ancient Greek. The Greek word m??rias, from which myriad derives, could be used as either a noun or an adjective, but the noun m??rias was used in general prose and in mathematics while the adjective m??rias was used only in poetry.

PS Bill Washington seems like a likeable fellow.

Paul Emery Washington could NOT be a direct descendant of George Washington, as George Washington had no legitimate children of his own. Paul Emery Washington is a direct descendant of George Washington's brother, and therefore a COLLATERAL descendant of George Washington.

Hey, don't look now but if George W. Bush had his way he would be that Kink spoken about here. His next in line to sucseed would be someone better for there are no one worst or more stupid excepting perhah our old crippled up McCain.

Dumb article. If the U.S. had was a monarch, there would be totally different laws, belifes, education. I think that it is safe to say that under a monarch, a different fate or circumstances would not have brought the parents, and grandparents of Paul Emery Washington togther, therefore he would have never been born.

Dumb article. If the U.S. had was a monarch, there would be totally different laws, belifes, education. I think that it is safe to say that under a monarch, a different fate or circumstances would not have brought the parents, and grandparents of Paul Emery Washington togther, therefore he would have never been born.

George Washington had no children - so how can they be direct decendents?