The United States and Monarchy

[nascarlucy]

I can think of only one royal household that would be acceptable in the South. Of course this royal family and nation wouldn't be traditional royalty. It would be very different from any royal household in Europe or anywhere else. Uniquely American. I doubt that this would be accepted as royal from European or any other royal household as most of these individuals in it were just average regular people.

NASCAR and Charlotte North Carolina being the Nations Capital of the NASCAR nation as North Carolina is where it's roots began. Daytona Beach International Speedway was where the first races would were run, so this be the capital in the Southern Region of the Nation. In the Mid-West Chicago or the Chicago Speedway would be the capital in the Mid-West, In the West Sonoma Raceway in California would be the capital and Watkins Glens in Watkins Glen in the East would round out the capitals.

A NASCAR fan is part of the NASCAR nation which covers the entire US. We would be the subjects (the nation) and attending races and supporting NASCAR would be our duties. This nation is conservative, very patriotic and religious (bordering a bit on quasi-Christianity) but at the same time has moderation which contradicts this(very strange mix). I will omit the politics here but you get the general idea.

Well, you need someone to rule the NASCAR nation so you have NASCAR royalty. The France family would rule over the nation as they started it and the NASCAR drivers would be the Prince and Princess of this nation. Some like Richard Petty, the Earnhardts, Jimmy Johnson and Jeff Gordon would be in the highest rungs of this dynasty. Getting into this royalty would require hard work and one does not have to be wealthy to get into this royalty as these individuals were not wealthy prior to racing.

 

[Meraude]

Finland was on its was way to become a monarchy in 1917 when it gained its independence from Russia. If they had chosen someone else than a German prince to be their monarch maybe Finland could be a monarchy today. Prince Wilhelm of Sweden could have been a candidate, but his wife was a Russian princess and she may not have been a popular queen. Two other alternative could be prince Carl, duke of Västergötland and his wife Ingeborg, or Ingeborg's brother prince Harald of Denmark and his wife Helena. Both Carl and Harald had several young children in 1917. A constitutional monarchy in the same way as in Sweden and Denmark would have been a good choice, the monarch and his/her family as a figurehead. As Finland was one of the first countries with female suffrage in 1906, they could perhaps have chosen to have male-preference cognatic primogeniture instead of the agnatic primogeniture as it was in Sweden and Denmark at the time.

 

[Furienna]

I see... But I wonder if creating a new monarchy wouldn't have been an odd choice already back in 1917 (even if the old monarchies of Germany, Austria och Russia still would be around for another year). For example, I seem to remember that the Norwegians seriously considered founding a republic instead back in 1905.

Wilhelm and Maria would have been a nice choice as king and queen of Finland though, as they could have represented the Swedish and Russian parts of the country's history. Then again, I believe that Maria had already left Wilhelm and returned to Russia by then...

 

[Meraude]

Yes, I forgot that Vilhelm and Maria was divorced by 1917.

As for the plans to make Finland a monarchy in 1918, the plans had gone far and there were even a design for a crown for the future monarch of Finland, so it's very possible that if Germany hadn't lost the war in 1918 Finland would have become a monarcy: Kingdom of Finland (1918) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There were also other short-lived monarchies in 1918, for example Lithuania.

 

[Furienna]

Ah... I had no idea that the plans for a Finnish monarchy had come that far, or even that Lithuania had a brief monarchy. But I guess you can learn something new every day.

 

[Meraude]

This is a bit off tropic, but if anyone is interested in reading alternate historical fiction, I can recommend "The Shadow of the Lion" one of the major characters is Manfred of Brittany, a heir to the Holy Roman Empire. The book is set in the 1530ies in Venice.

 

[CSENYC]

Why Constitutional Monarchies Are Best - Article

Interesting article about why the US should be a constitutional monarchy, on Saturday's Real Clear Politics:

3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake - Vox

The article, and other articles by the same author that are linked from it, basically say that constitutional monarchies are best because (1) they have parliamentary systems that result in less gridlock than presidential systems, and (2) constitutional monarchs stay out of politics and let democracy run without their interference, unlike presidential system.

I find the prospect of having one political party run everything, as in a parliamentary system, frightening, but otherwise like the monarchy parts of what the author says.

Thoughts?

 

[Mbruno]

The main advantage IMHO of a constitutional monarchy is the clear separation between the ceremonial and politically neutral role of the Head of State and the partisan role of head of government. The flipside, however, is that monarchy is ultimately based on the hereditary principle, which is hard to defend, except in countries where there is clear bond between the reigning Royal Family and the history of the nation.

With respect to parliamentary government, I agree with the article that it has many positive advantages compared to the US presidential system. Furthermore, with the notable exception of Britain, most parliamentary democracies use some form. of proportional representation method of election, which makes it impossible for any single party to run the government alone as coalitions have to be built to form the cabinet.

 

[Admiral Horthy]

The only way a NEW (not a restoration) monarchy could possibly be created would be after a very devastating civil war where the leader of the winning side would become King. Even then, most would choose to be dictators or run for president after establishing a republic. Anyone declaring themselves "King" would have to be a very wise and just man, and not a nut case like Emperor Bokassa. Furthermore most Western nations would oppose the creation of a new kingdom.

 

[Marty91charmed]

I can't see noew monarchies being formed nowadays... I just believe only the old and already weel-established ones are going to survive...

 

[augeron lafourche]

The monarchy is the only true way to govern,democracy is a fantasy,who where Washington,and the others to separate from the crown,they where not kings,it is not valid if you study it carefully,

 

[Lady Nimue]

The monarchy is the only true way to govern, democracy is a fantasy, who were Washington, and the others to separate from the crown, they were not kings, it is not valid if you study it carefully,

Interesting point of view. Never heard that democracy is not 'valid'. Interesting.

Fact is, the Founding Fathers of the US debated long and hard about instituting a monarchy. One of them, Alexander Hamilton, waxed eloquently for hours on the subject (he was in favor).

But outside an elected monarchy (which is just a matter of semantics), an inherited monarchy is riddled with problems and totally out-of-step with modern sensibilities. JMO.

 

[augeron lafourche]

To separate from the monarchy is nor valid,democracy is a nice dream show us where it works,

 

[augeron lafourche]

A king or queen rules by divine right,democracy,too many chiefs not enough Indians,as the saying goes,look at the USA,another point is Luther,he had no right to establish his own church the true church is the Roman catholic church,and the Pope is infallible,in all ways,

 

[Lady Nimue]

To separate from the monarchy is nor valid,democracy is a nice dream show us where it works,

A king or queen rules by divine right,democracy,too many chiefs not enough Indians,as the saying goes,look at the USA,another point is Luther,he had no right to establish his own church the true church is the Roman catholic church,and the Pope is infallible,in all ways,

This is a huge thread-nap. However, I will say, in regards the bolded text above, I do believe the current Pope, being a good Jesuit, would disagree with your categoric statement on several points.

 

[Mbruno]

Interesting point of view. Never heard that democracy is not 'valid'. Interesting.

Fact is, the Founding Fathers of the US debated long and hard about instituting a monarchy. One of them, Alexander Hamilton, waxed eloquently for hours on the subject (he was in favor).

But outside an elected monarchy (which is just a matter of semantics), an inherited monarchy is riddled with problems and totally out-of-step with modern sensibilities. JMO.

The idea that the Head of State of a country should always be the firstborn son or daughter of a given family may sound outdated or even absurd in the 21st century. However, the fact that the monarch owes his/her position solely to an accident of birth and has no democratic legitimacy at all is paradoxically what forces the kings or queens in the modern European monarchies to withdraw completely from any active executive role leaving all responsibility for government decisions to the prime minister and the cabinet, who in turn are responsible to an elected parliament and, through parliament, ultimately responsible to the people.

By contrast, in parliamentary republics, especially when the president (i.e. the Head of State) is directly elected by the people, he/she ends up being most often partisan and, because the president has a democratic legitimacy of his/her own, he/she is far more likely to clash with the prime minister, particularly when the president and the prime minister belong to different political parties. I tend to think then that constitutional monarchies in the European style are better suited for parliamentary government as they provide a clearer and unambiguous separation between the ceremonial and non-partisan role of the Head of State (played by the monarch) and the partisan executive government led by the prime minister.

Changing subjects, I obviously disagree with the original poster's opinion on the "validity" of democracy. He has a point though about the American revolution, which is in a way legally valid. Since the 13 colonies were under the sovereignty of the British crown, the unilateral declaration of independence issued on July 4, 1776 without the consent of the British parliament was unlawful. US independence only became lawful when, following the Revolutionary War, the United Kingdom, as the former sovereign of the colonies, officially recognized their independence in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, relinquishing for the British crown and all its heirs and successors any " claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof".

 

[Lady Nimue]

The idea that the Head of State of a country should always be the firstborn son or daughter of a given family may sound outdated or even absurd in the 21st century.

More than that, it's a feudal concept. It's a vestige of caste/class systems. It's slavery in a gilded cage.

 

[Mbruno]

More than that, it's a feudal concept. It's a vestige of caste/class systems. It's slavery in a gilded cage.

The origin of the monarchies of countries like England, France or Spain certainly fits your description, but, over time, they either "modernized" and adapted to representative government, or disappeared and were replaced by republics. In countries like Belgium, on the other hand, the monarchy was already born from the start as a popular, constitutional monarchy (chiefly because it is a 19th century monarchy actually originating from a liberal revolution, and not a monarchy dating back to the Middle Age).

In any case, modern monarchies are by no means incompatible with democracy. Furthermore, my point again was that, in a system where the ceremonial role of the Head of State is strictly separate from the executive government, a constitutional monarch may be a better alternative than an elected president.

 

[Lady Nimue]

In any case, modern monarchies are by no means incompatible with democracy.

If you mean that it can work, yes. But at what a price, because there is a human cost. Anyone reading this chat site (and this is a fairly civil chat site) can see that the people born into those families are bound by strictures. Albeit cushioned by great privilege, growing up with a healthy sense of self and the world becomes a monumental achievement, rather than a norm. IMO it remains a vestige of a backwards economic model and blinkered political wisdom.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The most liberal, democratic, tolerant, often also most wealthy, happy and peaceful nations are monarchies by accident: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc. So it is a paradox that the most democractic and egalitarian societies are "ruled" (only in name) by the historic dynasty.

 

[Lady Nimue]

The most liberal, democratic, tolerant, often also most wealthy, happy and peaceful nations are monarchies by accident: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc. So it is a paradox that the most democractic and egalitarian societies are "ruled" (only in name) by the historic dynasty.

There may be something to be said for the stability of one-family rule (though my back shivers at the thought for the US) when the heirs do not inherit actual power and have personally been a happy mix of duty bound acceptance, with a dose of sound ethics. However, monarchial rule across the globe does not fare well in comparison.

In short, it's more an issue of fair systems being upheld by ethical public servants (monarchs are one such type of public servant). In the US we have had political family dynasties, and they do well: the Adamses, the Roosevelts, the Rockefellers, the Udalls, the Kennedys - not all are perfect in every respect, but there is a sense of service and often very high calibre service, indeed. More recently we have had the Bushes, now the nuveau Clintons. But its better it all be by election than an inherited title. That feels so very creaky and antique, hard to envision for a country whose ethos is equality and anyone can be President.

 

[Ish]

There may be something to be said for the stability of one-family rule (though my back shivers at the thought for the US) when the heirs do not inherit actual power and have personally been a happy mix of duty bound acceptance, with a dose of sound ethics. However, monarchial rule across the globe does not fare well in comparison.

In short, it's more an issue of fair systems being upheld by ethical public servants (monarchs are one such type of public servant). In the US we have had political family dynasties, and they do well: the Adamses, the Roosevelts, the Rockefellers, the Udalls, the Kennedys - not all are perfect in every respect, but there is a sense of service and often very high calibre service, indeed. More recently we have had the Bushes, now the nuveau Clintons. But its better it all be by election than an inherited title. That feels so very creaky and antique, hard to envision for a country whose ethos is equality and anyone can be President.

To you, an citizen of a democratic republic, it seems that way. To me, a citizen of a constitutional monarchy, it doesn't. What works for own country does not mean it's best for any other country.

Further, looking at the Democracy Index, 7 of the 10 most democratic countries in the world are constitutional monarchies - and of the top 5 spots, 4 of them are monarchies. The index sites only 24 "full" democracies in the world, 11 of which are constitutional monarchies.

Of the 24 "full" democracies, the US ranks 19th - with only 2 of the constitutional monarchies (Japan and Spain) falling lower.

 

[Skippyboo]

The U.S. is a representative democracy. People election people to run the government. People elect people to service in parliament and run the government in a constitutional monarchy. The monarch can't go against the elected parliament wishes.

Not everyone can become President of the United States. If you aren't a certain age or a natural born citizen you can't be President.

There has been one minority President, one Catholic president, no female Presidents, no Jewish Presidents. So the idea that everyone can be president is a good idea, in reality it will help you immensely if you are a rich, white, Protestant male.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Lady Nimue]

Ish - Keep in mind the US is a pretty big country. It ranks third in the world in population, right behind the two behemoths of China at 1.4 billion people, and India at 1.2 billion. The US is at 3.5 million, a pipsqueak compared to those two, but far bigger than any of those constitutional monarchies you name. I think the 'success' of those constitutional monarchies is a function of many things, size being one, and a fairly homogeneous population. JMO. I'm sure there are more factors involved.

 

[Ish]

There are considerably more factors involved. In compiling the Democracy Index 60 questions are asked of a question and are compiled to give a country a score out of 10 - with 10 being very democratic and 1 being very authoritarian. While it's large population can work against the US in some regards - particularly in regards to political participation - there are aspects of the American government and electoral process that work against it in terms of democracy - i.e. the two party system.

That's not to say that the US's democracy isn't successful. It ranks 19th on a list of 167 countries, which is no small feat. But saying that monarchical rule across the world doesn't fair well in comparison to a system like the US's is verifiably inaccurate - there are 9 countries with monarchies that rank higher in terms of democracy. Monarchies can be very successful at being democracies. So can republics. Neither one nor the other is inherently better.

 

[NotHRH]

Ish - Keep in mind the US is a pretty big country. It ranks third in the world in population, right behind the two behemoths of China at 1.4 billion people, and India at 1.2 billion. The US is at 3.5 million, a pipsqueak compared to those two, but far bigger than any of those constitutional monarchies you name. I think the 'success' of those constitutional monarchies is a function of many things, size being one, and a fairly homogeneous population. JMO. I'm sure there are more factors involved.

"Homogeneous" is the key word - too many ethnicities/races (=differences) in the US for king or queen at the helm, even if that person doesn't hold any real power. The US population, at this point in history, is too fractured and diverse for any one person to run it from within or represent it to the rest of the world.

 

[Lady Nimue]

"Homogeneous" is the key word - too many ethnicities/races (=differences) in the US for king or queen at the helm, even if that person doesn't hold any real power. The US population, at this point in history, is too fractured and diverse for any one person to run it from within or represent it to the rest of the world.

The presidential role does a pretty good job on the whole. I don't see the necessity for anything else.

Fact is, methinks the European monarchies (inclusive of the British) will be facing extinction (dethronement) within this century. The current political realities, with emerging regional interests, and the influx of immigrants across Europe, are the harbingers of changes to governance that I think are inevitable. Europe is destined to become more 'Americanized' in the way of diversity.

I'm introducing 'big-picture' politics here, but the day-in-the-sun of the nation-state is on the wane imo, as regions emerge. It's global corporations that are the merging power centers now. All else (monarchy) is artifact.

 

[Mbruno]

The presidential role does a pretty good job on the whole. I don't see the necessity for anything else.

On the contrary, I think the presidential system of government is notoriously bad. The role of Head of State, which is mostly ceremonial in nature and should be ideally non-partisan, should not be merged with the role of Head of Government, which, in a democracy, is necessarily political and partisan.

Fact is, methinks the European monarchies (inclusive of the British) will be facing extinction (dethronement) within this century. The current political realities, with emerging regional interests, and the influx of immigrants across Europe, are the harbingers of changes to governance that I think are inevitable. Europe is destined to become more 'Americanized' in the way of diversity.

I fail to see what diversity of the population has to do with a country being a monarchy or a republic. In fact, looking at recent real-world examples, the European royal families, e.g. in Sweden, have been the state institution that seems to have best connected with newly arrived immigrants since the current refugee crisis began. Furthermore, there are also monarchies like Australia and Canada with very diverse populations (over 20 % of the population actually born overseas).

Being just a figurehead, the monarch is not involved in policy decisions, e.g. on immigration, health care, education, employment, etc. that may be divisive and cause friction between different social groups. The monarch can be a symbol that unites persons of all social classes, races or ethnic backgrounds, in a way that a controversial elected politician like a president or a prime minister could never be. In that sense, the more diverse a country is, the more it makes sense for tha country to be a constitutional monarchy, not the opposite.

In countries like Australia and Canada, things are more complicated since the monarchy could only be abolished by a constitutional amendment. In Australia, a constitutional amendment is automatically submitted to a popular referendum and must be approved by a majority of voters nationwide and by a majority of voters in a majority of states. In Canada, there is no formal referendum requirement a priori , but a constitutional amendment to abolish the monarchy would have to be passed by the Senate and the House of Commons (the two houses of the federal parliament) and by the Legislative Assemblies of all 10 Canadian provinces. Again, that is a very high bar.

 

[Mbruno]

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

The American loyalists who opposed the revolution founded their own country: it is called (English) Canada !

 

[Jacknch]

Several off-topic posts have either been deleted or edited. This thread is not about the reluctancy or suitability of heirs to the British throne. Further off-topic posts will be deleted without notice.