The United States and Monarchy

[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]

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]

European Monarchs and American Presidents

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]

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]

Should the United States become a Monarchy?

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

 

[CSENYC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?