The United States and Monarchy

[Marengo]

Let's keep the sitting American president out of this thread & move on.

[CyrilVladisla]

President Abraham Lincoln sent a letter of condolence to Queen Victoria after the demise of Prince Albert.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ab...ibitionn107351

[princeofitaly]

In June of 1961, Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Philip Duke of Edinbourgh met John F. Kennedy and his wife Jackie visited Buckingham Palace for the first time.


Here the photo of the meeting:
https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod...h&resize=768:*

[Duc_et_Pair]

Without any doubt: Barack Obama and George H.W. Bush because these two presidents were closest to what Europeans consider as standard norms and values on society, policy and personality. I would have enlisted Bill Clinton here, was he not so tarnished later in his presidency.

[Somebody]

Found this video

exploring three possible lines of succession if George Washington had become the first king instead of first president of the United States of America.

What do all of you consider the most likely line of succession?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Somebody

exploring three possible lines of succession if George Washington had become the first king instead of first president of the United States of America.

What do all of you consider the most likely line of succession?

Following a point of divergence in the timeline (as alternate history writers say), a new timeline arises. In this case, the descendants of King George I of the Washington dynasty are not guaranteed to be the same persons as the descendants of President George Washington in our timeline, so your question is impossible to answer.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Following a point of divergence in the timeline (as alternate history writers say), a new timeline arises. In this case, the descendants of King George I of the Washington dynasty are not guaranteed to be the same persons as the descendants of President George Washington in our timeline, so your question is impossible to answer.

Of course, as is acknowledged by the creator of the video. However, what do you think would be the most likely successor for George Washington himself: his adopted son, his nephew by his elder half-brother Augustine, his nephew by his younger brother John - or, one that I would add: his nephew by his younger brother Samuel?

[Futurist]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Of course, as is acknowledged by the creator of the video. However, what do you think would be the most likely successor for George Washington himself: his adopted son, his nephew by his elder half-brother Augustine, his nephew by his younger brother John - or, one that I would add: his nephew by his younger brother Samuel?

In such a scenario, might the US have an elective monarchy similar to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or present-day Cambodia? If so, then presumably the American nobles would have chosen a new monarch after George Washington's death--and not necessarily from his George Washington's family. Rather, it could have been some member of the American nobility being chosen to be the new US monarch after George Washington's death. Thomas Jefferson, perhaps? Or James Madison? Or John Adams? Or even some "dark horse" candidate?

[Futurist]

Originally Posted by princeofitaly

In June of 1961, Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Philip Duke of Edinbourgh met John F. Kennedy and his wife Jackie visited Buckingham Palace for the first time.


Here the photo of the meeting:
https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod...h&resize=768:*

Quite amazing, when you think about it! Queen Elizabeth II was already reigning back when Harry Truman was US President! In fact, she has literally seen a whopping 14 US Presidents during her reign!

[BigLenny]

I really can’t see America becoming a monarchy at any moment. Not only is its government system rooted in rebellion against the prevailing system, but nowadays monarchy carries connotations of nepotism and privilege, which reeks of stagnation at best and regression at worst. Sure it’s fun to imagine a scenario where American Royals is a reality, but that comes across as wishful thinking that ignores the challenges real royals face. Even the abundance of various prominent families doesn’t help. Should America change its government type, I’d say it’ll go for a parliamentary republic instead.

[SirGyamfi1]

Is the thread about relations between the U.S.A and the British monarchy or its interactions with monarchies in general?

[BigLenny]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Is the thread about relations between the U.S.A and the British monarchy or its interactions with monarchies in general?

The thread is about how an American monarchy will be like, if it's even remotely possible. I don't see it becoming one due to how deeply entrenched republicanism is in American culture.

[Tatiana Maria]

As there does not appear to be a thread for "The United States and Nobility":

Since the question of noble titles in the United States has surfaced repeatedly in discussions about royalty or nobility who marry Americans, live in America, and/or hold American citizenship, below is what the United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 9) says concerning noble titles:

"8. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office or profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art1.asp

So there is no apparent constitutional prohibition on the usage of titles of nobility (whether genuine or pretended) in American legal documents, or on acceptance of noble titles and offices by private American citizens who are not "holding any office or trust under [the United States]" (and even for officeholders, it would seem that obtainment of noble titles in virtue of inheritance or marriage, as opposed to voluntary "acceptance", is acceptable).

[Toledo]

I feel it refers to USA citizens but I'm not clear on dual citizenship status. I mean, the USA media is enamored with titles on headlines like Sir Elton John, Sir Mick Jagger, Dame this and that and so on.

Years ago USA Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the allies' gulf war commander, was awarded an honorary knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II.

Gen. Schwarzkopf, Sir, Is Knighted by Queen

[SirGyamfi1]

Are you being sarcastic or serious with this part? Not only is its government system rooted in rebellion against the prevailing system, but nowadays monarchy carries connotations of nepotism and privilege, which reeks of stagnation at best and regression at worst. Sure it’s fun to imagine a scenario where American Royals is a reality, but that comes across as wishful thinking that ignores the challenges real royals face.”

[BigLenny]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Are you being sarcastic or serious with this part? Not only is its government system rooted in rebellion against the prevailing system, but nowadays monarchy carries connotations of nepotism and privilege, which reeks of stagnation at best and regression at worst. Sure it’s fun to imagine a scenario where American Royals is a reality, but that comes across as wishful thinking that ignores the challenges real royals face.”

I was being serious. Sure, nepotism occurs in both monarchies and republics alike, but the average person sees it as embedded in monarchies due to hereditary rule.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by BigLenny

I was being serious. Sure, nepotism occurs in both monarchies and republics alike, but the average person sees it as embedded in monarchies due to hereditary rule.

I don’t want to derail the thread on differences between monarchy vs republic, but I found your comment interesting.in my eyes, certain republics look more like crowned republics to me.

[Toledo]

For a moment I thought you were talking about my post!?! The message is funny to me considering we in the USA just abolished the monarchy for a second time in the 2020 last election. If a monarchy carries connotations of nepotism and privilege, just take a look whose family got richer on this side of the Atlantic. Just 48 hours ago [the former American president] went public asking to abolish the constitution and put him back as president.
For those outside the USA, we live in an on-going political horror show over here

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by BigLenny

I was being serious. Sure, nepotism occurs in both monarchies and republics alike, but the average person sees it as embedded in monarchies due to hereditary rule.

I am not sure the association between monarchy and nepotism is correct. The eldest child (previously the eldest son) of the monarch is the heir to the Crown, but that is who he or she is by definition. Putting it in another way, as long as he or she is alive and is not otherwise disqualified by law, no one else may hold that position. In classic nepotism, however, a person is not barred a priori from holding an office or position, but someone else gets that position instead because of a family connection.

It should be stressed that, in the European monarchies, working members of the Royal Family actually cannot be members of Parliament, or government ministers, or normally become civil servants. So the possibility of a member of the Royal Family holding a position in the public administration actually does not exist. Royal Family members often serve, however, in the military, but there is no evidence that they are fast-tracked or get any privilege compared to other ordinary officers because of their family connections. Once they leave active service, they usually hold honorary ranks, which are typically above the rank they held when they retired, but, again, as the name says, those ranks are purely honorary.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I am not sure the association between monarchy and nepotism is correct. The eldest child (previously the eldest son) of the monarch is the heir to the Crown, but that is who he or she is by definition. Putting it in another way, as long as he or she is alive and is not otherwise disqualified by law, no one else may hold that position. In classic nepotism, however, a person is not barred a priori from holding an office or position, but someone else gets that position instead because of a family connection.

It should be stressed that, in the European monarchies, working members of the Royal Family actually cannot be members of Parliament, or government ministers, or normally become civil servants. So the possibility of a member of the Royal Family holding a position in the public administration actually does not exist. Royal Family members often serve, however, in the military, but there is no evidence that they are fast-tracked or get any privilege compared to other ordinary officers because of their family connections. Once they leave active service, they usually hold honorary ranks, which are typically above the rank they held when they retired, but, again, as the name says, those ranks are purely honorary.

With the latter I beg to differ. Lucas van Lippe-Biesterfeld van Vollenhoven was promoted way faster (while he didn't meet the criteria) than anyone would expect based on his experience - the Ministry explained that 'because of the special bond between the military and the House of Orange-Nassau a special trajectory had been created for him... The Dutch public broadcaster (NOS) reported the story about Lucas with the heading 'Preferential treatment for members of the royal family at the Armed Forces'.

And many royals indeed do also keep moving up the ranks after leaving active service which has very much to do with them being members of the royal family.