I was born and raised in the US of A, but am for a combination of practical, aesthetic, and religious reasons a firm believer in the principle of hereditary monarchy with more than figurehead power. Although I tend to stay fairly quiet about my political opinions, and would probably get lynched if I flew the Union Jack on the Fourth of July, I do indeed exist.
My favorite monarchs (although I do not necessarily agree with all of their actions) would be Charles I of England and Scotland, Nicholas II of Russia, and Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran. I seem to have a fondness for losers.
So, the big questions first:
(1) How would you choose the monarch of the United States?
(2) Would you give the monarch all the powers that the President currently has?
I’m not really sure how to answer that, since it’s so unlikely that our population will ever be converted to the royalist cause. The ideal, of course, would have been no revolution in the first place, so our monarch would be the British one.
But while I don’t give much thought to a new crown for the entire country, I do think that the Hawaiian royal family should be restored to power over that state. (Which should be granted independence, if the population so desire.)
Yes, I think that’s a reasonable balance.
I’m not quite sure what you mean, but I disapprove of pretentious monarchical trappings on republics. I obviously prefer a king, but if I can’t have one, I want a reclusive president with a short and non-renewable term.
As I mention in the opening, it’s for three reasons.
Practical: Democracy produces rule by ambitious men - men who have devoted their lives to seeking the political offices they crave. I think anyone who WANTS to rule over his fellow citizens cannot be trusted.
Aesthetic: Crowns and robes and thrones are just so much prettier than men in business suits begging for votes from the mob.
Religious: I am a Christian, and I believe that both Sacred Scripture and the consistent teaching of the historic Church bear witness to the divine institution of kingship. I find it perverse that the supposedly “conservative” movement in the USA has contracted an unholy marriage between Christianity and the Enlightenment deism of the “Founding Fathers”. I find myself compelled to choose between the two, and I choose the religion of Christ over the religion of American patriotism.
As mentioned above, I don’t approve of everything he did. But he was replaced by the far more oppressive regime we see in Iran today. Just like what happened in France and Russia… there is a definite pattern. Republican revolutionaries tend to be bloodthirsty gangsters.
I’m not a Christian, and I don’t know what “…bear witness to the divine institution of kingship” means, but if it means that a king is a figurehead that requires divine approval, wouldn’t any method that man uses to choose one be wrong?
People like you produce governments that kill people like me. I’m not just being dramatic: Look at the history of persecution attached to all religious governments, the history of the religion in power deciding to consolidate that power by killing all of the challengers. Add to that the practice of restricting political power based on creed, such that only Protestants or only Catholics or only Sunnis can hold office, and you immediately set up the conditions necessary for mass purges and simple house-to-house slaughter.
If Americans actually did support an American monarch, who would you want to be the American king/queen?
The way society is going, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if our royal family ended up being the Kardashians. Although it’s also possible there could be a power struggle after Queen Oprah died without issue.
There are 3,033 counties in the USA. Imagine 3,033 people holding the title of Count.
(There’s a Sesame Street joke in there somewhere)
I imagine there would be 50 or more Dukes, although there would be very little reason for them to align with states. Roll up Mass, Conn and RI into one Duchy and give the larger more heavily populated states several.
If Donald Trump gets a title, I will officially join the “slaughter the nobility” party.
While I’m totally obsessed with royalty in history (I find it a fascinating subject, and I LOVE reading biographies about various royals), I can’t possibly say I’m a monarchist. I mean, I can totally get behind the various constitutional monarchies in Europe. And I’m totally obsessed with the Romanovs. But what the OP talks about? :eek:
Well, firstly, plenty of monarchs attained their offices by killing or otherwise disinheriting their own flesh and blood, which doesn’t exactly sound like unambitious behavior.
Secondly, I don’t think you really understand how an absolute monarchy actually functioned most of the time. Power was nominally in the hands of the monarch, but it was very rare that a monarch actually had the political skills to wield that power effectively. In most cases, there was a favorite or group of favorites who maneuvered themselves into positions of trust with the monarch and actually made most of the decisions. In either case, you have a country that is essentially being run by one or more ambitious individuals, it’s just that in a monarchy they have to pander to a single person instead of a whole country.
Give her the right advisers and she definitely wouldn’t be the worst we’ve ever had.
And there I have to agree with GreasyJack: Royalty had advisers and advisers lead to palace intrigue; unless the monarch is ambitious, ambitious people will rule in the monarch’s name.
