The United States and Monarchy

[Mbruno]

Interesting! It may be that the USA is a rather unequal society compared to some other countries.
However. the countries you mention have, until recently, had a much more homogeneous population than the USA, and have also been rather critical of our policies on illegal immigration.

Yet, when I was in Canada last week, one politician was suggesting building a wall on Roxham Road, to reduce the illegal immigrant problem!!?

Sweden is coping with a crime wave that is tied to the migrant influx. Australia advocates not allowing migrants to land in the first place.


Let's see what happens in a few years.

I don't think you can compare the relative impact of a sudden burst of immigration in the United States and in a country like Sweden, whose total population is only slightly over 10 million people and whose land area is slightly bigger than California maybe.


Honestly, attributing the social problems of the United States to immigration is not a very credible argument, especially considering that, as of today, the foreign-born population in the US is actually much lower in percentage terms than in Australia or Canada, and about the same as in Germany. It is also lower in percentage terms than the foreign-born population in other periods in US history, e.g. in the early 20th century I think.

 

[Mirabel]

Of course I am not intending to attribute all social problems to immigration!
That was merely meant to be an example of other countries who are quick to criticize, and point to the superiority of their lifestyles, but have not had to deal with some of the issues of a highly diverse population- YET.

I'm curious to see what happens in the future.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I don't think you can compare the relative impact of a sudden burst of immigration in the United States and in a country like Sweden, whose total population is only slightly over 10 million people and whose land area is slightly bigger than California maybe.

Honestly, attributing the social problems of the United States to immigration is not a very credible argument, especially considering that, as of today, the foreign-born population in the US is actually much lower in percentage terms than in Australia or Canada, and about the same as in Germany. It is also lower in percentage terms than the foreign-born population in other periods in US history, e.g. in the beginning of the 20th century, I think.

Correct. The US population is at 325 million. Foreign born are around 13%, with illegal immigrants representing about 3%. Illegal immigration is no where near the source or cause of any economic or social problem in the US. Has always been a red herring skillfully used for political purposes: smoke and mirrors.

 

[JR76]

Sweden is coping with a crime wave that is tied to the migrant influx.

I don't want to get inte a political discussion but as a Swede I just want to say that there is no migrant fuelled crime wave in this country. Obviously we like any country have our challenges but the image of a country buckling under to a horde of raping Muslim criminals has absolutely no truth to it and it's quite easy to see how that narrative was made up to suit the political movement who oppose multiculturalism and an open society.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I don't want to get inte a political discussion but as a Swede I just want to say that there is no migrant fuelled crime wave in this country. Obviously we like any country have our challenges but the image of a country buckling under to a horde of raping Muslim criminals has absolutely no truth to it and it's quite easy to see how that narrative was made up to suit the political movement who oppose multiculturalism and an open society.

Thank you for saying so, JR76. I was hesitant to address it since I am not Swedish but this idea comes from a comment made during a rally in Florida in February 2017 by President Trump that drew international attention, fueled a couple of days later in the same month with comments by the British politician Nigel Farage, and so it has gone.

 

[Mirabel]

I don't want to get inte a political discussion but as a Swede I just want to say that there is no migrant fuelled crime wave in this country. Obviously we like any country have our challenges but the image of a country buckling under to a horde of raping Muslim criminals has absolutely no truth to it and it's quite easy to see how that narrative was made up to suit the political movement who oppose multiculturalism and an open society.

Really?
And there's so many news articles about it!

Guess I am one of those naive people who tends to believe what I read.
I apologize.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Really?
And there's so many news articles about it!

Guess I am one of those naive people who tends to believe what I read.
I apologize.

Crime in Sweden, a Three-Part Series
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/04/05/crime-sweden-three-part-series/

False
Crime In Sweden, Part I: Is Sweden the ‘Rape Capital’ of Europe?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/

Mostly False
Crime in Sweden, Part II: Are Refugee Men Overrepresented in Swedish Crime?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-sweden-part-ii-refugee-men-overrepresented-swedish-crime/

False
Crime in Sweden, Part III: Does Sweden Have ‘No-Go Zones’ Where the Police Can’t Enter?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sweden-crime-no-go-zone-police/

 

[Katymcwaity]

Please dont believe anything Nigel Farage says. Everything he does is for his own benefit.

 

[Denville]

Please dont believe anything Nigel Farage says. Everything he does is for his own benefit.

How does that make him different to most politicans and people?

 

[Furienna]

Really?
And there's so many news articles about it!

Guess I am one of those naive people who tends to believe what I read.
I apologize.

It all depends on where in Sweden you live. The three big cities (Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö) have way more crime than little towns in the periphery regions.

 

[Frozen Royalist]

Let's just face it, the closest America will come to being a monarchy is a nepotistic republic and especially under a certain and "special" family from New York City.

Except for maybe 13% of the US population, the majority of of Americans don't want a monarchy. Even though I'm an American monarchist I realize that an American Empire, United Kingdom of America or whatever you want to call it would not happen unless it was forced. Who knows that may just happen considering most of my fellow Americans are getting turned off by the idea of democratically elected government, I'm personally against the idea of authoritarian coups but I think you guys get the idea.

I suppose there would be an off chance if we ever balkanize then there could be a nation that becomes a constitutional monarchy but that nation would most likely be Hawaii. Actually a Californian Kingdom sounds rather awesome with the bear flag being modified with a crown and all, I know it probably won't happen in the even of Californian independence but I can still have an imagination ?


-Frozen Royalist

P.S. Forgive me I was confused about whether this forum was about establishing an American monarchy or just Americans and foreign monarchies in general.

 

[jacqui24]

There has been women who ran for president way before this. Somewhere along the way I think people forgot.


LaRae

People didn’t forget. It wasn’t the same thing. Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is a trailblazer of her time and accomplished something no other woman has done.

In terms of monarchy, despite the political turmoil this country has experienced and the uncertainties lay ahead, I can’t imagine US will become a monarchy. It just goes against the founding pillars of this country.

 

[jacqui24]

Really?
And there's so many news articles about it!

Guess I am one of those naive people who tends to believe what I read.
I apologize.

I thought this was debunked when the comment was first made? It was simply a false rumor our President started spreading that had no basis in stats or facts after he watched a distorted and inaccurate special on Fox the night before (this came in form of a tweet IIRC). And I believe some in Swedish government were quite upset by it understandably.

 

[Al_bina]

People didn’t forget. It wasn’t the same thing. Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is a trailblazer of her time and accomplished something no other woman has done.

In terms of monarchy, despite the political turmoil this country has experienced and the uncertainties lay ahead, I can’t imagine US will become a monarchy. It just goes against the founding pillars of this country.

One might presume that loftier, or, shall we say, less questionable trailblazers, who do not snicker at the opponent's untimely demise at the national TV, are required to found a royal house.

 

[Somebody]

People didn’t forget. It wasn’t the same thing. Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is a trailblazer of her time and accomplished something no other woman has done.

In terms of monarchy, despite the political turmoil this country has experienced and the uncertainties lay ahead, I can’t imagine US will become a monarchy. It just goes against the founding pillars of this country.

I don't see it happening either but it is still interesting how the US president has somewhat comparable power to that of a king a few centuries ago while the current monarchs in western countries (except for the small princedoms of Monaco and Liechtenstein) don't have that power any longer. So, it's no longer a hereditary system but the American system is still rather comparable to that of a monarchy in previous times.

 

[MARG]

^^^^^ Indeed you have point. The US seems to be 'ruled by decree' (Executive Order) by a Head of State with far more scope to order what he wills (right down to demanding his perceived enemies be locked up). That is far more power than almost all Kings, Queens, Princes and Arch-duke's Regnant have in the western world.

 

[Osipi]

With a apolitical constitutional monarch, what a country has is a monarch that represents *all* of the people, *all* of the time. A head of state that is outside politics and referendums and differences of opinion on how the country is run but represents everything that is about that country as a whole.

In the US we have the two sides of the aisle in the House of Representatives and the Senate and a party affiliated President with executive powers. If the two sides of our law making bodies can't agree on anything, there's going to be a whole lot of pissed off people with a president that can "enforce" something on his own "will and pleasure" according to the rules of executive powers.

For the people, by the people and of the people has long since disappeared.

The US definitely could use Felix the Cat right about now and his magic bag o' tricks. He couldn't do any worse than what we already have.

 

[Gawin]

^^^^^ Indeed you have point. The US seems to be 'ruled by decree' (Executive Order) by a Head of State with far more scope to order what he wills (right down to demanding his perceived enemies be locked up). That is far more power than almost all Kings, Queens, Princes and Arch-duke's Regnant have in the western world.

No, the President does NOT have that power. Donald Trump just *thinks* he does. And I'm not being sarcastic.

 

[Pranter]

No, the President does NOT have that power. Donald Trump just *thinks* he does. And I'm not being sarcastic.

He's just another one in the line of several who think they do/did...anyone expressing shock about this has not been paying attention.


LaRae

 

[MARG]

No shock, merely awe at the utter dearth of unders

 

[Gawin]

He's just another one in the line of several who think they do/did...anyone expressing shock about this has not been paying attention.


LaRae

Donald Trump has taken it to new heights. Or perhaps "lows" would be the better word .

 

[Pranter]

Donald Trump has taken it to new heights. Or perhaps "lows" would be the better word .

I don't know about that...I haven't compared all past presidents who used the power to circumvent the Constitution ...I'm guessing he is no better or worse than the rest of them.



LaRae

 

[Marengo]

Let's keep the sitting American president out of this thread & move on.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

President Abraham Lincoln sent a letter of condolence to Queen Victoria after the demise of Prince Albert.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/abe-lincolns-letter-queen-victoria-shown-royal-exhibitionn107351

 

[princeofitaly]

In June of 1961, Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Philip Duke of Edinbourgh met John F. Kennedy and his wife Jackie visited Buckingham Palace for the first time.


Here the photo of the meeting:
https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-pro...pg?crop=1.00xw:0.675xh;0,0.325xh&resize=768:*

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Without any doubt: Barack Obama and George H.W. Bush because these two presidents were closest to what Europeans consider as standard norms and values on society, policy and personality. I would have enlisted Bill Clinton here, was he not so tarnished later in his presidency.

 

[Somebody]

Found this video exploring three possible lines of succession if George Washington had become the first king instead of first president of the United States of America.

What do all of you consider the most likely line of succession?

 

[Mbruno]

Found this video exploring three possible lines of succession if George Washington had become the first king instead of first president of the United States of America.

What do all of you consider the most likely line of succession?

Following a point of divergence in the timeline (as alternate history writers say), a new timeline arises. In this case, the descendants of King George I of the Washington dynasty are not guaranteed to be the same persons as the descendants of President George Washington in our timeline, so your question is impossible to answer.

 

[Somebody]

Following a point of divergence in the timeline (as alternate history writers say), a new timeline arises. In this case, the descendants of King George I of the Washington dynasty are not guaranteed to be the same persons as the descendants of President George Washington in our timeline, so your question is impossible to answer.

Of course, as is acknowledged by the creator of the video. However, what do you think would be the most likely successor for George Washington himself: his adopted son, his nephew by his elder half-brother Augustine, his nephew by his younger brother John - or, one that I would add: his nephew by his younger brother Samuel?

 

[Futurist]

Of course, as is acknowledged by the creator of the video. However, what do you think would be the most likely successor for George Washington himself: his adopted son, his nephew by his elder half-brother Augustine, his nephew by his younger brother John - or, one that I would add: his nephew by his younger brother Samuel?

In such a scenario, might the US have an elective monarchy similar to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or present-day Cambodia? If so, then presumably the American nobles would have chosen a new monarch after George Washington's death--and not necessarily from his George Washington's family. Rather, it could have been some member of the American nobility being chosen to be the new US monarch after George Washington's death. Thomas Jefferson, perhaps? Or James Madison? Or John Adams? Or even some "dark horse" candidate?