Which Country Could Become A Monarchy?

[AshYJ]

Originally Posted by ravergirl

I am pretty sure that Hawaii would have to cede because there is only one form of government in the US-and it is elected, not hereditary

But there is a monarchy in Cambodia that elects a monarch, And of course Hawaii has to cede. But what if it wants British royao family to rule it again?

[Tuf Pic]

Originally Posted by AshYJ

But there is a monarchy in Cambodia that elects a monarch, And of course Hawaii has to cede. But what if it wants British royao family to rule it again?

Or maybe the U.S.A. could amend the constitution to allow for monarchies within the United States of America?!


(I REALLY HOPE SO)!!


ALSO:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ian_monarchies

Also, Malaysia has SEVERAL Royal Families which ROTATE, VIA ELECTION!!

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Hawaii is Not a country, it is one of the 50 US states. From the onset of this topic, this disqualifies Hawaii from this discussion. Its just not gonna happen...its really not...

That is a narrow view of Hawaii, who was an independent state and monarchy only 120 years ago, and who lost its independence because of a forced takeover by the United States. That in itself sets it apart from most other current American states, and is a good basis for a constitutional change in its arrangements.
Although it would require rework, there is always a way where there is a will, and if the proper movement took place, it is not an impossible thing to envision, a Hawaii that remains an American state, but with a monarch instead of a governor, and with large degree with internal self-governing. There are many such semi-sovereign states around the world, where the goal is not complete independence, but a self-governance on important matters and a restoration of cultural and historic institutions.
The Hawaiian monarchy would be one such thing.

The American president would be head of state of the federal country, the monarch of Hawaii would be the representative of Hawaii in most appropriate affairs domestic and foreign.

[AshYJ]

Originally Posted by Tuf Pic

Or maybe the U.S.A. could amend the constitution to allow for monarchies within the United States of America?!


(I REALLY HOPE SO)!!


ALSO:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ian_monarchies

Also, Malaysia has SEVERAL Royal Families which ROTATE, VIA ELECTION!!

Sorry but Malaysian states don't choose sultans through election, it was herediately, it was all of Malaysia, therefore election for choosing a sultan of all states of Malaysia including Sabah and Sarawak which have no sultans of their own. Who cares about Indoensia when they have no sultan anymore. President, they got a president.

[Tuf Pic]

Originally Posted by AshYJ

Sorry but Malaysian states don't choose sultans through election, it was herediately, it was all of Malaysia, therefore election for choosing a sultan of all states of Malaysia including Sabah and Sarawak which have no sultans of their own. Who cares about Indoensia when they have no sultan anymore. President, they got a president.

https://islaminindonesia.com/2011/10...-of-indonesia/


They have numerous constituent monarchies within the Republic, *EVEN NOWADAYS*, as should have been made clear by the URL in my previous post!!


Also, while you are correct that there are Sultans who rotate in the Malaysian Federation, (every 5 years, I believe), it still counts as a *TYPE OF ELECTION!!*

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

That is a narrow view of Hawaii, who was an independent state and monarchy only 120 years ago, and who lost its independence because of a forced takeover by the United States. That in itself sets it apart from most other current American states, and is a good basis for a constitutional change in its arrangements.
Although it would require rework, there is always a way where there is a will, and if the proper movement took place, it is not an impossible thing to envision, a Hawaii that remains an American state, but with a monarch instead of a governor, and with large degree with internal self-governing. There are many such semi-sovereign states around the world, where the goal is not complete independence, but a self-governance on important matters and a restoration of cultural and historic institutions.
The Hawaiian monarchy would be one such thing.

The American president would be head of state of the federal country, the monarch of Hawaii would be the representative of Hawaii in most appropriate affairs domestic and foreign.

Hawaii cannot be a monarchy while remaining a US state because the US constitution requires all states to have a republican form of government.

[AshYJ]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Hawaii cannot be a monarchy while remaining a US state because the US constitution requires all states to have a republican form of government.

So ravergirl is correct. Hawaii has to cede from U.S.A. but I'm sure U.s.a. will try to stop Hawaii from ceding.

[Mirabel]

I very much doubt Hawaii would ever want to be a monarchy again.

Let's face it, monarchies are archaic. A few countries cling to them because of tradition, but I don't see them coming back to any country that has been without for more than a decade.

[AshYJ]

Monarchy does not mean traditional. Republic is also traditional.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by AshYJ

Monarchy does not mean traditional. Republic is also traditional.

So the discussion might actually focus on the point of the thread, which is about nations that are closer to a monarchical restoration than others, and not which system is traditional or not.
Some naysayers enjoy using the word 'archaic' about the monarchy as an institution, and although that is fascinating in itself, all the while most, if not all, empirical evidence points to monarchies being more prosperous, democratic, educated, socially cohesive etc etc, it is also a sidetrack of this thread.

Whether or not country X could return to a previous form of government is not only an intellectual exercise. It's also a proven model of success and an avenue open to many countries globally who have found themselves losing important aspects of their respective societies by eliminating what they thought was a problem, the monarchy, when in fact, it could had been one of the keys holding the country together.
Countries like Nepal, Laos and Vietnam would to varying degrees find that restoring their monarchies would improve their political and social/societal progress.
Nations like Romania, Serbia, Italy, Albania, Montenegro and Greece would to varying degrees benefit from restoring the monarchy, both to offset corrupt and discredited movements overthrowing them in the first place, and improving political and territorial stability.

Seeing a country become a monarchy again is no more outlandish than seeing a republic rise from the ashes of a kingdom. Times change and systems will come and go, but as long as there are reasons for a restoration and people to carry the banner, there will always be chances to see monarchies return, even in days of 'archaic' conversations.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

I very much doubt Hawaii would ever want to be a monarchy again.

Let's face it, monarchies are archaic. A few countries cling to them because of tradition, but I don't see them coming back to any country that has been without for more than a decade.

There's that word again.

'A few countries cling to them because of tradition'. Yikes. It takes a special kind of arrogance to make that statement. Every 4th country in the world is a monarchy. 7 of 10 of the richest ones are monarchies. 8 of 10 of the most democratic ones. 8 of 10 of the most literate and educated ones are.
These countries, mine included, are not monarchies because of tradition, although that is always a factor (just like gun totin', land o' the free-celebratin' people in a certain republic across the waters hang on to their 'traditions', come hell or high water), but we are monarchies because it works.
There is no head of state with more amassed knowledge and experience than H.M Queen Elizabeth II.
I can't think of a single head of state that gives stronger, more moving and more inclusive speeches than H.M King Harald V of Norway.
There are few heads of state who safeguard the territorial integrity of their land more than H.M King Philippe of the Belgians.

Anyway. About Hawaii. I suppose you might not think the state will ever return to a monarchical state, and that may be true, but since the United States overthrew a monarchy that was popular to conquer and include the islands in their American union, the islands obviously could say 'aloha' and be as independent as they once was, if they so chose.
I don't think that's the solution they would choose if faced with the options, but instead they might opt for a 'monarchy within the union'-solution.

Article IV, section 4 of the U.S constitution doesn't necessarily ban a monarchical solution for a state. It guarantees their right to have one, but it does not require them to have one. Therefore, if they choose not to, it's quite arguable that this is a wish that could and should be granted.
If the U.S was faced with the option of accommodating Hawaii, or losing Hawaii from the union altogether, I'd bet good money on the former being preferred by all.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

I don't think that's the solution they would choose if faced with the options, but instead they might opt for a 'monarchy within the union'-solution.

Article IV, section 4 of the U.S constitution doesn't necessarily ban a monarchical solution for a state. It guarantees their right to have one, but it does not require them to have one.

You are wrong about Art IV.

It has been established, however, that congressional admission of a state to the union legally implies that the state's then-existing constitution satisfies the Guarantee Clause. Yet the clause does not freeze that state constitution into place, but allows states wide latitude to innovate, so long as they retain the three basic elements of the republican form.

[....] The second required element of republican government was that there be no monarch. The participants in the constitutional debates believed that monarchy, even constitutional monarchy, was inconsistent with republican government. In fact, when Alexander Hamilton proposed a President with lifetime tenure, the delegates so disagreed that they did not even take the time to respond

[....]
The primary purpose of the Guarantee Clause, however, was not protection against pure democracy but against monarchy. Based on precedents in ancient Greece, the drafters feared that kings in one or more states would attempt to expand their power in ways that would destabilize the entire federation. Having republican government in each state was deemed necessary to protect republican government throughout the United States.

For the full text, go to


Guide to the Constitution

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

You are wrong about Art IV.

The debate around article IV, section 4, took place 120 years before the United States overthrew the monarchy of a sovereign kingdom, and the islands were annexed into the U.S. I'm sure you would agree that this poses an interesting debate around an actual process of restoring a monarchy without seceding.
Obviously, if the issue arose, and that is the hypothetical raised to begin with, the United States would have to decide whether it was more important to deny another interpretation of article IV, section 4, or losing the islands completely.

I think, in order to stem any secessionist movement before it even took off, a little leeway granted would be good when it comes to a former nation which was quite content being on its own, under a popular Crown, and who might, just might, want a little justice done to their own heritage, as every nation tends to do at certain moments in time.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

.
About Hawaii. I suppose you might not think the state will ever return to a monarchical state, and that may be true, but since the United States overthrew a monarchy that was popular to conquer and include the islands in their American union, the islands obviously could say 'aloha' and be as independent as they once was, if they so chose.
I don't think that's the solution they would choose if faced with the options, but instead they might opt for a 'monarchy within the union'-solution.

The monarchy was popular at the time, but since then the population of Hawaii has changed, and become much more diverse. The Native Hawaiian population is now only about 6 %, very much a minority.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

The debate around article IV, section 4, took place 120 years before the United States overthrew the monarchy of a sovereign kingdom, and the islands were annexed into the U.S. I'm sure you would agree that this poses an interesting debate around an actual process of restoring a monarchy without seceding.
Obviously, if the issue arose, and that is the hypothetical raised to begin with, the United States would have to decide whether it was more important to deny another interpretation of article IV, section 4, or losing the islands completely.

I think, in order to stem any secessionist movement before it even took off, a little leeway granted would be good when it comes to a former nation which was quite content being on its own, under a popular Crown, and who might, just might, want a little justice done to their own heritage, as every nation tends to do at certain moments in time.

The US constitution is very antagonistic towards both monarchy and nobility, but that was to be expected given the circumstances of the time.

In any case, what most people forget is that at least part of the Americans who at the time preferred to live under the King's sovereignty, namely the so-called "Loyalists", left the United States and eventually established their own constitutional monarchy under the British crown north of the border. That country is now called Canada.

[Feologild]

I would like to see all European countries become Constitutional monarchies.

Of course that will never happen.

[AshYJ]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

So the discussion might actually focus on the point of the thread, which is about nations that are closer to a monarchical restoration than others, and not which system is traditional or not.
Some naysayers enjoy using the word 'archaic' about the monarchy as an institution, and although that is fascinating in itself, all the while most, if not all, empirical evidence points to monarchies being more prosperous, democratic, educated, socially cohesive etc etc, it is also a sidetrack of this thread.

Whether or not country X could return to a previous form of government is not only an intellectual exercise. It's also a proven model of success and an avenue open to many countries globally who have found themselves losing important aspects of their respective societies by eliminating what they thought was a problem, the monarchy, when in fact, it could had been one of the keys holding the country together.
Countries like Nepal, Laos and Vietnam would to varying degrees find that restoring their monarchies would improve their political and social/societal progress.
Nations like Romania, Serbia, Italy, Albania, Montenegro and Greece would to varying degrees benefit from restoring the monarchy, both to offset corrupt and discredited movements overthrowing them in the first place, and improving political and territorial stability.

Seeing a country become a monarchy again is no more outlandish than seeing a republic rise from the ashes of a kingdom. Times change and systems will come and go, but as long as there are reasons for a restoration and people to carry the banner, there will always be chances to see monarchies return, even in days of 'archaic' conversations.

i too support the change, but I am mostly monarachists in the countries. As for Taiwan, I support Republic of Zhonghua. And I support the need to have a republican British ex-colony. I also support the need for Juche to have a king, it has a king named Kim Jong-Un.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by AshYJ

But there is a monarchy in Cambodia that elects a monarch, And of course Hawaii has to cede. But what if it wants British royao family to rule it again?

Why the British Royal family? Hawaii was an independent country with it's own Royal Family and it is they who should rule over the country not the British.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Hawaii cannot be a monarchy while remaining a US state because the US constitution requires all states to have a republican form of government.

But it should be up to the Hawaiians and not an occupying force who stole their country and deposed their Queen.

[CSENYC]

Originally Posted by Iain

But it should be up to the Hawaiians and not an occupying force who stole their country and deposed their Queen.

The facts:

1. In the late 1800s, a coup overthrew the monarchy of Hawaii. The coup was led by native-born Hawaiians. (They were of US background, but they were native-born Hawaiians.)

2. The US intervened after the coup. The US has acknowledged that the annexation of Hawaii was unlawful.

3. In 1959, over 94% of Hawaiian voters voted for US statehood.

I'm not sure who would qualify today as an "occupying force who stole their country and deposed their Queen", since the Queen was deposed by a native-born Hawaiian-led coup first and then the US intervened. If you're saying that the US shouldn't have any say-so over Hawaii's government, then should the 94% of Hawaiian voters who voted for statehood in 1959 be ignored?