Are You A Royalist?

[CSENYC]

To me Britain would be imeasurably impoverished if it ever became a republic.

Agreed, and I think that if the US had remained a monarchy, it would be just as embedded in the American identity.

 

[nascarlucy]

I'm very much a royalist but I don't have strong feelings about whether a former monarchy should be restored. I find it fascinating that there are so many different royal households in the world (never knew that there were so many of them).

Sometimes I wonder what it would have been like if George Washington or another founding father installed an American monarchy? What would it be like. It probably would be a more democratic monarchy (the way the British monarchy is today as opposed to 1776) and probably would be years ahead of its time. I don't think European royalty would accept it as royal for a long time. Those who married into it would be American society or the upper crust for the most part. Most likely the monarchy would be Protestant (it would be interesting if any laws would be written regarding what religion the royals could or couldn't marry into) My guess is the law would be similiar to England (The monarch would have to be Protestant and because of the anti-Catholic sentiment at the time would bar marriage to someone who is Catholic). Most likely this would be overturned by now in the United States if a Monarchy existed.

 

[Midwestern Mom]

As I understand it Washington was offered to be King but declined. Now I don't think it would of be 'king' as in the type of government as England. There were Catholics involved in the Declaration of Independence and Maryland was a Catholic colony so perhaps there would of been less issue on that....although several colonies/states had laws against Catholicism so who knows.


MM

 

[nascarlucy]

If Washington had accepted the offer, whatever he set down would pretty much be in place, although I'm sure over the 230 something years there would be changes but the changes would be reflective of the society, rather than European royalty whose changes came very very slowly.

Forty or 30 years ago a lot of royal households in Europe were living in another century and many of the rules were outmoded. Didn't reflect modern society and was antiqued. I really feel sorry for those who had to live through that time period as they were restricted in what they could or couldn't do or who they could marry. You had some that were bold and did what they wanted but most of them just went along. 19th century in 20th century World. Now they are pretty much in modern society.

Many people like me are fascinated with the lives of royals. Of course, we are on the outside looking in. They don't know our world and we don't knows theirs, although we can imagine what it would be like to be a royal.

I wonder if any of the royals are fascinated or have been fascinated with how the average person lives. Perhaps they may be envious of a person who could go shopping or go to a movie and be left alone. Or dine out with no one bothering you. Come and go as you please. This is probably something many of them have dreamed about but have never had in their life.

 

[COUNTESS]

Where have you girls been. I taught history for so many years. George Washington, never wanted to be a king. He knew the evils of monarchy. Maryland was Catholic, by Jame Olgethorpe. Founded in the name of Mary. It was, really, inconcievable, that we would be a monarchy. The Continental Congress did their best. John Adams would have been appalled. We are, thank the Lord, what we are. England is fine with who they are. And the Romanov's are toast.

 

[nascarlucy]

I'm fully aware Countess that George Washington never wanted to be King or established a monarchy or establish an American Royal Family. The same would be true for the founding fathers as well. I'm just saying what if he did or trying to imagine what it might be like if a monarchy was established in the United States, that's all.

 

[CSENYC]

Sometimes I wonder what it would have been like if George Washington or another founding father installed an American monarchy?

Agreed- I wonder if there is a book about it, as I also recall that it was considered at the time. I'd guess that it would have been like the British system, but more democratic (for the day).

In a way I'd have liked that better (as we've had some real duds as President, and I like having a nonpartisan head of state), but then again, I do like the "liberty or else" streak in the US, with the sense that all power comes from the people, not from the government.

If the US did have a monarchy, I'd want the electorate to vote to install it- even kings should be aware that their power comes from the people, and not the reverse.

 

[Midwestern Mom]

I never said Washington wanted to be king...I said it was offered to him and he refused.


MM

 

[wanderingnana]

Agreed- I wonder if there is a book about it, as I also recall that it was considered at the time. I'd guess that it would have been like the British system, but more democratic (for the day).

In a way I'd have liked that better (as we've had some real duds as President, and I like having a nonpartisan head of state), but then again, I do like the "liberty or else" streak in the US, with the sense that all power comes from the people, not from the government.

If the US did have a monarchy, I'd want the electorate to vote to install it- even kings should be aware that their power comes from the people, and not the reverse.

Well, we'd probably have a Prime Minister if we were a monarchy and you;d have had those same duds in that office. Plus, let's face it, if we don'[t like the President, we can always vote him out- a little harder to do that with a king. I love to read about the royals, but I don't want one of them heading my country

 

[CSENYC]

Well, we'd probably have a Prime Minister if we were a monarchy and you;d have had those same duds in that office. Plus, let's face it, if we don'[t like the President, we can always vote him out- a little harder to do that with a king. I love to read about the royals, but I don't want one of them heading my country

True on both, but:

(1) Yes, the highest elected official can be a dud, but I like having someone above that who isn't a polarizing attack dog like some of our recent Presidents. Queen Elizabeth would perhaps be a dud if she actually governed, for example, but she's a superstar in her job, since it's not a job involving governing.

(2) Yes, we can technically vote out a President, but the US has had many stretches in which one party is dominant at least at the Presidential level (Republicans 1870s-1932, Democrats 1932-1968, Republicans 1968-1992 or maybe even longer)- for people in the minority party during those stretches, it's demoralizing to have the top job in the land held by someone who can be vocal in his contempt towards them.

Sidenote: I wonder if the South in 1861 ever considered having a monarchy?

 

[dbarn67]

I'm interested in royalty but I'm American and I would not support a monarchy here in the U.S. But I would like to see some of monarchies given constitutional status.

 

[nascarlucy]

CSENYC: That would be interesting. A elected US monarchy. Very unique. Of course this would only be good if the monarchy had political clout. If they didn't, then I'm not sure that you would have to elect them. This would be an interesting story to write about.

I've read a lot of books and to my knowledge I've never read a book about a US monarchy or what that monarchy might be like or how it might function.

I've never heard of the South wanted to install a monarchy in 1861 after they broke away from the Union. They installed a President of the Confederacy and the government setup was similiar to the one in Washington. I believe they had something similiar to the Congress (the various states had representatives, I believe).

I can't really see a monarchy in the South then or today.
It wouldn't work very well especially if the monarch wanted complete political and social control of the South (which he would). The Confederate States would highly resent this monarch and try to overthrow him for having too much power or political control over the Confederacy. It would be a disaster.

I know that George Washington turned down the offer to be King. What I'm talking about is what if or hypothetically what a US Monarchy might look like if he or some other founding father accepted the offer.

 

[CSENYC]

CSENYC: That would be interesting. A elected US monarchy. Very unique. Of course this would only be good if the monarchy had political clout.

I may not have been clear enough- the electorate should vote to create the institution of a monarchy, although once the monarchy existed, it would be like any other. (Same in every country where there is the possibility of restoring a monarchy- it should be done only if the people want it.) No government should be imposed from above on the people.

 

[COUNTESS]

I may not have been clear enough- the electorate should vote to create the institution of a monarchy, although once the monarchy existed, it would be like any other. (Same in every country where there is the possibility of restoring a monarchy- it should be done only if the people want it.) No government should be imposed from above on the people.

But that is, exactly, what monarchy is. It is imposed by the guy with the biggest sword, telling the little peoeple that God ordained him to rule over them and their children, talent or not will inherit the lot All the rest is democracy.

 

[wanderingnana]

But that is, exactly, what monarchy is. It is imposed by the guy with the biggest sword, telling the little peoeple that God ordained him to rule over them and their children, talent or not will inherit the lot All the rest is democracy.

That's very true, and who would decide who would be the monarch in the US? And no, the South never considered a monarchy in 1861. They had a Constitution modeled very closely on the US Constitution, their President however was elected for one term of 6 years. They did have a Congress too, but it was never very effective as they could never agree on much of anything.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Norway invited a Danish prince to be their king in 1905. Another Danish prince was elected by the Greek people to be their king in 1863. William and Mary were offered the throne by the English parliament.

But that is, exactly, what monarchy is. It is imposed by the guy with the biggest sword, telling the little peoeple that God ordained him to rule over them and their children, talent or not will inherit the lot All the rest is democracy.

 

[CSENYC]

But that is, exactly, what monarchy is. It is imposed by the guy with the biggest sword, telling the little peoeple that God ordained him to rule over them and their children, talent or not will inherit the lot All the rest is democracy.

That kind of monarchy is long gone, at least in Western Europe.

See below for how monarchy in Norway was established, for example. This is exactly how it should work: the people vote for it.

Norwegian monarchy plebiscite, 1905 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And "All the rest is democracy"? Libya, for example, is "the rest"; it's not a democracy. Same for China and lots of other countries.

 

[COUNTESS]

That kind of monarchy is long gone, at least in Western Europe.

See below for how monarchy in Norway was established, for example. This is exactly how it should work: the people vote for it.

Norwegian monarchy plebiscite, 1905 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And "All the rest is democracy"? Libya, for example, is "the rest"; it's not a democracy. Same for China and lots of other countries.

China, Libya, that has nothing to do with democracy. What I was referring to, is once you have a monarchy, you have people who inherit the throne. No elections, good or bad. So, Haakon, whom , I happen to like, will inherit, as did his father. But you could have a nitwit. Won't matter. Please, try not to mix metaphors. But, perhaps, I was not clear, forgive me.

 

[CSENYC]

Sorry but I can't agree.

In most every Western European country, while the monarch isn't directly elected by the people, the monarch obtains the position following rules of succession which are usually in the country's constitution or are determined by the country's legislature. That is democratic. (Even in the US, the President isn't directly elected- the Electoral College casts ballots for the President and, as the 2000 election showed, doesn't have to follow the popular vote.)

And true, the monarch inherits the throne, but monarchs in Western European countries don't have much if any real political power. The prime minister in a monarchy is elected, and that's where the power lies.

Democracies also have plenty of leaders who are not elected but who have a lot of power- much more than a Western European king or queen. For example, Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, has a huge influence on the US and world economy. He isn't elected; he's picked by the President and Congress.

And which countries in the world are the most democratic and free? Disproportionately constitutional monarchies:

Democracy Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of the 10 most free and most democratic countries, 7 are monarchies. (Note: the US ranks 17th.)

 

[Johann Salvator]

We must not assume that because a country is a constitutional monarchy is less democratic than a republic. The model democracies of the world are in Europe (Switzerland, United Kindom, Finland, Denmark, etc...) and is because these are profoundly democratic peoples with a long tradition of parliamentary system and respect of the law. The United States are OK.

 

[American Dane]

Sorry but I can't agree.

In most every Western European country, while the monarch isn't directly elected by the people, the monarch obtains the position following rules of succession which are usually in the country's constitution or are determined by the country's legislature. That is democratic. (Even in the US, the President isn't directly elected- the Electoral College casts ballots for the President and, as the 2000 election showed, doesn't have to follow the popular vote.)

And true, the monarch inherits the throne, but monarchs in Western European countries don't have much if any real political power. The prime minister in a monarchy is elected, and that's where the power lies.

Democracies also have plenty of leaders who are not elected but who have a lot of power- much more than a Western European king or queen. For example, Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, has a huge influence on the US and world economy. He isn't elected; he's picked by the President and Congress.

And which countries in the world are the most democratic and free? Disproportionately constitutional monarchies:

Democracy Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of the 10 most free and most democratic countries, 7 are monarchies. (Note: the US ranks 17th.)

^^^^^^ Thank you! That's exactly what I said in a previous post in this thread.

 

[Cory]

Who do not consider constitutional monarchies as democratic does not know history of constitutional law.

 

[nascarlucy]

I consider myself a royalist (I like reading about royalty, what they are doing, etc). There are times when I wished that I was born in royalty (I would never do cooking, cleaning, housework, yardwork). Everything would be done for me as far as hair and makeup goes. This is not reality of course (just nice dreaming about it).

I've never been passionate about whether a royal household should be reinstated or a monarchy restored or reinstated. Arguments about who the successor should be doesn't upset me or put me in soap box mode. I'm sure many people of this blog are grateful for that.

I've read about this lawsuits and these disputes, but some of it I just roll my eyes although I know people take these things very seriously. Anyone who did this in their presence would probably be strongly rebuked for doing so.

 

[martina]

I am a royalist and I would like live in kingdom

 

[queenofcelts]

i am, in spite living in democratic country now and being born in the USSR-)

 

[CSENYC]

i am, in spite living in democratic country now and being born in the USSR-)

Out of curiosity, what type of monarchy do you want?

I was just reading a book about Tsar Nicholas; he was an absolute monarch, which I didn't know. Does a history of living under an absolute monarchy make people in the former Russian Empire less pro-monarchy or more, and do people want that kind of Tsar back?

 

[queenofcelts]

I am not sure if I want back those times of Nicolas 2nd, even my grandmother was not born yet-))) But in 1905 Russian empire, including our country Ukraine, had strong developed economy and many opportunities to become very powerful.
It is hard to say what kind of monarchy can be suitable to modern times for our country, but not absolute monarchy that is for sure, i think that is impossible. That is just my opinion, i have not communicated with Russians our my fellow countrymen about such subjects. But what do we need and want is stability, whoever can provide this for us.

 

[nascarlucy]

My grandmother's family came from Lativia (escaped from the Czar's troops). Let's just say that they weren't fans of the Czar or his army. When he was overthrown they didn't feel sorry for him (they didn't wish he or his family dead but believed that his actions over the years contributed to him being ousted from power).

 

[Daria_S]

My grandmother's family came from Lativia (escaped from the Czar's troops). Let's just say that they weren't fans of the Czar or his army. When he was overthrown they didn't feel sorry for him (they didn't wish he or his family dead but believed that his actions over the years contributed to him being ousted from power).

Interesting. A good number of my family has roots in Bellorussia, Ukraine, Poland, Georgia and of course Russia. My maternal grandfather's family is Jewish, and they were definitely not fans of the Tsarist regime. They were restricted to so-called pales of settlement (a sector of land where only Jews were allowed to live, usually not very good land, and on the outskirts of a particular province (gubernia). Though my family never suffered directly as a result of pogroms (riots agains the Jewish villages that were apparently backed up by the authorities), they certainly were restricted when it came to possessions (could only own two of everything per family member).

Now, on the other side, my maternal grandmother's family were not Jewish and had the privilege to be members of the gentry. They were pretty loyal to the Tsar (my grandmother's maternal grandfather was in the Imperial Army), and she would often tell me how her maternal grandmother would tell her about the life that was lived before the revolution. My grandmother still remembers those stories and she passed them down to me. Like me, she's an old soul and loves the idea of a monarchy, culture, tradition and sophistication (she has been told that her Russian is very 'sophisticated' and that she sounds like a very education person from the 'old Russia'). I think my monarchist/royalist tendencies come from her mother's side of the family.

Now, yet another side. My paternal great-grandmother and grandmother were staunch anti-monarchist (actually they were anti-everything pre-revolution). My great-grandmother was born in 1916, to a very impoverished peasant in Ukraine. She told me of the life her family (parents, aunts and uncles) had to endure because of Tsarist regime. Her stories were the first ones I heard (the other side of the coin I found out when I was living in US and was a bit older), and I remember not really feeling all to sympathetic towards the Tsar's fate. I saw him as evil and selfish.

Just like your family, my grandmother felt that the rich and the Tsar brought it all on themselves. She didn't show any pity about their fate either. She felt he was one evil and horrid man who allowed his people to starve while he and his followers 'ate off of gold and silver'.

I'm still amazed at my monarchist leanings, because my earliest memories (prior to age eight) of anything royal are associated with hardship and sorrow.


se

 

[CSENYC]

Very interesting. I've been reading this:

BARNES & NOBLE | George, Nicholas and Wilhelm: Three Royal Cousins and the Road to World War I by Miranda Carter | NOOK Book (eBook), Paperback, Hardcover, Audiobook

Tsar Nicholas seemed like a nice guy who just wasn't up for governing. Kaiser Wilhelm seemed like a nutcase. Unfortunately both of them had real power. If my only exposure to monarchs were people like that, I'd be anti-monarchy.

My family is from Scandinavia and the UK and my relatives who have an opinion on the topic are pro-monarchy, as they have had positive experiences with it in those countries. I liked in the Low Countries and also think positively of that kind of monarchy. But the Tsar or the Kaiser- no thanks.