# Would you like the US to be a constitutional monarchy? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 18, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197 "2011-03-18T21:36:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Gleena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@Gleena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gleena)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/41 "2011-03-21T21:43:20Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > We (humans) have tried the single, overall leader type government ten thousand times before. Once we’ve tried a few thousand versions of “government by the people” I’d be willing to have another look at a Monarchy, in theory. And if we were arguing absolute monarchy, I’d agree with you. But we’re not. Constitutional monarchy isn’t like this at all. It is, in fact, government by the people. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/42 "2011-03-21T22:15:51Z")
> [@Gleena](#): > > You misunderstand how the Westminster system works. None of those things would have happened. The factions, the backbenchers, the parties holding the balance of power, all those things would have worked to prevent it (as I see **SanVito** has pointed out.) > > The main thing Westminster has that the US system does not have is someone to be a tiebreaker. It’s happened once in Australia, in 110 years since Federation. And then only for supply bills. But it forces parties to find compromises, which our system does not facilitate. It also allows a variety of other voices - you said you want general agreement from most people, but I don’t think the US system provides that, with it’s ridgid, two party, polar opposites. The middle is not well represented, and that is where most people lie. That’s the strength of Westminster and the weakness of the US system, and having lived under both, I prefer Westminster. > > Academic discussion, though, it would never happen in the US. The U.S. system was designed to curtail the expansion of government abuse, Westminster was designed to represent differing views. They’ve both had their degree of success at those goals and the problems that go with that. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/43 "2011-03-21T22:29:20Z")
I have no problem with a Westminster system of government. I have no problem with a Prime Minister who his head of government, and a President or whatever who is head of state. However, having this head of state be a _king_? That’s pure and simple barbarism, whether this divinely-anointed monarch is chosen by some farcical aquatic ceremony, or squirted out of the vagina of the previous king’s wife. It is the pure and unadorned denial that Nature has not conspired to create certain people that were born with saddles on their backs, and others born booted and spurred to ride them. Hereditary aristocracy is fucking disgusting, no matter whether it’s all play-pretend and the aristocrats have no real power anymore. Let us all hope for the blessed day when the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. Or, whatever, it’s your country, do what you like. ---
**Author:** ![SecretaryofEvil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@SecretaryofEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SecretaryofEvil)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/44 "2011-03-21T23:44:25Z")
The concept of monarchy brings out my inner redneck. I for one, am not bowing to some sumbitch king, who expects me to call him “Highness.” ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/45 "2011-03-21T23:55:24Z")
> [@SecretaryofEvil](#): > > The concept of monarchy brings out my inner redneck. I for one, am not bowing to some sumbitch king, who expects me to call him “Highness.” No self-respecting king would expect or even allow you to call him “Your Highness”. One addresses kings as “Your Majesty”. Or as “sumbitch”. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/46 "2011-03-22T15:28:58Z")
> [@Gleena](#): > > And if we were arguing absolute monarchy, I’d agree with you. > > But we’re not. Constitutional monarchy isn’t like this at all. It is, in fact, government by the people. Then what does the Monarch do that is currently missing in the USA? I can see that it is possible to have a constitutional monarchy where the monarch doesn’t actually take any power away from the citizenry. What I can’t see is why anyone would think we need to create such a position. It just doesn’t seem worth the bother unless someone can explain what this person is going to do for us. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/47 "2011-03-22T15:56:52Z")
Here’s what Samuel had to say about the subject of kings: > [@](#): > > v10 Samuel spoke to the people who asked him for a king. He told them what the Lord had said. v11 Samuel said, ‘The king will rule over you. And this is what he will do. He will take your sons and make them into his soldiers. They will serve with his horses and chariots. They will run in front of his chariots. v12 The king will make some of your sons lead thousands of soldiers. Other sons will lead groups of 50 soldiers. The king will make some of your sons plough his ground. Then they will have to harvest his crops. Other sons will have to make weapons for war and equipment for the chariots. v13 The king will take your daughters. They will make perfume. They will also cook and bake for him. v14 The king will take your best fields. He will take the best land where you grow grapes and olives. He will give all these to his officers. v15 Then he will take a tenth part of all your grain and grapes. He will give this to his officers and servants. v16 He will take your male and female servants. He will take your best cows and donkeys. He will use them for his own work. v17 He will take a tenth part of the total number of your sheep. And he will make you into his slaves too. v18 When all this happens you will cry out to the Lord. But the Lord will not answer you then’. > > v19 But the people would not listen to Samuel. They said, ‘No. We want a king to rule us. v20 We want to be like all the other nations with a king to rule us. He will lead us when we go to war. He will fight our battles’ > > v21 Samuel listened to all that the people said. Then he went and told the Lord. v22 The Lord said, ‘You must listen to them. You must give them a king’. > > Then Samuel told the people of \*Israel, ‘Go back to your own towns’. ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/48 "2011-03-22T19:39:49Z")
BTW, I just spent ten minutes poking around the BBC’s website to see if the story had aired. I guess it hasn’t - I believe [this article, which google unearthed](http://chimes.biola.edu/content/article/2011/mar/02/bbc-interview-torrey/) is talking about the program I’d heard about. Apparently it will air in April. ---
**Author:** ![SecretaryofEvil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@SecretaryofEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SecretaryofEvil)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/49 "2011-03-22T21:25:47Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > No self-respecting king would expect or even allow you to call him “Your Highness”. One addresses kings as “Your Majesty”. > > Or as “sumbitch”. Haha “Your Majesty” is even more of a long shot for that sumbitch. That’s why I own a gun. To stop the King of England from pushing me around. ---
**Author:** ![Gleena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@Gleena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gleena)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/50 "2011-03-22T23:10:10Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > Then what does the Monarch do that is currently missing in the USA? I can see that it is possible to have a constitutional monarchy where the monarch doesn’t actually take any power away from the citizenry. What I can’t see is why anyone would think we need to create such a position. It just doesn’t seem worth the bother unless someone can explain what this person is going to do for us. The main thing they can do that a US president can’t do is prorouge Parliament. (They have other perogative powers, but this is the main difference - they give the royal assent to legislation, for example, but they follow advice from their ministers so that’s never withheld. Think, although I’m open to correction, that Queen Anne was the last monarch in the UK to withhold consent, in 1701 or something.) The reason this is useful is it stops Parliament (or in American terms, Congress) from blocking supply bills. It’s essentially saying that Parliament can’t agree on anything, nothing at all is getting done, so back you go to your electorates, have another election, and then call a joint session and pass those bills or amend those bills and then pass them if the election goes the other way. In real terms, the monarch (which, BTW, not arguing for a monarch) or head of state has the power to force an election to solve a problem. This is seldom used but a very important tool (or threat) to force Parliament to find ways to work together. As I said, it’s been used once in Australia in 110 years since Federation. Australia would be the closest to the US in constitutional terms that still has a constitutional monarchy. Given the state of US politics, I just think that would be useful. It would end a lot of the sniping, the mindset of stalling or just sitting on legislation rather than finding a middle ground. The whole discussion is so academic anyway, because it would require the Constitution to be scrapped and rewritten. But that’s why I prefer living in a constitutional monarchy now, though it took me some years to appreciate it. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/51 "2011-03-22T23:39:34Z")
> [@SecretaryofEvil](#): > > The concept of monarchy brings out my inner redneck. I for one, am not bowing to some sumbitch king, who expects me to call him “Highness.” That’s why you pick a stoner. It makes more sense that way. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/52 "2011-03-23T00:19:52Z")
> [@Gleena](#): > > The reason this is useful is it stops Parliament (or in American terms, Congress) from blocking supply bills. It’s essentially saying that Parliament can’t agree on anything, nothing at all is getting done, so back you go to your electorates, have another election, and then call a joint session and pass those bills or amend those bills and then pass them if the election goes the other way. > > … > > This is seldom used but a very important tool (or threat) to force Parliament to find ways to work together. As I said, it’s been used once in Australia in 110 years since Federation. While it is true that the ultimate exercise of the GG’s reserve powers have only been used once Federally (the Lang government in NSW was dismissed in 1932) the penultimate step is more common. In this case the Prime Minister advises the GG to call a double dissolution election within 68 days (all members of both chambers stand for reelection) has been used six times since Federation 1914, 1951, 1974, 1975, 1983, 1987. ---
**Author:** ![A.Gwilliam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea5d25/32.png) [@A.Gwilliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Gwilliam)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/53 "2011-03-23T01:42:47Z")
> [@Gleena](#): > > The main thing they can do that a US president can’t do is prorouge Parliament. You’ve conflated two related but nonetheless different powers here. Prorogation refers to the termination of a parliamentary session. What you’re actually referring to, though, is **dissolution** : the termination of the life of a parliament. > [@](#): > > (They have other perogative powers, but this is the main difference - they give the royal assent to legislation, for example, but they follow advice from their ministers so that’s never withheld. Think, although I’m open to correction, that Queen Anne was the last monarch in the UK to withhold consent, in 1701 or something.) In the UK at least, prorogation and dissolution are also on ministerial advice. The last prorogation by a British monarch on his own authority was by William IV in 1831 or so. Anne was indeed the last British monarch to withhold assent (in 1708). However, this was also on ministerial advice. The last British monarch to withhold assent on his own authority would appear to be William III. > [@](#): > > The reason this is useful is it stops Parliament (or in American terms, Congress) from blocking supply bills. It’s essentially saying that Parliament can’t agree on anything, nothing at all is getting done, so back you go to your electorates, have another election, and then call a joint session and pass those bills or amend those bills and then pass them if the election goes the other way. > > In real terms, the monarch (which, BTW, not arguing for a monarch) or head of state has the power to force an election to solve a problem. This is seldom used but a very important tool (or threat) to force Parliament to find ways to work together. What you’ve described here is a particular Australian innovation to the Westminster system, and was inserted into the federal constitution following the experience of several decades of constitutional conflict between the two elected houses of various of the colonial (state) parliaments. However, “double dissolution” also occurs only on ministerial advice. Because this mechanism only operates because the government of the day decides it must operate, I don’t think we’ve identified something that is a benefit of having a monarchy. And since (to the best of my knowledge) this mechanism is only found in Australia, it’s not an inherent benefit of the Westminster system, either. (That said, the mechanism is probably unnecessary for most or all of the other “Westminster” parliaments.) Still, the fact that supply is not under the direct control of the federal government, combined with the lack of a formal mechanism to resolve a deadlock, and the same occurring in parallel at the state level, does seem to be a real deficiency of the US system. Deadlock existing between the executive and the legislature, and government having to shut down for an indefinite period of time, was a problem in the Australian colonies, and of course remains a potential problem in the US. At least in the UK, this nonsense simply never happens. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/54 "2011-03-23T02:17:26Z")
Just stopping by to tell the story of Big Bill Thompson, mayor of Chicago during World War I, who threatened to punch the King of England, George V, “in the snoot” if he ever showed up in Chicago. There were quite a number of Germans in Chicago at the time, and they all voted for him. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/55 "2011-03-23T03:41:48Z")
> [@Gleena](#): > > But that’s why I prefer living in a constitutional monarchy now, though it took me some years to appreciate it. You can have exactly the same thing with an elected head of state in a republic rather than a hereditary one in a monarchy. ---
**Author:** ![MonarchistLeagueLA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@MonarchistLeagueLA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MonarchistLeagueLA)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/56 "2011-03-25T09:28:43Z")
> [@Kyla](#): > > I’m listening to BBC World Service at the moment, and I just heard a promo for an upcoming program on people who would like to change their systems of government. One of the people mentioned in the promo was a guy who said he was the head of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Monarchists League or something like that. > > My immediate reaction was that the BBC is being silly, giving air time to total crackpots. No one in the US wants a monarchy, even a constitutional monarchy (which is what the dude apparently wants). Also, it would be next to impossible to implement. Hello! I suspect I’m the “dude” you heard (or heard about) in the promo on the World Service. My name is J. Anthony McAlister and I am indeed the president of the L.A. chapter of the Intl. Monarchist League ([www.MonarchistLeagueLA.org](http://www.MonarchistLeagueLA.org)). I was recently invited by the BBC World Service to present the second installment of a two-part series on monarchy entitled “For King or Country?” I believe the first of these episodes (the anti-Monarchy argument) is to air on 29 March with the rebuttal airing on 5 April… While I may be staunchly pro-Monarchy, one thing I must stress, however, is that neither I or the organisation I represent advocate for the establishment of a monarchy here in the United States. That’s for several reasons, not least of which is the one you raise: It simply would be impossible to implement. The full programme wherein I and fellow American monarchists explain our thinking should help further clarify. I can assure you we are by no means crackpots. If you’d like to learn more about us I invite you to visit our website at the address above. And I hope you’ll tune in to the programme! ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/57 "2011-03-25T12:17:03Z")
Welcome! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SecretaryofEvil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@SecretaryofEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SecretaryofEvil)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/58 "2011-03-25T14:57:35Z")
> [@MonarchistLeagueLA](#): > > Hello! I suspect I’m the “dude” you heard (or heard about) in the promo on the World Service. My name is J. Anthony McAlister and I am indeed the president of the L.A. chapter of the Intl. Monarchist League ([www.MonarchistLeagueLA.org](http://www.MonarchistLeagueLA.org)). I was recently invited by the BBC World Service to present the second installment of a two-part series on monarchy entitled “For King or Country?” I believe the first of these episodes (the anti-Monarchy argument) is to air on 29 March with the rebuttal airing on 5 April… > > While I may be staunchly pro-Monarchy, one thing I must stress, however, is that neither I or the organisation I represent advocate for the establishment of a monarchy here in the United States. That’s for several reasons, not least of which is the one you raise: It simply would be impossible to implement. The full programme wherein I and fellow American monarchists explain our thinking should help further clarify. I can assure you we are by no means crackpots. If you’d like to learn more about us I invite you to visit our website at the address above. And I hope you’ll tune in to the programme! Frankly, I find your political views repugnant. Contemporary Monarchs are at their best benign individuals who inherited honors they did not personally earn. At their worst they are oppressive autocrats who enrich themselves at the sake of their own people. Monarchs in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain oppress their people. In Thailand one can be imprisoned for insulting the monarch. Your website talks about the Iranian Monarchy like it was a good thing. The Shah ran a brutal regime. I can understand arguing that supporting a certain monarch may be in the best interest of American geopolitical interests, but to advocate it as a form of government in general? ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/59 "2011-03-25T15:01:02Z")
> [@Kyla](#): > > Am I wrong? Would you like a constitutional monarchy? If me and my family line would be in charge, yeah, we can talk about this. Most definitely. Other than that… no. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197/60 "2011-03-25T15:04:49Z")
> [@MonarchistLeagueLA](#): > > Hello! I suspect I’m the “dude” you heard (or heard about) in the promo on the World Service. My name is J. Anthony McAlister and I am indeed the president of the L.A. chapter of the Intl. Monarchist League ([www.MonarchistLeagueLA.org](http://www.MonarchistLeagueLA.org)). I was recently invited by the BBC World Service to present the second installment of a two-part series on monarchy entitled “For King or Country?” I believe the first of these episodes (the anti-Monarchy argument) is to air on 29 March with the rebuttal airing on 5 April… > > While I may be staunchly pro-Monarchy, one thing I must stress, however, is that neither I or the organisation I represent advocate for the establishment of a monarchy here in the United States. That’s for several reasons, not least of which is the one you raise: It simply would be impossible to implement. The full programme wherein I and fellow American monarchists explain our thinking should help further clarify. I can assure you we are by no means crackpots. If you’d like to learn more about us I invite you to visit our website at the address above. And I hope you’ll tune in to the programme! Welcome! Q1: Is that show going to be on BBC America? Sounds like something my wife would like to watch. Q2: Isn’t the more relevant reason your organization doesn’t advocate for the establishment of a US Monarchy because to do so is illegal? [18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002385----000-.html) Q3: How did you find us? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-like-the-us-to-be-a-constitutional-monarchy/575197.md?page=4)