The United States and Monarchy

[wanderingnana]

Well, this is a moot subject, cause it ain't gonna happen folks

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Yeah when the USA was 13 colonies and not one of the biggest and most powerful countries in the world.

What is your point?

Sharing the monarchy like in Australia isn't working out too well at the moment.

Please explain this comment. I live in Australia and haven't heard that things are going badly here because we share a monarch with the UK. Could you please explain how sharing the monarch is affecting us.

Just because they are 'well known' and just because 192 years ago George III ruled the USA or it's 13 colonies, doesn't make the BRF a logical choice in my opinion, as nowadays they know nothing of the country itself.

It was 235 years ago, not 192.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, just as I am entitled to mine.

George III was the last King of the original states - which is why his descendents would be the logical choice to me. The BRF know a great deal more about the country, and other countries around the world than probably any family on earth - simply because most of them have visited it both on holidays and officially and have been visited by numerous leading people from the US.

If they were to re-establish the monarchy in Russia who would be the logical family to be put into that position - the Romanovs - why - because they had held the position before.

[Lady74]

Don't know how Australia got into this thread but anyway we are going very well with our Queen of Australia thank you very much

[Patra]

The US would never have a monarchy, our country was founded as a revolution against a monarch!

[CSENYC]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

When there were only 13 colonies George III was their King and the present BRF are his senior line descendents - so they are the logical choice.

They could do what Canada, Australia and other countries do - share the British monarch with Britain.

Agreed. I wouldn't mind that. The British Royal Family was our royal family, although how connected were they to the US- did they even visit or have an official residence?

I cannot think of any "distinguished" citizens in the US who I'd want as a King or Queen. It's so difficult to find someone who is completely nonpartisan, and having a partisan political person appointed to a hereditary position as head of state would just not work.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

It's interesting how the first theory is to "steal someone from the British Royal Family", I don't see how they have any greater experience to rule the USA than any other royal family.

At one time, there were rumors that the sovereignty of the USA would be offered to Charles Stuart "Bonnie Prince Charlie." Of course, there was also talk of making George Washington the king. Fortunately, nothing came of it.

[Daria_S]

I'm a monarchist and a royalist, and I will say, that I don't see any sort of monarchy working for the United States. People are too republican and are proud of the fact that they kicked out the British all those years ago (I personally feel that it was a mistake, because if we were still a British colony, we would have some culture and sophistication, which US in general lacks).

[grevinnan]

The land on which today U.S.A. sits has a very long history and did not start with the kicking out of the Brittish. A reading of the history of Luisiana will find both French and Spanish royalties. Hawaii had a monarchy. Our native american tribes had chiefs.

Although establishing a monarchy today is not likely the forefathers to our current citizens had a much more interesting and coloful past than most people have discovered.

[CSENYC]

Originally Posted by Daria_S

I'm a monarchist and a royalist, and I will say, that I don't see any sort of monarchy working for the United States. People are too republican and are proud of the fact that they kicked out the British all those years ago (I personally feel that it was a mistake, because if we were still a British colony, we would have some culture and sophistication, which US in general lacks).

You live in NYC, one of the global capitals of culture and high-end restaurants, shopping, etc., and think that the US lacks culture/sophistication? Maybe if we had a stronger connection with the UK, we'd have as much culture as, say, Bermuda or the Falkland Islands?

I can see saying that having a royal family would add some glamor to government- we sure don't have that.

[Archduchess Zelia]

The thought has crossed my mind, but I think it's very unlikely to happen. Although Americans seem to find royalty exciting.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Someone once told me for Americans we care about royalty for 5 minutes then throw them back across the ocean until the next time they do something worth paying attention to. Apparently less than 10% of the population in the US watched that wedding.

[Catherine J]

Originally Posted by wanderingnana

Well, what kind of monarcy are you looking at? If you are looking at the British Monarchy and several of the others, they don't rule, they reign. So if we were going for that kind, we would still need a prime minister or premier to do the actual governing along with a parliament or congress, so what exactly would be the point of having a monarch? If it is only to go around opening hospitals etc., quite frankly that would be a waste of our money and enough of it is being wasted already.

Yes. As they do reign and not rule, their value is in their link to the history and tradition of Britain - a thing not "insertable" in practical terms and having no value if inserted. The Queen is the Queen (and the King will be the King) because that is the way it has always been. No created monarchy could survive and would bring nothing of value if it existed. Our monarchy (I am Canadian) is valuable to us because it is a part of our tradition - a thing, quite literally - not creatable.

That said, in the fantasy answer ... I would say if they WERE to have such an ill-fated endeavour, that it should be the result of a selection of existing royals-without-throne. It's either a monarchy with "royals" running it or it's a political institution that is run by popular vote. Not since the Magna Carta and the Boston Tea Party have those two ideas been able to share a church pew with comfort.

edited to say: I mean to say that while the British decidedly separated throne from politics, they did so without dethroning the Monarch. The Americans decidedly separated the two as well, but did take that extra step. It is the bell that CANNOT be unrung.

[Grandduchess24]

And it would have happened under king George III but got independence with a revolution, and if it did happen we would probably be on the commonwealth realms list, well at least some or all of the 13 colonies.

[Bonaparte-Savoy]

Dear fellow royal fans,
I was wondering if any of you know about past/present European monarchs and their relationships with American presidents/who were their favorite American presidents? Especially Her Majesty Elizabeth II. I always wonder who her favorite American president is/was. Please forgive me if I sound like a conceited American, I'm just interest in European royal family relationships with American presidents. If there's already another thread like this or if it's in the wrong section, can the mods please delete it/move it? Thanks for reading, it means a lot to me.

[COESpiral]

I can't remember where I read this but I believe it's been said the US President she got along best with was Ronald Reagan. I think it was due to a mutual love of horses and I've seen pictures of them getting ready for a ride. Don't know if they were at Balmoral or Sandringham or some other location.

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by COESpiral

I can't remember where I read this but I believe it's been said the US President she got along best with was Ronald Reagan. I think it was due to a mutual love of horses and I've seen pictures of them getting ready for a ride. Don't know if they were at Balmoral or Sandringham or some other location.

It was at Windsor during the Reagans offical visit to the UK and the dinner was also at Windsor. Although she has met almost all of the American Presidents since Truman (I think LBJ was the exception) I doubt if she saw any of them frequently enough or long enough to have developed too close a friendship with any of them.

[EIIR]

I think the perceived wisdom on HM's relationships with American presidents is that she got along very well with Reagan. It's hard to see HM heading out on horseback for a morning ride with any of the other US presidents she's met. Mrs Reagan has also always been very complimentary about the Queen and how well they all got on.

As Princess Elizabeth, President Truman welcomed HM to the US and, while standing next to her, told his audience that he was only disappointed that all Americans wouldn't get the chance to see her as he had been told that as soon as anyone became acquainted with her they "fell in love with her". It can be seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfxA7L2p0mU

I've got a soft spot for this hand-written letter from HM to President Eisenhower in 1960 which included a recipe for drop scones that she had promised to send him while he was at Balmoral. It's so incredibly informal, telling him that she's tried the recipe with golden syrup and treacle, and that when making them for fewer people she just puts less flour and milk in. The letter is very sweet and suggests that they at least got on pretty well.

HM also seemed to enjoy the company of Mrs Obama on her visit to the UK. The Queen put her arm around her, which I don't remember seeing her do before or after.

[CSENYC]

Politico: "America Needs a King"

America Needs a King - Michael Auslin - POLITICO Magazine

The author doesn't end up calling for a monarchy, but for a nonpartisan head of state with limited powers and a long term.

This is what I've been saying for years.

Thoughts?

[wyevale]

In a society so clearly 'split down the middle' politically a non partisan Head of State could only be a good thing..

Deciding on what form that might take, {Monarch or President} would be a matter for the American people, and as an Englishman 'I couldn't possibly comment'.

I would only say that if a society that cannot agree on how to provide healthcare to its citizenry, {without appalling rancour] I wouldn't expect a consensus.

As Americans would say 'good luck with that....'

[Victorian-Dandy]

Considering those in the Congress and Senate cannot decide what to agree on, I cannot envision the powers that be in the USA installing any kind of "Head of State" as they would probably be terrified that they might actually have to do something constructive, instead of throwing insults at each other and making sure Bills that should be passed with no problems are basically shouted down and run out of time.

Nice idea though