No. We already have lots of nepotism without a monarchy.
But my family is different. Trust us… you’ll see. 
You don’t understand. God wants me to be king. If God didn’t want me to be king, why would I have this army that kills everyone who says I’m not king? Monarchy is clearly the best form of government.
Oh crap, I thought I was calling some random guy who’d never see it a crackpot, and now he’s tracked me down! I am…somewhat mortified. :eek:
Nevertheless, it is a personal rule never to take seriously an American who uses British spellings.
It’s not a good sign when you need to add “P.S. I am not a crackpot” to your post.
:: reads link ::
I don’t see how advocating a US monarchy could always be defined as advocating the overthrow of the existing government. What if you went through the whole process of getting support for a constitutional amendment, etc, to modify the existing structure?
Eh? That’s like saying republics are bad because Saddam Hussein was a thug who gassed the Kurds.
A properly-run constitutional monarchy lets the prime minister (or whatever) get on with the dirty work of politics and running the government, while the monarch takes on the symbolic functions.
Consider: if you are an American, and the US President called you up and asked you to do something, would you do it because "oooh, it’s the President! :: awe :: "? If yes, you are reacting to the President’s symbolic role of representing the nation, when you should be considering the practical politics of the request: is this something that the President is entitled to request of you? A constitutional monarchy lets you separate those two roles, for less confusion.
[Disclaimer: I live in a constitutional monarchy and have the Queen on my money. 
]
There’s also the Fijian approach: you live in a republic, and you still have the Queen on your money! 
As far as I can see (as a layman) it looks like you could advocate a US monarchy without violating that section of the U.S.C., as long as you don’t advocate introducing it by “force or violence”.
No.
But I believe monarchists do exist in the US. An old oddball roommate of mine back in Texas was one. He refused to recognize the American Revolution and insisted Queen Elizabeth was legally the sovereign. Dead serious about it, he was.
Has it ever struck you as a little odd, if not outright arrogant, that the U.S. is the only Anglophone nation on the planet that spells English in this peculiar fashion? Besides, my father is Canadian and I lived there for several years, but there’s no way you’d have known that.
Not really.
Sarcasm aside, you’d be hard-pressed to find many monarchs or monarchist scholars today who still held to the doctrine of “Divine Right”. Ironically, one could make the case that more than a few American presidents have viewed their administrations as divinely inspired.
Well hey, British spellings are often the rule over here, and I often use them just because I’m used to them by now.
Thanks! Though, given my workload, this will likely be my last visit to this excellent forum.
Q1: Here’s a link to the broadcast schedule… BBC World Service - The Documentary, For King Or Country?, Episode 2 - America
Q2: That seems to have been answered fairly succinctly already.
Q3: The randomness that is Google!
Workload aside, don’t let some of the hostility in this thread drive you away.
Personally, I think a constitutional monarchy seems to work really well for those countries that have one: You have some folks whose entire job is to cut ribbons and give speeches and have sex scandals, sparing the elected folks who actually run the country from having to waste time on those things. The trick, though, is that you can’t just impose a ceremonial monarch by fiat: The only way to get a ceremonial monarch is to first go through the history of having a monarch with actual power. For a country that already has that history, like the UK, it’s a no-brainer, but for a country like us that hasn’t, it’s too steep a price to pay.
You certainly raise valid and thoughtful points, though I must take issue with your description of the best and worst attributes of monarchs. To be sure, history is full of examples of horribly despotic kings and queens just as it is full of examples of despotic and corrupt elected leaders. Yet I suspect that any objective reading of history will reveal a far greater number of the good than the bad; the existence of a few “bad apples” should not mean the entire orchard be uprooted. There have been and will always be abusive and unfaithful spouses, but the institution of marriage is, on the whole, a good thing and worth preserving.
As for the hereditary principle, to discount or dismiss an individual because his or her status was inherited rather than “earned” seems to my mind unfair and anti-democratic. What of those who inherit wealth or goods from their parents? Those privileges are by no means earned, yet I think there are very few of us who would begrudge someone their rightful inheritance. In the case of hereditary sovereigns, the issue at hand concerns what is done with the inherited status. Is it utilised for the benefit of all, not merely a select few? Is it safeguarded as the shared patrimony of the entire nation? The benefits of a non-partisan hereditary ruler far outweigh any perceived negatives.
In the Thai example, while it is true the country enforces strict “Lese majeste” laws it is also true that in nearly every recent instance where someone was charged with violating those laws the King himself has personally intervened to dismiss all charges and pardon the individual concerned. And it’s helpful to bear in mind that these laws were supported by the people and enacted by the government, not the King.
With respect to the Shah, I make no claims about the nature of the Shah’s regime, primarily because I did not live under it. I know several who did, however. They, and countless other of their fellow countrymen recall the Iranian monarchy and life under the Shah as far more equitable and progressive than contemporary Western history likes to acknowledge. And I must correct you. Our website contains no references to the Pahlavis, save for a letter of condolence and brief references in two of our officers’ bios.
Thank you, you’re very kind. Trust me, it takes more than a few rude, misinformed nutters to drive me from anything. I did learn a while ago, however, not to tread too far down the path of internet forums for the sake of my own sanity and blood pressure!
I would tell you what I thought of Thailand’s, but if I did I could go to jail for 15 years. Really.