The Unofficial British Royal Family Pages

Monday 23 August 2004

Chiefly Royal Relations

As if we needed further proof that America loves to associate its presidency with royalty, we got it in abundance last week when the world’s news media picked up on the not-so-new news that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has significant genealogical links to European royalty and aristocracy. But far from attempting to create romantic notions reminiscent of the Kennedy era and America’s “Camelot,” the purpose of last week’s media frenzy appeared to be much more practical, perhaps even tactical.  

With Election Day drawing near, the news that in March attracted only the likes of royal watchers now became geared towards voters, with most of the reports focusing on the theory (courtesy of Burke’s Peerage) that – historically speaking – presidential races are usually won by the most “royal” of the candidates. For instance, they cite that in the last presidential election, George W. Bush – a distant cousin of Queen Elizabeth II – beat Al Gore, who reportedly had fewer royal blood ties than his opponent, thanks to the “royalty factor.”  

Of course, some might say that Bush, like the Queen, was not actually voted into office, while others might point to the fact that, also like the Queen, he (very nearly) succeeded his father into office. In Bush’s case, it could even be said that the relationship with his brother – the governor of Florida – was more critical in winning the presidency than distant relationships to European royalty. But I digress. 

As fascinating as it is to consider how royal connections could potentially sway American political decisions, I personally find the relationships between American Commanders in Chief and European royalty – both genealogical and political – much more interesting. After all, if it wasn’t for George Washington’s lack of interest in a royal title, American might today have a king instead of a president. 

The choice to forgo a monarchy, it seems, was the right one for America. When Washington was elected President of the United States in 1789, the Holy Roman Empire still existed, France had a king, Russia had a tsar, China had an emperor and Japan had a shogun – none of which exist today. Even European rulers of the time recognized Washington’s foresightedness and integrity. When he refused to run for a third term as president, opting to retire his power in 1797, Britain’s King George III is reported to have said that if Washington could truly give up his power voluntarily, he was “the greatest man in the world.” Around the time of his death, the exiled Napoleon is said to have mused, “They expected me to be another Washington.” 

But even Washington had been born a subject of Britain. In fact, the first seven presidents of the United States were born as British subjects. The eighth, Martin Van Buren, was the first US president born after the American Revolution and, therefore, the first president who was born an American citizen. Ironically, Van Buren was also one of the first presidents not to come from a predominantly British background. Unlike his predecessors, he was of mainly Dutch heritage.  

Historically speaking, however, very few other American presidents come from anything other than predominantly British ancestry. In fact, according to Burke’s Peerage, 36 of the 42 (one American president served two non-consecutive terms) presidents can trace their ancestry back to England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales. It comes as no surprise then that most of those 42 presidents can also trace their family history to some member of royalty, especially when you consider that genealogists believe that all people with European ancestry alive today are probably descended from Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor. 

Similarly, some experts believe that as much as half the population of Britain is descended from William the Conqueror, automatically making all such people distant relations of royalty. Not surprising then that some amateur genealogists claim that as many as 20 US presidents are descended from the man who was also infamously known as William the Bastard. Of course, the relationship between these presidents and their royal ancestor – if it is indisputable – is quite distant. For most of them, their rise to power perhaps had more to do with their nearer relations, as the US has had five sets of near relations serve as president – none more distant than fifth cousins. (Kerry and Bush are themselves 9^th cousins twice removed – closer than each man’s individual relationship to Queen Elizabeth II.) 

One thing is for certain, royal relation or no, the majority of American presidents have shared at least one of two other traits with their royal cousins – powerful families or money – an asset that, on the whole, has undoubtedly helped them enormously when building relations with their royal counterparts (although it didn’t do 4^th president James Madison much good when the British Army chased him out of Washington D.C. during the War of 1812). By the Victorian Era, relations were so good between American presidents and British royalty that 15^th president James Buchanan reportedly slept in the hallway of the White House to better accommodate the Prince of Wales’ entourage in 1860. Twenty years later, Queen Victoria presented 19^th president Rutherford B. Hayes with a desk carved from the timbers of the H.M.S. Resolute.  

Which brings us back to the here and now. Today, the “Resolute Desk” – given to a US president by an ancestor of Queen Elizabeth II – is still in the Oval Office of the White House and is currently being used by President George W. Bush, 13^th cousin twice removed of the Queen. In less than six months, it could be used by John Kerry, half 12^th cousin twice removed of the Queen. Hmmm… I’m not sure who beats whom on that one, although it seems like a tie.  

Oh, well – I guess we’ll just have to wait until November 2^nd to see if the “royalty factor” really does make a difference.

Until next week, 

- Tori Van Orden Mart�nez