The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-19-2014, 05:49 AM
Serene Highness
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,013
Very interesting thread here...........Even though I am a royalist and that is all because of my love of ancient history, anthropology and the study of religion, it would not work in the US. Why, first of all this country fought for it's independence from the British Nation and the system that they have there. If this country from the very beginning had a royal family living here and it continued into today's life like so many in Europe have, then it would be accepted by the people. To start out today and try to change our government to a royal family, well, the American people would never stand for it, it is not something that is ingrained into our minds and spirit, it's not our history. When I have traveled to London and around different countries in Europe, I love the history and read lots of books about where I am going.........I want to see the places and the museums and all that encompasses their history. We don't really have the history nor the length of time that Europe and the rest of the world has, this country is a baby yet trying to find it's way. In Denmark alone, I read somewhere (can't remember which book) that the Queen today can trace her family history back 900 goodness........we aren't anywhere even near that in age. We just don't have that type of history and besides Americans today are very independent in spirit..........

There is so much wrong right now in our government and the unrest has started, if things don't change and our government doesn't listen to the people, then it will get worse here. One thing I do know for sure in reading history that*all nations, kingdoms, empires and world powers do fall down to dust and decay simply because the ones in power forget the people that put them in power*, it seems only the British Empire to a certain degree still has some of their territory such as Canada and etc. The Netherlands has some territory in the Caribbean and what else I really don't remember at this point.

It will never happen here, and that is one word I don't use lightly, *never*!

Besides look at the different types of people from around the world that come here on a daily basis trying to get away from civil unrest, and corrupt governments not knowing that all isn't well here either.

I am an American and not ashamed to be a royalist because of my love of history as taught me that having a monarchy is not all bad, as long as it helps, defends, and supports the entire people, not just the wealthy and rich and privileged. I am for all of the people as a whole, and yet I still think a monarchy is okay if it works for all of the people.

Another point is location, Europe is divided, most countries aren't the size of this country, there are many different cultures, monies, holidays, religions just to name a few differences, here, it's like we are almost one and the same as I can go to any state and find the same thing here where I live, no difference. I wonder if there is any place in Europe that sells my coffee, Kona coffee from Hawaii and believe me that is all I drink in the way of coffee, I never buy coffee from any store or place that sells it, it's always made fresh here at home...........when I travel I take my coffee pot and grounds and make it.......just picky I guess about coffee. Sorry if this is too long, I shut up now!

Old 07-03-2014, 07:46 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,872
I for one think my country is doing just fine without a monarchy. We should continue going forward not backwards.

Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Old 07-03-2014, 08:15 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,927
No. It would never be tolerated here. It's not needed anyway.

Old 07-03-2014, 08:18 PM
Heir Presumptive
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,878
No. We got rid of that problem in 1776. And we neither need it nor want it.
Old 07-03-2014, 11:41 PM
Serene Highness
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,032
I thought we had an incipient monarchy spread among the Bushes and Clintons. They are saying Jeb Bush might run, and of course Hillary Clinton might run, and Hillary Clinton's daughter Chelsea is active in support of her mother. We were heading for a possible Kennedy monarchy but sadly one by one the heirs were killed. There isn't a strong heir now, but Jack Kennedy's grandson John Kennedy Schlossberg is now in college and is said to be strongly interested in running for President some day. If I were a Kennedy I would not run, considering the past problems.
Old 07-03-2014, 11:55 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 13,068
I think it would be an interesting change but America wouldn't go for it. I do think of our First Family as our own royal family that's limited to 4 to 8 years.

I think the American people honor our ties and history with the British royal family though. We help celebrate their celebrations, pay our respects in times of sorrows and hold on to hope for the future of the Monarchy. We're also crazy about Elizabeth II and give and her family a very warm welcome whenever they come and officially visit.

Old 07-13-2014, 02:03 AM
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 225
I think a better option would be to invite a suitable prince or princess to become King or Queen, like Norway in 1905. A Canadian system is not ideal if you want a high profile, apolitical head of state. It's all very well to focus on the benefits of the Queen, but you will hardly ever see her. It is the Governor-General who will exercise the royal prerogatives and carry out the ceremonial duties of the sovereign. The Queen represents Canada to the world about as much as she represents the Solomon Islands, Belize, Jamaica etc. etc. That is, not at all. It is the Prime Minister who will get all the focus as the nations representative on the world stage. Most likely the Prime Minister will also have a much higher profile domestically than the Governor-General. I'm not sure about Canada, but in Australia a Prime Minister, regardless of political persuasion, can always be relied upon to keep the Governor -General in the shadows. So you would be back where you began, with yet another politician.
Old 07-13-2014, 04:14 AM
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 225
a Head of State whom we share with 16 other independent countries because she is their Queen too and that links us all together amazingly and most valuably
I don't know what is so valuable about sharing the same person as head of state. We still have to join the foreigner's queue at Heathrow; it's the EU citizens who get the preferential treatment.
Old 07-13-2014, 05:31 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Apparent
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,326
I can't see why any of the Commonwealth Realms would want to share their Head of State with the US. I also can't see how the US joining the Commonwealth Nations would be advantageous to the already existing Nations. Not that there is any problem with the US, but it's too large and powerful of a nation. One of the advantages of the Commonwealth is that it gives small and middle-sized nations a voice on an international stage in a manner that would normally be overlooked by the larger nations. If you introduced the US to the mix it would be to the disadvantage of those smaller nations.

If the US wants to become a monarchy again (although this push seems to be based on an incredibly naive understanding of both monarchies and American politics) then it is welcome to do so, but it would be better off to go the route of introducing its own monarch - from an American family or a lesser royal from a European Royal family (either ruling or not).
Old 07-25-2014, 02:31 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,541
Under the majority opinion in the U.S., the idea of no royalty is almost a sacred religious tenet, as is most things we think were envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

As an aside, I've always found it interesting that despite our collective aversion to monarchy, we are probably the only developed country in the world that still believes in Divine Right - if I had a nickel for every recent candidate for president who has mentioned, "God has told me to run for President"....
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Old 07-25-2014, 02:40 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,541
My understanding is this: at the time of the Revolution, approximately 45% of the population were patriots - the rest were neutral or loyalists. Those who opposed Britain did not oppose the notion of "king" per se, the patriots opposed several things: 1) Britain's refusal to allow American settlement beyond the colonies, as the French and Indian War was quite costly, 2) a group of planters (such as those in Virginia where most of the founding fathers came from, wanted freer trade), 3) and of course we've always hated taxes, especially our southern fellow citizens.

We were not adverse to the idea of monarchy. When we won the war we had no idea what to do, what type of government to form - it took almost 10 years to get our acts together. We in fact offered the crown to Washington, who rejected the idea. As for the First Lady, Martha was referred to as "Lady Washington" as we had no idea what other honorific to give the wife of the President, a title she was not really all that adverse to...

I don't think that a monarchy is coming back to the U.S., however. I don't have the time to give all of my reasons, and it's too complicated an explanation.
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Old 07-25-2014, 03:26 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,726
We often tend to overlook that the inter-tribal conflicts during not least the 1700's just east of the Mississippi, was just as much about economy (I.e. control and access to natural resources, not least fur) as a struggle for living space as a result of colonist expansion.

But the woodland tribes fought most enthusiatically among themselves before the colonies began to expand in earnest. Some claim it led to, if not a direct population decline then certainly a stagnation. Hence the widespread practice of adopting prisoners.

It's intersting to speculate what would have happened had the thirteen American colonies not been able to form a union. Would it have led to a "Balcanisation" of Eastern America? Or perhaps to a mixed Native/European confederacy?

I don't believe Britain would have been able to maintain direct control over the American colonies in the long run.
Too large and growing population, with too many natural resources, attracting even more settlers. Requiring too large a military presence to control or alternatively requiring unacceptable political concessions of the British government.
Keep in mind that Britain by as late as 1780 was not the industrial, economical, and trade power it was forced to become just 25 years later.
Old 07-25-2014, 04:07 PM
Heir Presumptive
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,549
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
...Those who opposed Britain did not oppose the notion of "king" per se...
The loyalists who favored the continuation of the union with the British Crown got their own country in North America. It's called Canada !

In hindsight, if the British Parliament had granted the American colonies in the 1770's the same degree of autonomy it gave Canada in the second half of the 19th century, the American colonies and Canada could have become a single federal dominion under the Crown which would probably have lasted until the present day. In that scenario though, the American Southwest, including Texas and California, probably would have remained a part of Mexico and slavery would probably have been abolished much earlier in North America.
Old 07-25-2014, 05:34 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 878
Should the United States become a Monarchy?

In My opinion while I am a Royalist and Monarchist and like Royalty and the idea of Monarchy I think Peoples would disagree on it being the best form of Government. It really depend on who monarch, etc, etc. Britain and Denmark has shown how Monarchy can be a good form of Government and France and Russia has shown how Monarchy can be bad thing and although all Monarchies has their good and bad monarchies.

And don't get me wrong, You can the same about a Republic as well whether it Presidential System like the U.S (or France) or not. It no perfect system itself either. While the U.S Government right now is corrupt and most of the country is disgusted by the Leadership of Congress and The President and with the all bi-partisanship in Washington (which has gotten worse then it ever was with Obama in office) and there being Americans who are Royalist or Monarchist most would rather remain a republic then suspended. There have been good presidents and bad presidents just there ave been bad and good monarchs. Presidents have shown how a Republic can be a bad thing and be a flawed system and how it can be good. However if a elections was held tomorrow most would certainly vote to stay a republic however many would agree a broken system (as is the U.S) need to be fix.

If The U.S wanted to reverse to a Monarchy whether it be a U.S Born citizen or a Foreign Monarch it would have happened already. The best chance of that happening would have been in the first 100 years after the Revolutionary War especially with The British condemning the civil War.

As much as I like Queen Elizabeth, Her Family and Follow, like and Support the British Monarchy and Royal Family and sometimes wishes The Queen was our head of state I think the U.S should stay a republic and just vote every single politician out of office in 2016.

Not many countries who were Monarchies then became a Republic reinserted their Monarchy. There have only been a few with Spain being a good example of that and for them it has work out well by reinstating the monarchy. And some have became a republic, then abolished it and became a republic and became a monarchy again before going back to a republic for example France and Greece.

And one more thing Different forms of Government work for different Countries, Monarchy might work for Britain but it doesn't mean it will for The U.S just as a Republic work for U.S but doesn't mean it will for Britain who which was a Republic for a short time but got rid of it and Monarchy is now cemented in their history, identity and culture as Republic has became cemented in our over the last 200+ years. And we live in a different time now so monarchies will ore likely not be reinstated or become but more likely be abolished.

All systems have pros and cons

Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Old 07-25-2014, 09:38 PM
Heir Presumptive
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 2,867
A constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system and an elected government is in my eyes the best thing you can have in a Country, but the most important is that the head of state does not have political power. The US should separate the head of state and head of government, but this will probably never happen.
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Old 07-25-2014, 09:52 PM
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 691
Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY View Post
A constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system and an elected government is in my eyes the best thing you can have in a Country, but the most important is that the head of state does not have political power. The US should separate the head of state and head of government, but this will probably never happen.
I very much agree that having a separate head of state and head of government is a good idea, if only because it's nice to have politics taken out of some things (and I think a constitutional monarchy is a very nice way for the government to be arranged). But that ship has long since sailed in the United States. People are very protective of the founders of this country and of the Constitution, and though Americans have varying interpretations and perceptions of these things, I think most would be united in thinking that having any kind of monarch would just be counter to what the United States is (for better or for worse).
Old 07-25-2014, 10:37 PM
Heir Presumptive
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,549
Niall Ferguson's book Virtual History includes a detailed discussion on multiple scenarios in which U.S breakup with the British Crown could have been avoided.

Ferguson claims for example that the American colonists would have been satisfied with a "personal union" where Britain and America would exist as two separate and independent kingdoms, sharing however the same monarch, pretty much like England and Scotland from 1603 until 1707. Considering though that a similar arrangement did not arise within the British empire until the enactment of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, it would be unrealistic and far-fetched IMHO to assume that such proposal would be viable or even considered seriously in 1776.

A possible alternative to both the pre-existing colonial "status quo" and full independence within a personal union would be, however, some kind of extended "home rule" where a federal American parliament would be given control over matters such as e.g. taxation and public debt, tariffs and trade, monetary policy and banking, immigration and naturalization, Indian affairs, criminal law, armed forces and militias, while still acknowledging at the same time the formal supremacy of the British parliament to override legislation and relying on the imperial government in London for handling of diplomatic relations. Local matters such as education, hospitals, civil and property rights, municipal government, or public works would be under the control of each individual colony, hereafter renamed "states" or "provinces" within the American federation.

As you can probably tell, the settlement described in the previous paragraph is basically what Canada got in 1867 and was in place until full sovereignty was achieved in 1931 (see, however, Note 1 below). Again, it is still improbable that late 18th-century British politicians would agree to such bold proposals more than one century in advance, but, if they did, most of the American grievances, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, could have been dealt with satisfactorily avoiding the need for a breakup with the Crown.

Note 1: Technically speaking, even after the adoption of Statute of Westminster, the British parliament still retained residual legislative powers with respect to some Commonwealth realms such as Canada and Australia. Those residual powers were only abolished in Canada as late as 1982 and, in Australia, only in 1986.
Old 07-25-2014, 11:10 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 8,924
I think the point here is we are all here because royalty fascinates us. Their lives, their activities, their history and their bling. We didn't come to The Royal Forums because we are fascinated by constitutional monarchies and are holding our breath till the day we oh so luckily get our own royal family and an apolitical head of state.

The beauty of the US is we all have different ideas, different opinions and revel in our own rights to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No system of government will ever be 100% trouble free and will always hit snags in the road. Where there are more than 1 person, there's going to be differences on how to do things. Sometimes even 1 as there are people that lose arguments to that person that faces them in the mirror.
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Old 07-25-2014, 11:37 PM
Heir Presumptive
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,549
A discussion on ways the American breakup with the Crown could have been historically avoided in the first place is legitimate and, in fact, as I mentioned before, that topic has been an object of investigation by serious academic historians like Harvard professor Niall Ferguson.

Personally, I believe that, as far as the topic is concerned, a comparative examination of U.S and Canadian history is extremely valuable as Canada provides a real-world example of an alternative political evolution where independence from Britain was achieved gradually and consensually while retaining a link to the Crown. Actually, it suffices to look north of the border to see how constitutional monarchy and parliamentary government work in a North American country far away from Europe.
Old 07-25-2014, 11:46 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Apparent
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,326
I apologize to the mods for the off topic-ness of this post.

I've come to wonder if Australians would be happy to retain the monarchy if something was done to rectify the foreigner aspect of it. If, say, when HMQEII dies her realms were to be divided 4 ways, amongst each of her children, then divided further as they pass, and so on, until each of the current 16 Commonwealth Realms has its own monarch. So, say, when HM dies Charles gets 4 realms, Anne 4, Andrew 4, and Edward 4, then when Charles dies William gets 2 and Harry gets 2, and when William dies (assuming he has 2 children) George gets 1 and Cambridge Baby 2 gets 1.

Closed Thread

monarchist, politics, royal, royalist tea party, united states

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
British Royalty and the United States ysbel British Royals 63 11-20-2014 04:04 PM
King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia's Visit to the United States: May 8-11, 2013 Lumutqueen King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia 42 05-28-2013 05:10 PM
United Arab Emirates and The Gulf States kashmiri Royal Genealogy 26 03-05-2013 12:11 PM
Prince and Princess of Asturias's Visit to the United States: June 20-23, 2012 lula King Felipe VI, Queen Letizia and Family 78 07-15-2012 02:20 PM

Popular Tags
albania best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess victoria current events denmark fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe letizia monarchy news november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince charles prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince nicholas prince oscar princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess marie hats princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen mathilde fashion queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats victoria

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:21 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises