It’s good to be the King, but I’d rather be President

American Thinker.com ^ | October 1, 2020 | Michael Curtis

[Kaslin]

In May 1782, General George Washington, still commander in chief of the Continental Army, encamped in Newburgh, New York, received a letter from Lewis Nicola, an Irish-born colonel in the Army. Nicola confessed he was not a “violent admirer of a republican form of government” and pointed out that though republics in the past had shone with great brightness, their luster had been of short duration. In contrast, the principal monarchies of Europe, although having had periods of vigor and weakness, still subsisted and shone with luster.

Pointing out the financial difficulties of the army, which were due to lack of payment by the states and the weakness of the new republic, Nicola with some ambiguity suggested an alternative -- that the new country have a strong leadership, a monarchy, though not an absolute monarchy, but one “governed by wise and moderate councils,” not a tyranny. He suggested to Washington that he fill that role. But Washington, who viewed the letter with “abhorrence” replied on the same day, rejecting the proposal and telling Nicola to banish these thoughts from his mind. He became President of the U.S. in 1789.

Since then, no one in the U.S. has sought or been given royal titles, except some of the most celebrated jazz musicians.

Today the droll, highly publicized soap opera featuring the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, the 35-year-old Prince Harry and the 39-year-old Meghan Markle, the drama of a member, even if nominal, of the British Royal Family, seriously thinking of running to become President of the U.S., is a comic parallel of the preference of George Washington, a model of integrity, courage, and moral character, in deciding his or her role. Nothing with kings, nothing with crowns, bring on the ex-royals and clowns.

[captain_dave]

Harry is being mentally abused by Meghan. He has “Stockholm syndrome”.

[Dr. Sivana]