The United States and Monarchy

[ROYAL NORWAY]

The US political system is completely broken, and I find the endless election campaigns quite sickening. The United States needs a parliamentary system with a prime minister and an elected apolitical president who can unite the country, but this will probably never happen.

I prefer a constitutional monarchy with an apolitical monarch and a parliamentary system where the majority of the elected MP's/government has the power because it's a unifying symbol and in my eyes the best political system you can have in a country, but only in countries that already have a monarchy.

This has nothing to do with the above posters, just my view on the US political system.

 

[NotHRH]

The US political system is broken...badly, but the "republic" system we have is the only one all Americans are accustomed to. To even suggest/consider a new system would have serious repercussions - not just the US but the entire world. One of the biggest reasons for the serious breakdown of our country is the fact we have immigrants, legal and illegal, trying to change it into their home country. Why leave your home country, come here and then demand handouts and expect me to learn another language, such as Spanish for instance? Other countries need to take care of their own citizens - I cannot work to feed the entire world or give them free medical care.
With that said, I do not want my tax dollars spent for a ceremonial head of state. Serious waste of money - and then to pay a few other members of the HOS's family...really????? The US needs fixing but a new form of government is not the answer. Even if we did de decide to change it, a constitutional monarchy is not a good idea. ???

 

[Al_bina]

Unlike the above opinions, I do not think that the US political system should undergo any changes. The system in question seems to be accepted by the majority.

On a different note, the discussion is entertaining

 

[Mbruno]

The US political system is broken...badly, but the "republic" system we have is the only one all Americans are accustomed to. To even suggest/consider a new system would have serious repercussions - not just the US but the entire world. One of the biggest reasons for the serious breakdown of our country is the fact we have immigrants, legal and illegal, trying to change it into their home country. Why leave your home country, come here and then demand handouts and expect me to learn another language, such as Spanish for instance? Other countries need to take care of their own citizens - I cannot work to feed the entire world or give them free medical care.

I am not aware of anyone who is forcing you or anybody else for that matter to learn Spanish in the US, so I don't know what you are talking about. Furthermore, I wonder if you realize that immigrants also go to work, pay taxes and, on the aggregate, receive far less welfare benefits than natural born citizens of the United States. Finally, many of the people who now speak against immigration in the US (including Donald Trump) are themselves children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, or great-great-grandchildren of immigrants, which is utterly hypocritical.

With that said, I do not want my tax dollars spent for a ceremonial head of state. Serious waste of money - and then to pay a few other members of the HOS's family...really????? The US needs fixing but a new form of government is not the answer. Even if we did de decide to change it, a constitutional monarchy is not a good idea. ???

I bet the prime minister of Canada and the Governor General combined cost less to taxpayers than the president of the United States. In fact, the US would probably have a much leaner and frugal government if it were a Commonwealth realm like Canada . Besides, in many monarchies like the Netherlands, Sweden and Spain, only the King, the Queen Consort and the heir to the throne when applicable normally get direct public funding. Belgium, the UK and, I suppose, Denmark also fund members of the extended royal family, but that is because they are barred from holding any other job and are required to be full-time public servants. It is just fair then that they should receive public funds as compensation.

 

[Muhler]

The US political system is broken...badly, but the "republic" system we have is the only one all Americans are accustomed to. To even suggest/consider a new system would have serious repercussions - not just the US but the entire world. One of the biggest reasons for the serious breakdown of our country is the fact we have immigrants, legal and illegal, trying to change it into their home country. Why leave your home country, come here and then demand handouts and expect me to learn another language, such as Spanish for instance? Other countries need to take care of their own citizens - I cannot work to feed the entire world or give them free medical care.
With that said, I do not want my tax dollars spent for a ceremonial head of state. Serious waste of money - and then to pay a few other members of the HOS's family...really????? The US needs fixing but a new form of government is not the answer. Even if we did de decide to change it, a constitutional monarchy is not a good idea. ������

Thank you, NotHRH.

Your answer is very telling and I believe it applies to most Americans.
The feelings you express are very similar to the feelings people who live in a monarchy and who believe in a monarchy feel, when someone from outside say that the monarchy is an anachronism, undemocratic and so on and so on.

Okay, if we can't have a monarchy in USA, how would the ideal monarchy look like, from especially an American view? Because we who live in a monarchy are historically, nationally and culturally biased. You don't live in a monarchy so you can look at it with fresh eyes.

So let's change the thought-experiment:
You have a new country, similar to USA but a lot smaller, I.e. a native minority and the majority constituting of descendants of immigrants with different cultural, religious and racial background, but agreeing on getting this new nation to work.
Say 25 million people. A country the size of the west coast of USA to the Rockies. With an economy and living standard equivalent to say Australia. Culturally it otherwise resembles USA.
Beforehand you were ruled by a world government, with a governor ruling you directly. A kind of benign dictatorial rule. Not that different from the situation in 1776. Now the whole things has collapsed and the world is fragmenting into nations about your size.
You are charged with outlining the in your eyes ideal monarchy. How should it work?

 

[wyevale]

Even if the Presidential system were manifestly broken beyond possibility of redemption the American people would not relinquish it..
They are far too emotionally invested in the idea of it. The French are the same.. they worship their 'republican virtues' regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Zonk]

Please note that several posts have been deleted as off topic.

There are several places where you can go to discuss the current President, the future President and immigration to your heart's content.

This isn't the place to do it.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the monarchy and the United States. Is it possible to change our form of government, how would you implement such a change, would most Americans go for it, etc.

Any and all additional off topic posts will be deleted without notice.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

We do have a Royal Family... they are The Kennedy's and Bush's lol

 

[Dman]

I always think our First Family as America's royal family. Only on a 4 year term.

 

[Al_bina]

We do have a Royal Family... they are The Kennedy's and Bush's lol

Depending on the region, the USA has multiple ruling families/clans. The families in question are far more powerful than the Kennedys. The Bushes are said to be just well-connected.

 

[Pranter]

We do have a Royal Family... they are The Kennedy's and Bush's lol

You forgot the Clinton's.


LaRae

 

[Lady Nimue]

Depends what you mean by 'royal', I guess. I would disagree about the Kennedys per se. There are political families that dominate for a while but they pass on. In that sense, there were the Adamses, the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Bushes, and (maybe) the Clintons.

I agree, Dman. The current First Family is about as close as we come to 'royalty', if one thinks politically and as celebrity, but there are accomplished families that influence in other ways, too numerous to mention.

 

[HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G]

Because of the absolutely mad 2016 election cycle. I wonder if Americans may warm to the idea of bringing back the British Monarchy like the cousins up north? Then America could become more united than divided. I've always believed the head of state is too much of an important position to be elected! That is why America is so polarised!

 

[AdmirerUS]

We by nature tend to enjoy our lack of unity. We also enjoy poking at our political leadership. And we are not very fond of anyone who gets born into blessings. Unless we are the ones so blessed. JMO. So, no King or Queen for unity for us.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Because of the absolutely mad 2016 election cycle. I wonder if Americans may warm to the idea of bringing back the British Monarchy like the cousins up north? Then America could become more united than divided. I've always believed the head of state is too much of an important position to be elected! That is why America is so polarised!

No. (Unless you want to argue Americans would become united in their abhorrence of a hereditary head of state - then yes, you might be onto something.)

The reasons why America is so polarized is far, far more complicated. You might want to start with banning 24-hour for-profit "news" agencies - all of them. Among other things.

 

[Dman]

We by nature tend to enjoy our lack of unity. We also enjoy poking at our political leadership. And we are not very fond of anyone who gets born into blessings. Unless we are the ones so blessed. JMO. So, no King or Queen for unity for us.

True indeed.

I do admire how the British people have so much love and respect for their Head of State, The Queen. What bothers me is that we have very little love and respect for our Presidents. We vote our presidents in, but never say thank you for their service and sacrifice. We love knocking them around when they get something wrong, but never acknowledge their successful accomplishments. Once their out of office, we seem to be okay for them to disappear. Only we they get sick and die is when we reflect on them.

I think we could learn a lot from the British people on how to treat our Head of State. Also, what this country need is unity. I think we're so busy disrespecting our presidents that, when they try to unify us, we ignore their efforts.

 

[HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G]

But your Head of State cannot represent the whole nation! But I understand your position!

 

[Skippyboo]

The Queen is not making the decisions for the government. So she gets all of the good patriotic feels and the PM of the day gets the hate and anger for their decisions. The US President is highly involved with the decisions of the government. So there is going to be a large number of people who disagree with the President and voice that disagreement.

Up until the late 1960s, the press helped protect the president from scandal. Wilson had a major stroke in office and the country was run by Mrs Wilson instead of the VP, FDR had his paralysis covered up, JFK and others their affairs with women etc.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[GracieGiraffe]

True indeed.

I do admire how the British people have so much love and respect for their Head of State, The Queen. What bothers me is that we have very little love and respect for our Presidents. We vote our presidents in, but never say thank you for their service and sacrifice. We love knocking them around when they get something wrong, but never acknowledge their successful accomplishments. Once their out of office, we seem to be okay for them to disappear. Only we they get sick and die is when we reflect on them.

I think we could learn a lot from the British people on how to treat our Head of State. Also, what this country need is unity. I think we're so busy disrespecting our presidents that, when they try to unify us, we ignore their efforts.

The issue is our head of state is also our head of government. Compare the role of the British monarch to that of the American President. I wonder what the people of Britain would think of the Queen if she nominated court justices and ambassadors, issued executive orders (some of them carrying the nation into war), negotiated treaties, vetoed legislation... they are such completely different roles you can't expect one to be treated like the other.

 

[Lee-Z]

Because of the absolutely mad 2016 election cycle. I wonder if Americans may warm to the idea of bringing back the British Monarchy like the cousins up north? Then America could become more united than divided. I've always believed the head of state is too much of an important position to be elected! That is why America is so polarised!

Can I just ask: even if the USofA would want to become a monarchy...why would they want the *British* Monarch to be their monarch?

 

[CSENYC]

Can I just ask: even if the USofA would want to become a monarchy...why would they want the *British* Monarch to be their monarch?

While there is almost zero chance that the US would ever become a monarchy, I'd be fine with having a Canadian-style system, with Queen Elizabeth as head of state if a monarchy were established.

We'd need a royal family that is neither Democratic nor Republican. Nearly everyone in the US leans towards one of the two parties, so it would be tough to find someone in the US who is absolutely neutral.

However, this is all silly. The US would not become a monarchy, and if it did, it would certainly not import a foreign monarch.

 

[Dman]

What I'm saying is that we show very little respect for our Presidents. I know The Queen is above politics, but her people pay attention when she unify her nation. When she offers words of advice and comfort, her people embrace it.

We treat our presidents like crap. Never give them credit for anything, but quick to shower them with blame when things go wrong or when we don't understand the situation.

I've been totally blown away by the celebrations in The Queen's honor during her Jubilee's, Coronation Anniversaries and Birthday Celebrations. The Monarch has love, respect, admiration and thanks poured on her. The Queen can die knowing all her years of duty and sacrifice was widely appreciated.

It's totally different here. Perhaps we should have a Head of State and family that's above politics. I'm completely open to a change.

 

[Mbruno]

The issue is our head of state is also our head of government. Compare the role of the British monarch to that of the American President. I wonder what the people of Britain would think of the Queen if she nominated court justices and ambassadors, issued executive orders (some of them carrying the nation into war), negotiated treaties, vetoed legislation... they are such completely different roles you can't expect one to be treated like the other.

Exactly. The Queen is (almost) universally respected and admired because she doesn't make any government decisions and, therefore, is above political controversy. The prime minister, on the other hand, is praised by those who side with his/her policies and loathed by those who oppose them, just like a US president.

The good thing about separating the roles of head of government and head of state is precisely that the ceremonial representation of the state is not tainted by partisan politics. Furthermore, you don't need a monarchy to enable that separation. Germany does it for example within a republican system of government.

 

[HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G]

Good to hear some people are open to the idea! But one isn't really 'importing' the monarch if we have a shared history. If the US remained loyal, and was a commonwealth country today like Canada. The Queen would be Queen of the USA!

 

[Al_bina]

Because of the absolutely mad 2016 election cycle. I wonder if Americans may warm to the idea of bringing back the British Monarchy like the cousins up north? Then America could become more united than divided. I've always believed the head of state is too much of an important position to be elected! That is why America is so polarised!

What can the UK monarchy offer to the former colony besides the ephemeral unity? I mean tangible benefits of returning to the Commonwealth. The unity within the United Kingdom has cracks as it was proved by the 2014 Scottish referendum and the 2016 Brexit.

I do not think that the 2016 election cycle is more vicious than the previous ones.

 

[Mbruno]

What can the UK monarchy offer to the former colony besides the ephemeral unity? I mean tangible benefits of returning to the Commonwealth. The unity within the United Kingdom has cracks as it was proved by the 2014 Scottish referendum and the 2016 Brexit.

I do not think that the 2016 election cycle is more vicious than the previous ones.

Being a member of the Commonwealth is no longer tied to having the Queen as Head of State. In fact, there are, I believe, 53 countries in the Commonwealth, of which only 16 are realms that have Elizabeth II as HoS.

In other words, technically speaking, nothing prevents the US from applying for Commonwealth membership if it wishes to do so. It would be just another international organization of which the US is a member, like NATO, the OAS, or the UN.

 

[Al_bina]

The Commonwealth is the former territories of the British Empire. Still the question "What can the UK monarchy offer to the former colony besides the ephemeral unity?" stands.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Commonwealth is the former territories of the British Empire. Still the question "What can the UK monarchy offer to the former colony besides the ephemeral unity?" stands.

The Commonwealth is NOT just the former members of the British Empire (and the USA does met that criteria anyway - or at least the original 13 colonies thereof) anymore. It is an organisation with shared goals and a number of countries are now members who were never part of the British Empire e.g. Rwanda and Mozambique.

 

[HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G]

The point stands that having a head of state above politics has many benefits!

Yes but it was originally intended to be a club of ex colonies! It did used to be called the British Commonwealth, and it still should!

 

[Iluvbertie]

If it still had 'British' in the title it wouldn't exist.

It was changed because many of the former colonies resented the word in the title and argued that it made them feel second class members due to having been colonies and some having had very bad experiences either as colonies or to gain independence.