Reply to Why are the families of early Presidents NOT more celebrated or distinguished in American culture?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Why are the families of early Presidents NOT more celebrated or distinguished in American culture? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I’m sure there has to be a way to maintain ancestry records in the same way people do for DAR.

Why are the families not considered [i]American Royalty[/i]. It seems the Kennedy family may be the longest revered but what about the direct descendants or for presidents that did not have children, their cousins, or other kin? Someone has to still be alive with some sort of connection no matter how distant that could be recognized.

[/quote]

Don't think the Kennedys are revered today, not in the way they might have been 20 years ago. The names in public now are definitely the last ones who'll be in public as "Kennedys." That gives them a roughly 65 year run starting from 1960 to present, which means they're generational more than anything else. JFK was probably the first president to have what we'd call "celebrity" status, prior to his time no politician held such a status and the famous presidents were held in quite different kinds of esteem and regard. FDR was hugely famous and revered but he was not a celebrity.

Seems like many of the presidents didn't leave descendants. Lincoln's descendants died out. Many of the earlier presidents were UMC men who passed through the presidency and then moved on to a quiet UMC life. That's most of the 19th and early 20th century. Clinton was probably the first president who made a fortune off the presidency and that's a very recent trend, not historic. Clinton and Obama were the fortune hunters post-presidency. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics