Aside from the Constantian League, are there any other less crackpot USA monarchists? I refer to groups that do not put forward some specific wacky candidate but support monarchy in general for the USA or wish us to re-adhere to a Crown we once repudiated or transferred territory from (that would be Elizabeth or Don Carlos these days).
I think you’d have a hard time finding any group that would willingly accept a non-representative government ruled by a leader for life that most people wouldn’t consider to be crackpots.
There’s the Royalist Party of America They’re not dedicated to any particular candidate, but Princess Madeleine of Sweden seems to be a crowd favorite. Gee, I wonder why.
Royalist Party of America – Warning: MIDI “God Save the King” :rolleyes:
Pretty recent. Crackpot? Well, they aren’t advocating the overthrow of the current regime and the installation of King George LXI, if that’s what you mean.
In fact, they go so far as saying this:
In short, there isn’t a serious American Monarchist Front. At best, they’re dreamers with strongly purple homepages and bad MIDI files. At worst, they’re just this side of looney and heading for the next bend.
The Republic is Safe Again.[sup]TM[/sup]
They also seem to be vaguely racist in their intent although I’m sure many of them would blanche at that thought. However, notice that they keep talking about European roots and how their condenders are all white and European despite the fact that there are a number of Asian, Middle Eastern and African monarchs alive and well and with children who could easily also become this group’s choice for king or queen yet somehow they are strangely absent.
AKA “My Country, 'Tis of Thee.”
Monty: “My Monarch, 'Tis of Thee”?
They’re American Royalists, after all.
Arken, I honestly don’t think they’ve thought it out that far. Their whole enterprise seems a little informal, if you know what I mean. I’m willing to admit I’m wrong, of course, but I didn’t see anything there to suggest conscious racism.
Juan Carlos, not Don. The Royalist Party of America certainly look like a bunch of crackpots to me and they’ve made a few factual errors on their site apart from the other unintentional (?) humour.
I’d say there was a far greater chance of us getting rid of our monarchy than you establishing/borrowing one.
Oh, I agree with you. That’s why I put in the ‘blanche at the thought’ bit in there. I think it’s purely unconscious racism but one wonders how quick they would be to add, for example, one of the Japanese Emperor’s children to their list of possibilities.
Also, America did have a monarchy at one time… in Hawaii. And although there are no more Hawaiian kings or queens, some of their descendants still choose to use royal titles.
No.
[Sung to the tune of *Have You Never Been Mellow]Have you never heard the words?[/Sung]
Let’s not forget Emperor Norton I.
For those who don’t feel like clicking on the link, he’s a guy who was either totally arrogant, or slightly crackers, or both, who declared himself Emperor of the United States on September 17, 1859. The good people of San Francisco saw it as a tremendously funny joke and ran with it. People in the streets would bow to him. Children would feverishly ask for his autograph. He was given the best seats in restaurants, etc.
When he died in 1880 tens of thousands of people turned out for his funeral.
If you still wonder this picture might give you an idea why. 
Damn. I’m converted.
:eek: wow, 20 year old princess who happens to be a complete knockout…I need to start learning Swedish :o
I clicked on the picture.
God save Queen Madeleine!
By the way, there is an organization devoted to restoring the Kingdom of Hawai’i. Their website is at www.pixi.com/~kingdom. There’s also a “Nation of Hawai’i” website at www.hawaii-nation.org.
I wouldn’t call this “less crackpot” but it’s sure as hell interesting: Check out “Dagobert’s Revenge” magazine, at www.dagobertsrevenge.com. Remember “Holy Blood, Holy Grail,” that book from late '70s, by three BBC journalists, about the theory that Jesus of Nazareth not only had children, but those children were ancestors of the Merovingian kings of the Franks and the Austrian Hapburgs? Sure you do! Well, apparently a lot of people have gotten interested in the idea – the magazine is about “Musick, Magick and Monarchism.” (It also pays a lot of attention to certain kinds of bands.) (Dagobert was a Merovingian king who was assassinated under mysterious circumstances – this, of course, was generations before Charlemagne.)
Apparently there are now several persons who publicly claim some connection with the “Grail Blood.” Only one, however, is an active royal claimant: Prince Michael of Albany! A Belgian who wants to be King of Scots! Website at www.royalhouseofstewart.org.uk. Prince Michael, or Michael Lafosse, claims he is the rightful heir of the Scottish Royal Stewarts (he spells the name in the original, Scottish way, rather than the Frenchified “Stuart”). His purported ancestor is Edward James Stuart, Bonnie Prince Charlie’s legitimate son (unknown to conventional history books) by his second marriage (likewise). Prince Michael claims to be descended from Jesus (or at least he has allowed his “historiographer royal,” Laurence Gardner, to make this claim for him, in Gardner’s book “Bloodline of the Holy Grail.”) However, he does not make much of this claim and seems to think being descended from Mary, Queen of Scots, is much more important to him than being descended from Jesus. He also claims, by the way, to be descended from the Prophet Mohammed.
This is off-topic as Prince Michael is not a “USA monarchist,” but in his book, “The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland,” there is an appendix which purports of be a transcript of an interview between Bonnie Charlie and two diplomats from the newly independent U.S., who were in Europe to offer Charles Edward Stuart the crown of America. (He turned them down.) The “Royal House of Stewart” also has “ambassadors” in the U.S. and Canada – the website has a link to them.
Prince Michael’s claims are disputed by many, especially the more traditional “Jacobites” (at members.rogers.com/jacobite) who support the claim of Prince Franz von Wittelsbach, Duke of Bavaria (a collateral descendant of the royal Stuarts), to be the true and rightful king of England, Scotland, Ireland and (yes) France. A cursory web search can also easily turn up Evangelicals who regard Prince Michael as the Antichrist, or at least a good candidate for the role.
If you read Laurence Gardner’s books, royalty and government were first established on earth by the Anunnaki (Annunaki?) gods of Sumer, who were extraterrestrial or extradimensional beings, or else humans genetically modified by such. Thus, true royalty are not merely the descendants of generals or pirates who got lucky, they are descendants of superhuman beings. A lot of the “Dagobert’s Revenge” crowd seem to share this view.
Monarchism is fun!
Altho I have some interests in politics, I don’t like discussing it–all sides annoy me, including “moderates”. So whenever someone asks who I’m voting for, I say Fergie for Queen of the USA. Hey, she has both helicopter and fixed wing ratings. so can’t be all that bad.
Brian
Emperor of Saturn
Of course, the major difference between the monarchy of Hawaii and Emperor Norton I is that other people actually accepted the rule of the Hawaiian kings and queens.
There is a really entertaining biography of Norton I which is unfortunately now out of print but you might want to check your library.
My apologies for mis-naming the current Spanish Habsburg head.
Maybe we could borrow Windsor to dust off for fancy occasions…
Bourbon, not Habsburg. The Habsburg line died out due to a deficiency of great-grandparents (i.e. massive inbreeding).
However, accoding to this page, Juan Carlos claims the title Count of Habsburg, so perhaps you aren’t totally wrong. On the other hand, the page says he’s also the King of Jerusalem, Archduke of Austria, Count of Flanders, and Duke of Athens and Neopatria, so I wouldn’t put too much stock in the titles claimed by monarchs.