The United States and Monarchy

[CSENYC]

Originally Posted by wyevale

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....'

I wouldn't blame US society for the healthcare debacle. Rather, members of one party in power decided to implement a health care plan without paying any attention whatsoever to representatives of the other party in government (or its voters), and so the result is what should be expected when one side, representing about 50% of the country, (1) is completely ignored and run over in a major policy decision that affects their lives and wallets significantly and (2) then partially returns to power.

That said, I cannot see Congress- or anyone- picking a nonpartisan head of state without great difficulty, so I think that you should give us Prince William and Kate and have a hereditary system!

[FanofMonaco]

Having a monarch goes against everything the US stands for. I don't see it happening. For one, it would require a constitutional amendment approved by all 50 states. I don't think a dictatorship is out of the question if we continue on our corrupt and lazy path. It would probably break the country into several parts and end the US as we know it.

[wyevale]

I think that you should give us Prince William and Kate and have a hereditary system!

With respect... your countrymen made your feelings towards English Royals perfectly plain in 1775, and The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge are - a} unlikely to wish to raise their children in a foreign country and -b} are already heirs to the British Crown.

If you plump for a royal family how about the Kardashians.. they seem to be wildly popular [although perhaps lacking the requisite gravitas?}

[casualfan]

Originally Posted by FanofMonaco

Having a monarch goes against everything the US stands for. I don't see it happening. For one, it would require a constitutional amendment approved by all 50 states. I don't think a dictatorship is out of the question if we continue on our corrupt and lazy path. It would probably break the country into several parts and end the US as we know it.

A constitutional amendment actually only requires approval by 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States.

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by CSENYC

I wouldn't blame US society for the healthcare debacle. Rather, members of one party in power decided to implement a health care plan without paying any attention whatsoever to representatives of the other party in government (or its voters), and so the result is what should be expected when one side, representing about 50% of the country, (1) is completely ignored and run over in a major policy decision that affects their lives and wallets significantly and (2) then partially returns to power.

That said, I cannot see Congress- or anyone- picking a nonpartisan head of state without great difficulty, so I think that you should give us Prince William and Kate and have a hereditary system!

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the ACA as I do agree with you.

Regarding the U.S. having a constitutional monarchy-NO. Having a separate HoS-Yes.

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by wyevale

With respect... your countrymen made your feelings towards English Royals perfectly plain in 1775, and The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge are - a} unlikely to wish to raise their children in a foreign country and -b} are already heirs to the British Crown.

If you plump for a royal family how about the Kardashians.. they seem to be wildly popular [although perhaps lacking the requisite gravitas?}

I do believe that we'd also say no to the Spanish and former French royal families as well.

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by TLLK

I do believe that we'd also say no to the Spanish and former French royal families as well.

And a big no to Queen Mother Kris Kardashian.

[Al_bina]

The article is interesting. However, the suggestion to have a non-partisan President is not achievable.

[CSENYC]

Originally Posted by wyevale

With respect... your countrymen made your feelings towards English Royals perfectly plain in 1775, and The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge are - a} unlikely to wish to raise their children in a foreign country and -b} are already heirs to the British Crown.

If you plump for a royal family how about the Kardashians.. they seem to be wildly popular [although perhaps lacking the requisite gravitas?}

The feelings expressed in the 1770s were against royalty at that time, and many English citizens in England fought to reduce the power of the monarchy throughout the 1700s and 1800s.

I'd guess that Queen Elizabeth is just as popular in the US as in the UK.

[Dman]

I actually already think of our President and First Lady as our King and Queen of America or as the Father and Mother of the Nation. Although their reign only last 4 to 8 years.

I do think we need to reevaluate our American system.

[Biri]

In fact, President is like the King.
Temporary, but the King.

[Osipi]

As a matter of fact, the US already has my favorite King and Queen. Namely Burger King and Dairy Queen.

Sorry... couldn't resist.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Osipi

As a matter of fact, the US already has my favorite King and Queen. Namely Burger King and Dairy Queen.

Sorry... couldn't resist.

that was a good one.

[LadyGabrielle]

I dont consider the President and his family as royalty. Maybe the U.S. Needs a monarchy in order to fix its major problems. Obviously choosing a new person to become the next President really doesnt fix anything since when they are campaigning for votes from the people, they will say anything just to get in. Once they have won and become President, everything they promised seems to be dumped at the curb and instead more problems are made. Maybe having a monarchy would end those problems, who knows. On the other hand if we did have a monarchy, we would have to hope and pray that the monarch isnt greedy amd ruthless and selfish etc. O.k. that is a difficult decision.

[cepe]

It isn't that you need a non-partisan president, it's that you need a president that can implement the policies that got him elected. Minority leaders never do well and the way the elections seem to go in the US is that the power to implement presidental policy is rarely given.

[COUNTESS]

A monarchy solves nothing. As these present monarchs do nothing. The Prime Ministers have the power. Paying out a great deal of money for what? Now, who would be you king, Kapaa? What a foolish comment, sorry. It is not a difficult decision, if you can read and know history. Those who have monarchs, have them from a very long time ago. They went forward with Constitutional Monarchies making their monarchs, figure heads at best. Our nation was founded on the basis of getting rid of a monarch. Have you not learned that? I am amazed at this silliness.

[Dman]

Presidents really want to do the things they campaigned on but once they get in that Oval Office and take a long look at the problems they face, reality kicks their butts. It also don't help when Congress and the people don't pull together to help get things done.

It takes the people to change the country for the better, not just relay on the President to change things. A King & Queen sounds great but I'm not sure it would change much.

[LadyGabrielle]

Im sorry you think that my response was silly COUNTESS. I was making a comment about having a monarch or not. If the monarchy of Hawaii had not been overthrown we would probably srill have one and in my opinion, which I am allowed to have, the people would be in a much better place than they are now. Hawaiis monarchs were always concerned about the welfare of the people and not about financial or material gain. The Hawaiian monarchs always had the power to decide what was best for the people and did not rely on others to tell them what to do until the westerners came along and imposed their views on how a kingdom should be run. Unfortunately the last King was forced to give power to a group of wealthy and greedy missionary men he had appointed to his privy councel and it was done through gunpoint. In the end after he died his sister became Queen for a short time and those same westerners who supposedly came here to do good ended up forcing her to abdicate and imprisoning her through force by use of the American military and then proceeded to name a president to take over who happened to be a missionary decendent and the U.S. took over. If that had not happened and the kingdom had stayed in tact, iy would be a far better place considering the monarchy had a very civil and honourable way of doing things. By the way, did you know that at the time of the last few monarchs of Hawaii they took the lead of the United Kingdom? No, Im sure you didnt. The way they had progressed from being, as they were called, heathens, to the point of being very much English in manner and dress was amazing. Did you also know that Queen Victoria was the Godmother of our little Prince Albert who only lived to four years of age? And did you also know that Hawaii kept the union jack as part of our flag because they felt a closeness to the United Kingdom? A little less sarcasm would be nice since obviously you do not know how Hawaii was back then and how it is now besides swaying palms and hula dancers. Believe it or not, alot of us can only wish we had our King again knowing how it would benefit our little islands in the midlle of the ocean. A president does nothing for us and quite frankly, this one who happens to have been born and raised here can do nothing for us. I really dont think that Im being silly, do you?

[LadyGabrielle]

Oh, and sorry about any incorrect spelling, your comment made me a little angry and I was trying to type too fast.

[MARG]

Hmm, it is easy to forget that Hawaii had it's own hereditary Royal Family. I assume they are still there, albeit with no political clout whatsoever. Or, were they destroyed and their wealth spread among the "deserving" US government officials?