# Ask the American monarchist **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 30, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323 "2012-09-30T18:44:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/21 "2012-10-01T07:29:12Z")
I am also interested in how you can believe monarchs are divinely-ordained, and yet pick your three favorites from three rather diverse religious traditions. A completely different religion in the case of the Shah, and I’m guessing you’re not Catholic or Orthodox! If you really believe that kings’ authority stems from divine favor, you’d have to think that God has an ecumenical streak that would put the wishy-washy deism of the founding fathers to shame! ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/22 "2012-10-01T09:21:30Z")
Seriously, how can you possibly imagine that inherited executive power over an entire nation has any legitimacy whatsoever? ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/23 "2012-10-01T09:26:10Z")
No, not over the entire nation. The OP will have to settle for the Carpet King out on Hwy 23. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/24 "2012-10-01T09:40:07Z")
That’s true. There are a few monarchies in America – Burger King, Dairy Queen, Royal Crown cola, Duke Unniversty, Princeton, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Virgil\_Tibbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c4cdca/32.png) [@Virgil\_Tibbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Virgil_Tibbs)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/25 "2012-10-01T12:15:59Z")
I completely agree with what the OP says about elected leaders - we select for ruthless, ambitious, presentable, persuasive orators. However, monarchs are potentially worse. What happens when you get a runt or a tyrant, an idiot or a hopeless dreamer? Or perhaps worse, an ideologue or religious fanatic? Speaking as a Briton, you are welcome to our monarchy. While they are fairly harmless nowadays, they are living reminders of an unequal and illiberal system that we are better off without, and I resent their wealth, easy lives and unearned elevation. Questions for the OP: how can you reconcile your dislike of an elected leader with your support for a hereditary system, when it could produce an even worse leader without any of the democratic system’s checks and balances? Will you admit that there is no rational basis to your preference, but only a romantic one? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/26 "2012-10-01T12:30:47Z")
> [@GreasyJack](#): > > I am also interested in how you can believe monarchs are divinely-ordained, and yet pick your three favorites from three rather diverse religious traditions. A completely different religion in the case of the Shah, and I’m guessing you’re not Catholic or Orthodox! If you really believe that kings’ authority stems from divine favor, you’d have to think that God has an ecumenical streak that would put the wishy-washy deism of the founding fathers to shame! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/27 "2012-10-01T12:53:57Z")
And not by farcical aquatic ceremonies. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/28 "2012-10-01T12:56:38Z")
While I’m proud of the British monarchy I’m also content with the level of power they presently hold (i.e. very little). ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/29 "2012-10-01T14:22:26Z")
Well, as Mark Twain said in _Connecticut Yankee_, “An earthly despotism would be the absolutely perfect earthly government, if the conditions were […] namely, the despot the perfectest individual of the human race, and his lease of life perpetual.” However, since finding an individual that qualifies as the former is difficult, and the latter impossible, we really have no choice but to _build_ one, instead. We must crown a Robot King. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/30 "2012-10-01T15:28:36Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > 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. [Pointless Monday Nitpicking] You realize that Mass is already the 14th most populous state, and that adding Conn and RI would bring it up to about 7th? In fact, quickly looking at things, I see that the Mass population is very close to 1/50th of the U.S. population; so if we drew Duchy lines so as to have 50 with equal population, you could leave MA pretty much intact as one Duchy (although admitedly that would make some strange Duchies north and south of MA)) [/Pointless Monday Nitpicking] ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/31 "2012-10-01T15:35:18Z")
I always thought Massachusetts was a little, um, dutchy. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/32 "2012-10-01T15:52:10Z")
Well you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! ---
**Author:** ![Weeping\_Wyvern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@Weeping\_Wyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weeping_Wyvern)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/33 "2012-10-01T19:25:56Z")
Grrr I was preparing a long response but my browser crashed and I lost it all. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/34 "2012-10-01T19:29:54Z")
King Henry would have someone’s head for that! ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/35 "2012-10-01T19:30:59Z")
Please, take your time to re-craft it. We really do not know what to expect next. > [@Leaffan](#): > > Well you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! Ahem. “Lobbed a scimitar.” ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/36 "2012-10-01T20:41:17Z")
> [@Weeping\_Wyvern](#): > > 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. You are aware that it wasn’t the Russian revolution wasn’t actually started by the Bolsheviks, right? And it wasn’t actually the “republicans” that started the bloodshed – they demanded the Tsar advocate to prevent MORE bloodshed. (I’m guessing you’re using republicans here as a catch-all term, correct?) The Provisional Government at the time cannot be compared to the French revolutionaries. Many of the problems associated with it had nothing to do with the system of government (in fact, I’d say next to none), but the situation in Russia at the time. Russia was a mess at that time. The Tsarist system was plenty brutal, and had it gone to a constitutional monarchy as they have in Britian (which, btw, IS a democracy!), perhaps there would have been no Soviet Union. The reason people like the Ayatollah and the Bolsheviks were able to take over is the instability caused by absolute monarchies – people got fed up with the oppression, revolted, and then other oppressors come in and take advantage of that! It’s no coincidence that most dictators end up overthrowing other dictators. (Communists overthrowing fascists and vice-versa) ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/37 "2012-10-02T02:10:28Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Please, take your time to re-craft it. We really do not know what to expect next. > > Ahem. “Lobbed a scimitar.” Well, [both](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=watery%20tart) really. > [@](#): > > DENNIS: Well you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! > > ARTHUR: Shut up! > > DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin’ I was an empereror just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they’d put me away! > > ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up! > > DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system. > > ARTHUR: Shut up! > > DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I’m being repressed! > > ARTHUR: Bloody peasant! > > DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that, eh? That’s that… ---
**Author:** ![Weeping\_Wyvern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@Weeping\_Wyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weeping_Wyvern)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/38 "2012-10-02T23:04:15Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > 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. Monarchy certainly has a spiritual component, but it is not inextricably linked with religious intolerance, a creature found in many a republic. Were I given free reign to establish my model country, I would require the monarch to remain in communion with the Established Church, but aside from that there would be complete religious freedom. Pretty much the situation in Britain today. > [@lavenderviolet](#): > > 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. In the highly unlikely event that America were somehow hypnotized to my views, I certainly would not pick anyone from our filthy celebrity culture. I wouldn’t necessarily invite the House of Windsor in, for while I do wish the unpleasantness of 1776 had never happened, in the period since it has, the USA has gone its own way. So I think I might select the House of Liechtenstein. They seem nice. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > 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: > > [SAVAK](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK): > Sounds like a system that can be trusted. :rolleyes: I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove. Republicanism is not a safeguard to tyranny. > [@GreasyJack](#): > > 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. Indeed, but princely fratricide tends to be less violent than republican civil war. And while dynastic strife does arise from time to time, every politician without exception is driven by the lust for power. > [@Virgil\_Tibbs](#): > > I completely agree with what the OP says about elected leaders - we select for ruthless, ambitious, presentable, persuasive orators. > > However, monarchs are potentially worse. What happens when you get a runt or a tyrant, an idiot or a hopeless dreamer? Or perhaps worse, an ideologue or religious fanatic? > > Speaking as a Briton, you are welcome to our monarchy. While they are fairly harmless nowadays, they are living reminders of an unequal and illiberal system that we are better off without, and I resent their wealth, easy lives and unearned elevation. > > Questions for the OP: how can you reconcile your dislike of an elected leader with your support for a hereditary system, when it could produce an even worse leader without any of the democratic system’s checks and balances? Will you admit that there is no rational basis to your preference, but only a romantic one? I am not exactly an “absolutist”; I have no quarrel with some sort of checks and balances. As I mentioned before, I would be fairly happy with a king whose position is comparable to the U.S. president. > [@GreasyJack](#): > > I am also interested in how you can believe monarchs are divinely-ordained, and yet pick your three favorites from three rather diverse religious traditions. A completely different religion in the case of the Shah, and I’m guessing you’re not Catholic or Orthodox! If you really believe that kings’ authority stems from divine favor, you’d have to think that God has an ecumenical streak that would put the wishy-washy deism of the founding fathers to shame! Accepting non-believing rulers is hardly a radical theological position. From the time of Christ until the time of Constantine, the Church taught that the idolatrous Roman Empire, despite her pagan faith and cruel persecutions, was “God’s minister” and to be obeyed in all things not contrary to the Gospel. Compared to polytheist (autotheist?) Nero, a monotheist Muslim isn’t exactly shocking. > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Seriously, how can you possibly imagine that inherited executive power over an entire nation has any legitimacy whatsoever? How do democratic elections confer legitimacy? I don’t understand why the fact that your candidate was supported by a numerical majority of voters gives you any sort of moral authority to rule over the minority. Democracy possesses a facade of “the people rule”, but the side on the losing end of an election is just as powerless as it would be in any other system. Monarchy is much more honest. There is not pretension to unanimous consent. Kings rule because the blood of kings runs in their veins. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/39 "2012-10-02T23:15:53Z")
> [@Weeping\_Wyvern](#): > > … > How do democratic elections confer legitimacy? I don’t understand why the fact that your candidate was supported by a numerical majority of voters gives you any sort of moral authority to rule over the minority. Democracy possesses a facade of “the people rule”, but the side on the losing end of an election is just as powerless as it would be in any other system. Monarchy is much more honest. There is not pretension to unanimous consent. Kings rule because the blood of kings runs in their veins. We can certainly debate how much legitimacy an elected executive has, but however much or little it is, it is certainly more than an executive elected by NO ONE. The elected official has, at the very least, legitimacy in the eyes of the majority who voted for him or her. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2012, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323/40 "2012-10-02T23:49:44Z")
Why have you moved, then? Just curious, I’m not being sarcastic. Because you seem really passionate about this. > [@Weeping\_Wyvern](#): > > I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove. Republicanism is not a safeguard to tyranny. Neither is monarchy. But at least with a republic, you don’t have someone with absolute power, who can’t be opposed. At least not without a seriously bloody revolution. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-american-monarchist/636323.md?page=3)