http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_relationships_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
I've seen this mentioned before but I have never given it much thought.
Doesn't it put the whole notion of democracy in a rather poor light?
Why?
Quote from: The Brain on April 17, 2011, 03:57:32 PM
Why?
Ownership may not be hereditary, but it's certainly kept within a pretty small circle.
I guess it depends on what ratio of the population is, like George W. Bush, within 10 cousins of being related to Barack Obama
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 17, 2011, 04:02:40 PM
I guess it depends on what ratio of the population is, like George W. Bush, within 10 cousins of being related to Barack Obama
If you took a random sample of 50 people, would they have as many ties to eachother as this group of presidents?
Quote from: Slargos on April 17, 2011, 04:05:30 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 17, 2011, 04:02:40 PM
I guess it depends on what ratio of the population is, like George W. Bush, within 10 cousins of being related to Barack Obama
If you took a random sample of 50 people, would they have as many ties to eachother as this group of presidents?
50 random people would be a bad sample.
Like pretty much every head of state (democracy or no), a more accurate sample would mostly have people above a certain wealth/education level.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 17, 2011, 04:08:47 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 17, 2011, 04:05:30 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 17, 2011, 04:02:40 PM
I guess it depends on what ratio of the population is, like George W. Bush, within 10 cousins of being related to Barack Obama
If you took a random sample of 50 people, would they have as many ties to eachother as this group of presidents?
50 random people would be a bad sample.
Like pretty much every head of state (democracy or no), a more accurate sample would mostly have people above a certain wealth/education level.
A fair point. :hmm:
It just made me curious.
If George W. Bush and Barak Obama are 10th cousins, twice removed, then I'm probably distantly related to a President as well.
I actually believe I am distantly related to Obama. He has Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry on his mother's side. I'm at least confident we are descended from the same family, which appears to have only come over to the USA once in (I think) 1739.
I've read that a large portion of the population of the UK is descended from Edward III. I have some English ancestry who came to Massachusetts in the 17th century I think, and since there were not a great many people in the area at the time, I'm probably distantly related to lots folks all over the country. I think it's related it's called the Founder Effect. Hell, I might be related to you, Cal.
Well obviously, everyone is related to everyone else at some level.
The only other notable ancestry I've been able to definitively establish is that I've also got de Crosland ancestry, which means some connection to Sir George Calvert, First Baron Baltimore; my great grandmother's maiden name was Crossland, and her family coat of arms is on the Maryland state flag. I have not been able to trace her family back beyond her father, though, due to lack of records.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 17, 2011, 04:08:47 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 17, 2011, 04:05:30 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 17, 2011, 04:02:40 PM
I guess it depends on what ratio of the population is, like George W. Bush, within 10 cousins of being related to Barack Obama
If you took a random sample of 50 people, would they have as many ties to eachother as this group of presidents?
50 random people would be a bad sample.
Like pretty much every head of state (democracy or no), a more accurate sample would mostly have people above a certain wealth/education level.
50 is too small a sample size to draw any conclusions (though I know why that number was mentioned). But take 1000 random people born in the US, regardless of socioeconomic status, and you'd likely see something like the info Slargos linked to. Once you get past second cousins, you're getting into relations that most people have no idea exist. (That is to say, most people know what a 3rd or 4th cousin is, but have no idea who any of their 3rd cousins are.)
It is said that we are 6 person away for every other human on earth. It isn't that much of a stretch then.
Quote from: Caliga on April 17, 2011, 05:16:41 PM
I actually believe I am distantly related to Obama. He has Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry on his mother's side. I'm at least confident we are descended from the same family, which appears to have only come over to the USA once in (I think) 1739.
Obama, Truman, and me are all descended from the Frenchman Mareen Duvall. :frog:
Glad they mentioned how George Washington is descended from Edward III (and thus also Isabelle Capet). That dude had some pretty blue blood.
I noticed that Bill Clinton was not listed on there. At least I didn't see him.
I suspect if there were records that go back far enough, you'd find people in the US descended from Pharaohs, Emperors of China, and German Robber Barons. All in the same person. It's not hard to imagine some white American has Chinese ancestors from 1500 years back.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2011, 11:21:03 PM
I suspect if there were records that go back far enough, you'd find people in the US descended from Pharaohs, Emperors of China, and German Robber Barons. All in the same person. It's not hard to imagine some white American has Chinese ancestors from 1500 years back.
True but we are not talking about thousands of years we are talking about just a few hundred.
It's funny how all Americans have royal genes. Still no Merovecs or tracing their bloodlines to Caesar? Don't worry, you can probably buy a certificate online.
Quote from: Norgy on April 18, 2011, 04:29:57 AM
It's funny how all Americans have royal genes. Still no Merovecs or tracing their bloodlines to Caesar? Don't worry, you can probably buy a certificate online.
I don't. And if I did I would go back in time and chop their heads off.....which would cause a time paradox which would destroy history.
But seriously where does this shit come from? George Washington came from an aristocratic inbred English family so of course he was pedigreed. It was one of the reasons he was made commander of the army in the first place. I have never heard anybody claim they are royalty before in my life and genealogy is one of my hobbies :huh: It is just a fun way to explore history.
:yes: Even if I could prove royal ancestry... so what? It doesn't entitle me to anything. It's just an interesting bit of trivia.
Also worth mentioning: IIRC the only peer who actually bothered to live on his New World estates was Lord Fairfax (hence why so much crap is named for him in northern Virginia).
Actually now that I think about it there is one exception to this so maybe this is what Norgy was talking about. One of the families my wife is decended from comes from an illiterate German indentured servant in the 18th Century named Hans Funderburk. He went on to be glorious among the Lettowists and had lots of slaves and land and all the sort of shit that indicated you made it big in the bad old South. Now an illiterate immigrant creating a line of Southern Planters is kind of unusual. But for some hilarious reason there is this story floating around that he was a scion of the Wittelsbach dynasty and an ancient Ducal family that died out in the 12th century. There is exactly zero evidence to support this idea but there has even been a book written about this nutty story and plenty of his descendents believe it...mostly because they have never really looked into it. The story was so stupid it reminded me of the lampooning of Southern pretensions to Aristocracy by Mark Twain in 'Huckleberry Finn'.
But to be fair almost every member of that family who cares enough to think a bit about it laughs it off as ridiculous.
Quote from: Norgy on April 18, 2011, 04:29:57 AM
It's funny how all Americans have royal genes. Still no Merovecs or tracing their bloodlines to Caesar? Don't worry, you can probably buy a certificate online.
All true republicans (republican as in anti-monarchism, not anti-sanity) have royal ancestry. I can trace to every norwegian king before Harald Hardråde, plus a few danish ones.
Quote from: Viking on April 18, 2011, 08:32:04 AM
All true republicans (republican as in anti-monarchism, not anti-sanity) have royal ancestry. I can trace to every norwegian king before Harald Hardråde, plus a few danish ones.
Citizen Bernadotte even had royal descendants <_<
Quote from: Caliga on April 18, 2011, 08:14:52 AM
Also worth mentioning: IIRC the only peer who actually bothered to live on his New World estates was Lord Fairfax (hence why so much crap is named for him in northern Virginia).
Also the Fairfaxes were good buddies with George Washington. They were neighbors IIRC. That is probably a bigger reason why so much stuff got named for them.
Quote from: Norgy on April 18, 2011, 04:29:57 AM
It's funny how all Americans have royal genes.
Its funny how all Norwegians have "royal genes" as well. And all other people.
Actually, now that i think about it, this isn't so much "funny" as it is "trite."
Traitors often long for the things they gave up forever.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2011, 08:46:04 AM
Its funny how all Norwegians have "royal genes" as well. And all other people.
You know what I meant, sir. "Claim royal ancestry". I apologise for my incorrect and sloppy use of words and my unfair and highly biased generalisation. I also look forward to more petulance and corrections in the future. Thank you!
On a different note:
Genealogy is fun, and I can trace parts of my mother's side back to the 16th century. But the thing is, church records burn just as easily as, well, churches and towns, and since those records are the basis of geneaology for the non-royal/aristocrat, I suppose tracing bloodlines stops at some point and fiction begins.
I am proud of my 50 % of pure inbred peasant blood and my 50 % of unknown, quite possibly travelling acrobat, blood! :mad:
Nearly all of my ancestral lines go quiet once they get back to Europe or maybe one generation prior to that. I suspect the reason is related to church records being destroyed, yes. For example, my direct paternal line originates from Bad Kreuznach in the Rhineland-Palatinate, and the French decided to completely destroy the town in like 1698 or something as my ancestors were fleeing it.
Quote from: Caliga on April 18, 2011, 09:36:32 AM
For example, my direct paternal line originates from Bad Kreuznach in the Rhineland-Palatinate, and the French decided to completely destroy the town in like 1698 or something as my ancestors were fleeing it.
Served those Lutheran scum right :P
From what I know, all my ancestors were normal subjects of various German regions, no nobility or even royality among them. Most of them were unsurprisingly farmers, but there are some city dwellers that worked as craftsmen, musicians, civil servants etc.
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 18, 2011, 10:25:56 AM
From what I know, all my ancestors were normal subjects of various German regions, no nobility or even royality among them. Most of them were unsurprisingly farmers, but there are some city dwellers that worked as craftsmen, musicians, civil servants etc.
Considering the sheet number of petty nobles in Germany that surprises me.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2011, 09:54:55 AM
Served those Lutheran scum right :P
Some of them were also: Huguenots. :)
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2011, 10:30:30 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 18, 2011, 10:25:56 AM
From what I know, all my ancestors were normal subjects of various German regions, no nobility or even royality among them. Most of them were unsurprisingly farmers, but there are some city dwellers that worked as craftsmen, musicians, civil servants etc.
Considering the sheet number of petty nobles in Germany that surprises me.
As far as I know, they were never more than 1% of the population. And while they probably had quite a few bastards from mistresses, I don't know about any among my ancestors. That's not saying there weren't any of course.
I guess the higher nobility, which is what Germany is famous for, mostly intermarried among themselves, e.g. every single German king or emperor from Charlemagne to Wilhelm II is related to each other - at least by marriage, often by blood.
Quote from: Slargos on April 17, 2011, 03:56:47 PM
Doesn't it put the whole notion of democracy in a rather poor light?
No. The number of political dynasties in the US does. The world's greatest democracy is about half as full of nepotism as the world's biggest. That's not a good thing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2011, 02:09:15 PM
No. The number of political dynasties in the US does. The world's greatest democracy is about half as full of nepotism as the world's biggest. That's not a good thing.
Name recognition and connections are important in politics, particularly in our system.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2011, 02:09:15 PM
No. The number of political dynasties in the US does. The world's greatest democracy is about half as full of nepotism as the world's biggest. That's not a good thing.
It's one of the prices we pay for picking our own office holders, instead of letting a party tell us who to vote for.
I wonder what India's excuse is though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2011, 02:20:23 PM
It's one of the prices we pay for picking our own office holders, instead of letting a party tell us who to vote for.
We pick our own office holders :mellow:
QuoteI wonder what India's excuse is though.
Samer reasons but more I imagine. Name recognition, a family political machine, intense connection to a local area. The same happens in Ireland actually.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2011, 02:31:33 PM
We pick our own office holders :mellow:
Yeah but all your leaders are picked in local constituencies. Ours, at least our Head of State and Government, is picked on a national level.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2011, 02:31:33 PM
We pick our own office holders :mellow:
Maybe I've got it wrong. I thought the local committee of the Angry Lesbians Party decides who is going to be the Angry Lesbians Party candidate for that shire. No?
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2011, 02:36:35 PM
Yeah but all your leaders are picked in local constituencies. Ours, at least our Head of State and Government, is picked on a national level.
True, but your dynasties aren't limited to the Presidency. I find the Kennedys, Udalls, Cuomos, Daleys, Rockefellers, Murkowski's, Bayhs, Gores (those are all recent too) and all the rest just very peculiar. It's nowhere near as extreme as the Nehru-Gandhis or the Lok Sabha, but it is weird.
QuoteMaybe I've got it wrong. I thought the local committee of the Angry Lesbians Party decides who is going to be the Angry Lesbians Party candidate for that shire. No?
Generally the local party picks the candidate, though the Tories have experimented with open primaries. But that's hardly the same as, say, Israel or the Netherlands where the party actually does effectively pick who wins.
I think it has more to do with inherited wealth, then anything else. Politics is often a rich man's game. Most of those who get high up in politics start off fairly wealthy, and very few who are elected to high office end up poor. The only presidents who died poor that I can think of was Monroe and Grant.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2011, 02:44:41 PM
True, but your dynasties aren't limited to the Presidency. I find the Kennedys, Udalls, Cuomos, Daleys, Rockefellers, Murkowski's, Bayhs, Gores (those are all recent too) and all the rest just very peculiar. It's nowhere near as extreme as the Nehru-Gandhis or the Lok Sabha, but it is weird.
I am a bit surprised this does not happen in other countries frankly. Somebody raised in a political family who knows whats what and so forth has a big advantage in so many ways. Why is it peculiar they would pop up from time to time?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2011, 02:54:04 PM
I think it has more to do with inherited wealth, then anything else. Politics is often a rich man's game. Most of those who get high up in politics start off fairly wealthy, and very few who are elected to high office end up poor. The only presidents who died poor that I can think of was Monroe and Grant.
Even if you are not wealthy then you have to get people to give you money...which is alot easier if you already have connections.
There's too much reasoned debate and not nearly enough conspiracy theory in this thread! :mad:
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2011, 02:55:29 PMI am a bit surprised this does not happen in other countries frankly. Somebody raised in a political family who knows whats what and so forth has a big advantage in so many ways. Why is it peculiar they would pop up from time to time?
Well it's not time to time. You add in the Bushes and, arguably the Clintons, and all of those families have had someone in relatively high office in the last 20 years. If you look at the Presidency I think 2008's the first election since the 70s without a Bush, Clinton or Dole somewhere on the ticket; and even then we almost had a Clinton.
I mean obviously we have a monarchy and some hereditary peers so there's no judgement. But the democratic part of our system doesn't have many dynasties. I can think of the Churchills and the Benns, arguably Morrison-Mandelson - but you could be right it could be something unusual about our system that we don't have these families. Off the top of my head I know the Greeks, Indians, Irish, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Japanese have them too. I don't know about other countries.
Quote from: Caliga on April 18, 2011, 09:36:32 AM
Nearly all of my ancestral lines go quiet once they get back to Europe or maybe one generation prior to that. I suspect the reason is related to church records being destroyed, yes. For example, my direct paternal line originates from Bad Kreuznach in the Rhineland-Palatinate, and the French decided to completely destroy the town in like 1698 or something as my ancestors were fleeing it.
My mom has a cousin who traced my grandmother's family line back to England. He managed to get back to the mid-15th century IIRC but was stymied from going any further back by the fact that the most distant ancestor he managed to find was apparantly also the first person the family to use a surname (Pleasants), which was derived from the town in France in which either he or his parents had lived before moving to England. Commoners back before then simply didn't usually have family names.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2011, 03:06:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2011, 02:55:29 PMI am a bit surprised this does not happen in other countries frankly. Somebody raised in a political family who knows whats what and so forth has a big advantage in so many ways. Why is it peculiar they would pop up from time to time?
Well it's not time to time. You add in the Bushes and, arguably the Clintons, and all of those families have had someone in relatively high office in the last 20 years. If you look at the Presidency I think 2008's the first election since the 70s without a Bush, Clinton or Dole somewhere on the ticket; and even then we almost had a Clinton.
I mean obviously we have a monarchy and some hereditary peers so there's no judgement. But the democratic part of our system doesn't have many dynasties. I can think of the Churchills and the Benns, arguably Morrison-Mandelson - but you could be right it could be something unusual about our system that we don't have these families. Off the top of my head I know the Greeks, Indians, Irish, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Japanese have them too. I don't know about other countries.
During the 20th century, social democrats in Sweden were more or less groomed for the position of prime minister and it's not, I think, entirely unfair to talk about a political dynasty where successors are more or less hand picked far from any public purview.
So at risk of sounding too :tinfoil: the more social structures change, the more they stay the same.
Norway definitely has dynasties. The Labour Party and to a degree the Conservatives are family businesses.
Career politicians marry each others, their children go through youth organisations etc, etc. The main difference now and 20 years ago is that politics is far less attractive as a career path than corporate business, so after a quick rise to fame, the younger generation is ushered into careers as advisors in "communication".
Clinton didn't come from a political family, it's hard to call his wife running a part of a dynasty as she's not actually related to him. Bob Dole didn't come from a political family either, his wife ran for office, but again she's not descended from him. Al Gore and George W. Bush are scions of politicians. John McCain's father was a respected military man, but not a political guy.
I guess what I'm getting at is whether any democracy in the true sense of the word is possible? Whether the rulers are called monarchs, presidents, dictators or comrades, there still remains the more or less permanent upper class, nobility or core political cadre from which persons of power are drawn. And while the amount of freedoms a commoner enjoys differs between the systems in the end he's nothing but chattel for the elite.
Quote from: Norgy on April 18, 2011, 03:12:48 PM
Norway definitely has dynasties. The Labour Party and to a degree the Conservatives are family businesses.
Career politicians marry each others, their children go through youth organisations etc, etc. The main difference now and 20 years ago is that politics is far less attractive as a career path than corporate business, so after a quick rise to fame, the younger generation is ushered into careers as advisors in "communication".
To be fair there are two brothers in the Labour party - the Milibands and the Cooper-Balls axis. So maybe it's on the increase here too :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2011, 03:06:32 PM
Well it's not time to time. You add in the Bushes and, arguably the Clintons, and all of those families have had someone in relatively high office in the last 20 years. If you look at the Presidency I think 2008's the first election since the 70s without a Bush, Clinton or Dole somewhere on the ticket; and even then we almost had a Clinton.
There are two Bushes, one Dole, and one Clinton. That is hardly a 40 year run of constant dynastic politics.
Of course, even with the Connecticut Texan Bushes around I do not see this dynamic in Texas at all except in that one singular case. I mean there are thousands of politicians. The vast vast majority are not sons and daughters of other politicians.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2011, 03:19:06 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 18, 2011, 03:12:48 PM
Norway definitely has dynasties. The Labour Party and to a degree the Conservatives are family businesses.
Career politicians marry each others, their children go through youth organisations etc, etc. The main difference now and 20 years ago is that politics is far less attractive as a career path than corporate business, so after a quick rise to fame, the younger generation is ushered into careers as advisors in "communication".
To be fair there are two brothers in the Labour party - the Milibands and the Cooper-Balls axis. So maybe it's on the increase here too :mellow:
I suspect if you look around at all the elected offices in the UK you'll find more familial connections.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2011, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2011, 03:06:32 PM
Well it's not time to time. You add in the Bushes and, arguably the Clintons, and all of those families have had someone in relatively high office in the last 20 years. If you look at the Presidency I think 2008's the first election since the 70s without a Bush, Clinton or Dole somewhere on the ticket; and even then we almost had a Clinton.
There are two Bushes, one Dole, and one Clinton. That is hardly a 40 year run of constant dynastic politics.
Of course, even with the Connecticut Texan Bushes around I do not see this dynamic in Texas at all except in that one singular case. I mean there are thousands of politicians. The vast vast majority are not sons and daughters of other politicians.
I would say many are related to very minor politicians. Like Sheriffs or county commissioners, of course when you go down that low, almost everyone is related to some politician.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2011, 03:20:27 PMI suspect if you look around at all the elected offices in the UK you'll find more familial connections.
I mean high office, so at least an MP or big city mayor. No doubt there's lots of husband and wife parish councillors but that doesn't count.
I think the local element possibly matters. You need everyone to know who you are quickly - especially in big elections like Governor, Senator, Mayor - and a family name's a bit like a brand.
Quote from: Slargos on April 18, 2011, 03:17:04 PM
I guess what I'm getting at is whether any democracy in the true sense of the word is possible? Whether the rulers are called monarchs, presidents, dictators or comrades, there still remains the more or less permanent upper class, nobility or core political cadre from which persons of power are drawn. And while the amount of freedoms a commoner enjoys differs between the systems in the end he's nothing but chattel for the elite.
Because seventh cousins, five times removed, are a sure sign of an aristocracy. Dude, I'm more closely related to John and J. Q. Adams than some of these guys are to each other. :rolleyes:
You gotta realize a couple things, Slarg. The colonies were pretty metropolitan and had nice, varied populations by the time of the Revolutionary War, but between the late 1700s and the mid-1800s, the western and midwestern US had a lot of homesteading going on where the community was isolated enough that "incest" between cousins was much more likely.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2011, 03:24:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2011, 03:20:27 PMI suspect if you look around at all the elected offices in the UK you'll find more familial connections.
I mean high office, so at least an MP or big city mayor. No doubt there's lots of husband and wife parish councillors but that doesn't count.
I think the local element possibly matters. You need everyone to know who you are quickly - especially in big elections like Governor, Senator, Mayor - and a family name's a bit like a brand.
I don't know exactly how the UK is governed at a local level. What is your equivalent of a State Governor? Do you even have one?
Anyway, there seems to some dynasties in your House of Lords.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2011, 08:45:44 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 18, 2011, 08:14:52 AM
Also worth mentioning: IIRC the only peer who actually bothered to live on his New World estates was Lord Fairfax (hence why so much crap is named for him in northern Virginia).
Also the Fairfaxes were good buddies with George Washington. They were neighbors IIRC. That is probably a bigger reason why so much stuff got named for them.
They were close but I don't think that is why they had stuff named after them. I think George William Fairfax and his wife Sally had Loyalist leanings; they went to London just before the Revolution broke out and never returned to America. I could be wrong on that, the move to London may gave been unrelated to the political situation.
I'm talking about Thomas Fairfax... I think he lived in Virginia for most of his life and thought he died there. He was a Loyalist but for whatever reason the rebels left him alone, IIRC.
Quote from: Slargos on April 18, 2011, 03:17:04 PM
Whether the rulers are called monarchs, presidents, dictators or comrades, there still remains the more or less permanent upper class, nobility or core political cadre from which persons of power are drawn.
As far as the US is concerned, all you really have to do to refute this is look at our post WWII Presidents. Only Kennedy and the two Bushes were from politically prominent families, and hardly any of the others were from upper class families. If you look at their childhood years, it would be a stretch to call many of their families even middle class.
Quote from: sbr on April 18, 2011, 11:04:33 PM
They were close but I don't think that is why they had stuff named after them. I think George William Fairfax and his wife Sally had Loyalist leanings; they went to London just before the Revolution broke out and never returned to America. I could be wrong on that, the move to London may gave been unrelated to the political situation.
Thomas Fairfax, as Cal noted, stayed behind and was the closest neighbor to Washington.
I seem to recall that the Fairfaxes remained in America for several generations and somehow were able to retain their titles and peer status :blink:... but I think the American branch of the family eventually died out.
Quote from: Caliga on April 19, 2011, 01:01:53 PM
I seem to recall that the Fairfaxes remained in America for several generations and somehow were able to retain their titles and peer status :blink:... but I think the American branch of the family eventually died out.
Hehe the family sort of forgot about the title and it was not until 1908 that Albert Fairfax claimed it and went back to Scotland and served in the House Lords and the familly remains back in Britain. But there was about 100 years where there was no Lord Fairfax because the family was too busy Americaning.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2011, 09:50:09 PMI don't know exactly how the UK is governed at a local level. What is your equivalent of a State Governor? Do you even have one?
No equivalent. We have council leaders but they're not directly elected. The closest are directly elected Mayors, but they're pretty rare.
QuoteAnyway, there seems to some dynasties in your House of Lords.
As I say there's no judgement, we have a monarchy and some hereditary peers. It's just striking because it isn't a massive feature of the democratic part of our system. I can think of a few UK examples but nowhere near as many.