The bluer blood always wins: Kerry is related to more royalty than Bush

[LTR]

I came across an article yesterday about the 'royalty factor'. This has been bandied about for a while, but with the election coming so quickly, I thought it would be a good time to dig it up. Since George Washington, the candidate with more connections to royalty has won the election. Kerry is related to quite a few royals, and is even a distant relative of the Bush Clan.

http://www.greatdreams.com/political/repo-man.htm

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.

(snip)

“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.”

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/05/elec04.prez.royal.reut/
http://forums.rbhq.net/lofiversion/index.php/t1307.html

But wait! What about Bill Clinton? Is his blood bluer than Poppy? Supposedly, Clinton is a distant relative of the Rockefellers, and there are many royal connections there.

Just food for thought, but I thought it would be encouragement for the gang here.

[vickie]

1. This didn't apply to Bush 1 v Clinton in '92.....

[LTR]

2. Clinton is supposedly related to the Rockefellers

That's the best explanation I've seen so far.

[Walt Starr]

14. Actually, yes it did

Clinton had more blue blood in his background than the Bushes.

Bush and Gore were extremely tight, but in the end the Brits went with Bush barely taking it.

[gauguin57]

3. Ewwww. Royals. Bluebloods. Ewwww.

I hate monarchies, and I hate "royals." The Divine Right of Kings -- that's a BushCo-type construct, all the way.

Blue-bloods celebrating their blue blood (and passing down their money and power to other bluebloods) is what's wrong with this country, as far as I'm concerned. It's antithetical to what America is supposed to be about. Didn't we tell King George not to let the door hit him where the good Lord split him?

I think the British royal family, for example, is the biggest bunch of lame-ass public parasites I've ever seen. I think they should be thrown out on the sidewalk with 1,000 pounds apiece and told to work for an effing living. What have they ever done, other than BEING BORN, that gives them the right to rule over a country? B.S.!

Yuck. I wish John Kerry weren't related to ANY of them.

"Do you hear the people sing? Singing the songs of angry men ... it is the music of a people who will not be slaves again...."

Whoops! Sorry to get all Les-Miz on y'all!

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Yeah, let's get some common folk in office

[AspenRose]

13. It certainly "disqualifies" any blacks or american indians from running

in the future, since they (most likely) wouldn't have as much "royal blood" as some white, hispanic or asian they'd be running against.

Feh. We're not Britain (or any other monarchy) for a REASON.

[Walt Starr]

15. Not necessarily

First of all, most African Americans in the United States have European ancestry as well.

Secondly, this is ALL European blood lines, So Hispanic Americans could easily trace royal bloodlines.

[AspenRose]

20. The trick is in correctly tracing the ancestry

Most blacks or american indians did not have birth registries in the 18th and 19th centuries that detailed lineage or ancestry like whites did. Any white blood in a black offspring wouldn't have been owned up to back then by any respecting white person. It would be a lot harder to trace European ancestry due to all the denial. My goodness, look at how difficult it has been for some of Jefferson's modern-day relatives to ADMIT they had blacks in THEIR family, much less accept them.

Not only that: slave families were separated on a regular basis. How do you keep up with your blood ties if you're regularly separated by slaveowners? There MIGHT be records...there MIGHT NOT be.

And I *did* include hispanics with whites and asians in the last post as having an easier time proving royal blood. Spain has a monarchy, as well as the dynasties in China and elsewhere in Asia.

It's the blacks and native americans who would have the most difficult time tracing and proving lineage. Even if you *had* a black person who could prove a drop of European royal lineage, that'd be no match for some white, asian or hispanic running against them, who due to the percentage of their ancestral genes, would have more royal blood. The argument is not in whether blacks or american indians CAN have blue blood: of COURSE they can, but having MORE than a white, asian or hispanic they'd be running against for president....not likely.

*DR, mixed race New Mexico resident*

[Retrograde]

4. and the taller candidate

and the one with double letters in his name and....

all sorts of coincidences

my prediction: the winner will be a Yale Skull&Bones alumnus :-)

[hippiechick]

5. Is Kerry left handed ?

That seems to be a common trait among Presidents, too.
What about Dimwit ? Or can he wield his crayons ambidextrously ?

:hippie:

[starroute]

6. Having royal blood is as common as dirt

I don't myself, but that's only because I'm Jewish and Jews don't do royalty. But my husband is descended from a bunch of old New England families on his mother's side, and I've done the genealogy and recognize these claims for what they are.

What most of them amount to is that there was this French chick, Isabel de Vermandois, who was born in 1081. Isabel's grandfather was Henry I, king of France. Henry's wife was the daughter of a Grand Prince of Kiev (thus the connection to Ivan the Terrible.) Henry's great-great-great-great-grandfather was a Byzantine emperor.

Isabel was married at the age of 15 to an English nobleman 40 years her senior -- Robert de Beaumont, East of Leicester, a pal of William the Conqueror -- and had a bunch of kids. She eventually got tired of Robert, ran off with William de Warren, Earl of Surrey, married him after Robert died, and had a bunch more kids.

All those children married into other noble families and had lots of children of their own. Some of their descendents married the children or grandchildren of English kings, bringing English (and a little Spanish) royalty into the mix. Some married their own third or fourth cousins, so it is very easy to be descended from Isabel via several of these lines at once.

Then, after a few hundred years went by, various younger daughters married down into the lesser nobility, and some of their daughters married men who were merely "Sir So-and-So," and some of their daughters married men who were no more than prosperous local squires. That's how all that fancy royal blood got over to New England.

For example, George Bush is descended from Obadiah Bruen, who settled in Milford, Connecticut in the 1600's. (So was Humphrey Bogart.) Obadiah was a distant descendent of Isabel through both her marriages. That's what the "Bush has royal blood" stuff amounts to. But it's obvious from the newspaper story that Kerry is descended from Isabel as well -- only perhaps with a smidge more royalty and a smidge less local squire in the mix.

Hundreds of thousands of people must be descended from Isabel in this country alone -- plus a fair percentage of the population of England. So it's really all hogwash -- but people do like to play these games.

[The Chronicler]

8. Kerry is like half Jewish.

He looks very Jewish to me, but he has an Irish name and is Catholic.

[shivaji]

9. Are you saying a half Jew can not win presidency?

I hope anti-semitism does not linger in this land of free.

[The Chronicler]

10. huh?

It sounds like you need to lighten up.

[rockymountaindem]

12. Nope. We already elected an orthodox Jew as VP last time!

[indyjones1938]

16. nt

[demokatgurrl]

11. Doesn't the smarter guy always win too? Oh never mind. n/t

[progressivebydesign]

17. Thank you... I was looking for a fun and interesting thread today! n/t

[LTR]

18. Yes, I am the king of useless information

Pun intended.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

19. There's no such thing as royal and common

.