Well, it finally happened. The Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to a son George who instantly became third in line to the British throne.
Most here in Canada are thrilled with the news of the royal birth. After all, young George is not only England's king-in-waiting, he's also destined to be ours as well.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the monarchy. But I have to admit that there are some advantages. Unlike Americans, we don't have to fret about choosing our head of state; it's completely out of our hands.
More importantly, all this royalty obsession is good for the economy. Every time one of the royals weds, births, divorces or dies, we devote scads of media coverage to the event. Plus our kitsch sellers generate huge revenues importing endless royal memorabilia from China.
Which got me to thinking. Maybe it's time you Americans got on this royal bandwagon, too. From what I can see, you're almost as bad as us with your royal media watches. American news coverage of this latest royal event gave it a prominence well beyond its actual importance to Americans.
It's almost as if you secretly wish you had your own monarch. I know your political genesis was the severing of royal ties with Great Britain but that doesn't mean you were anti-monarchists at heart. In fact, I believe that back then there was lots of support for making George Washington your first king.
What better time to reassert America's royalist desires than now? And what better way to do it than to jump on the British bandwagon?
Take a tip from us Canadians. Our motto is 'Why bother doing it ourselves when we can simply piggyback onto someone else's work?'
Our head of state is the British monarch. We don't have to create some elaborate political mechanism to achieve that end. We just wait for the Brits to say their new head of state is Charles, William or George and then we just say "Us too!"
I think, deep down, you folks would like nothing better than to say "Us too!" and let the next royal also be the King of America. It doesn't have to be right now. In fact, to honor your first president, you could even wait until young George ascends the throne and let him be your king, too.
I know this could be a bit touchy, given your dislike of King George III prior to the Revolutionary War. But there have been a few more Georges since then and hopefully you can forgive and forget what happened over two hundred years ago.
As for the Brits, when baby George eventually takes the throne, he'll become King George VII, following Elizabeth's daddy King George VI. But I don't see why you have to be weighed down with all this numerical history. I'm sure the British wouldn't mind if you adopted young George as your king but anoint him King George I as America's first monarch, a fitting tribute to George Washington, the almost-first-king of your country.
Think of the advantages. You'll get to fully participate in all the pomp, pageantry, and hoopla surrounding everything royal. You can have your own royal foot guards, residences and monuments, additional tourist attractions that will surely generate much-needed revenue.
You can even go whole hog and start handing out royal titles and awards. We here in Canada tend to do that type of thing through the Queen's representative in Canada, the Governor General. But there's really no reason you couldn't create your own royal representative with attendant royal awards that he or she could hand out to the rich and famous of the land who would undoubtedly pay good money to get them. Think of it as a tax on the rich, a tax they'd likely fall over one another to pay.
Wouldn't you like to be fully invested in all the silliness that occasions royal events? Think about it. You don't have to decide right now. Based on past experience, I doubt little George will become King George for a long, long while.Suggest a correction