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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
Here’s what Samuel had to say about the subject of kings:
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 is talking about the program I’d heard about. Apparently it will air in April.
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.
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.
That’s why you pick a stoner. It makes more sense that way.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can have exactly the same thing with an elected head of state in a republic rather than a hereditary one in a monarchy.
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). 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! 
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?
If me and my family line would be in charge, yeah, we can talk about this. Most definitely.
Other than that… no.
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
Q3: How did you find us?