Despite being an ostensible democracy, many people in the USA are fixated with royalty and hereditary titles. Witness the 19th century heiresses who married bankrupt English noblemen or the nitwits today who buy a square inch of land in Scotland so they can call themselves a "lord of the manor." The irony lies in the fact that the House …
Despite being an ostensible democracy, many people in the USA are fixated with royalty and hereditary titles. Witness the 19th century heiresses who married bankrupt English noblemen or the nitwits today who buy a square inch of land in Scotland so they can call themselves a "lord of the manor." The irony lies in the fact that the House of Hanover is one of the most junior, least distinguished European dynasties. Hell, Scandinavian royalty can trace their ancestry back eleven hundred years (the Japanese Emperor can go back 1700!). My guess is the focus largely derives from our colonial history and the fact that the House of Hanover is basically the only one that still puts on a lot of pomp and circumstance. I still think it's all bullshit.
People always seem fascinated by royalty. Not everyone, but lots of people. Since we don’t officially have royalty, we adopt the British royal family, or Hollywood celebrities, or billionaires and elevate them to the role. I don’t get it, but then I don’t get why so many people deeply need a “strong leader,” or have a craving for fascism either.
Americans love royalty, but we're not particularly clever about it. Ask most of us to name the Queen of Denmark or the King of the Netherlands, for instance, and the response is likely, "aren't those the same country?"
Also, those Americans who love royalty aren’t interested in the Nordic or Dutch royals; there’s not enough pomp and circumstance. If you’re into royalty, chances are you’re into the Cinderella and period drama/costume party aspects of it.
They know they're figureheads. That said, they served as rallying points for their peoples against Hitler (Wilhelmina and Haakon VII escaped capture; Christian X stayed but thumbed his nose at the Nazis at every opportunity). They served as continuity postwar when collaborators were rounded up and shot.
I think in the 1980's, USAsians were perplexed to learn that the top royal of either The Netherlands or Belgium habitually rode a bicycle from their residence to the palace.
What is royalty, these Americans would wonder, if that's just a normal bike & if the path they took was not lined with peasant bodies?
Fintan O'Toole took the opportunity to note that every British passport labels the bearer as a "subject" of the Queen, while American passports list us as "citizens", and that's a profound difference. I expect the British SAS is closing in on his house right now.
Despite being an ostensible democracy, many people in the USA are fixated with royalty and hereditary titles. Witness the 19th century heiresses who married bankrupt English noblemen or the nitwits today who buy a square inch of land in Scotland so they can call themselves a "lord of the manor." The irony lies in the fact that the House of Hanover is one of the most junior, least distinguished European dynasties. Hell, Scandinavian royalty can trace their ancestry back eleven hundred years (the Japanese Emperor can go back 1700!). My guess is the focus largely derives from our colonial history and the fact that the House of Hanover is basically the only one that still puts on a lot of pomp and circumstance. I still think it's all bullshit.
People always seem fascinated by royalty. Not everyone, but lots of people. Since we don’t officially have royalty, we adopt the British royal family, or Hollywood celebrities, or billionaires and elevate them to the role. I don’t get it, but then I don’t get why so many people deeply need a “strong leader,” or have a craving for fascism either.
Americans love royalty, but we're not particularly clever about it. Ask most of us to name the Queen of Denmark or the King of the Netherlands, for instance, and the response is likely, "aren't those the same country?"
Also, those Americans who love royalty aren’t interested in the Nordic or Dutch royals; there’s not enough pomp and circumstance. If you’re into royalty, chances are you’re into the Cinderella and period drama/costume party aspects of it.
They know they're figureheads. That said, they served as rallying points for their peoples against Hitler (Wilhelmina and Haakon VII escaped capture; Christian X stayed but thumbed his nose at the Nazis at every opportunity). They served as continuity postwar when collaborators were rounded up and shot.
I think in the 1980's, USAsians were perplexed to learn that the top royal of either The Netherlands or Belgium habitually rode a bicycle from their residence to the palace.
What is royalty, these Americans would wonder, if that's just a normal bike & if the path they took was not lined with peasant bodies?
No Americans can name any royalty from any African country either.
The Windsors were originally Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, not Hanover. The family name was changed to Windsor during WW1 for some reason.
To me they will always be the House of Hanover.
Oh, that's a bunch of Liberty Cabbage!
I wonder what those could be...
Also, notable the famous photo of the young Windsors giving the Nazi salute, & their father's active collaboration with Hitler b4 the war.
Well, we know from whom the Windsor name came and why.
Too, the upper classes in the 30s had let’s say great tolerance for Nazi Germany.
"Cliveden Set". It's a plot point in the movie "Gosford Park".
There's a new thing out, bitchezz...It's called
**THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!**
Eh, give it a couple of centuries and see how it's working out then.
Fintan O'Toole took the opportunity to note that every British passport labels the bearer as a "subject" of the Queen, while American passports list us as "citizens", and that's a profound difference. I expect the British SAS is closing in on his house right now.