A functional American monarchy

I recently watched a video of AlternateHistoryHub, in which he explained how would be a United States of America with a King, and despite I agreed in certains aspects of the politics, I consider the YouTuber's POV kind of pessimistic. (Below I would leave the video link)

His view is that the mere concept of an American monarchy would be chaotic and the monarchy, should exactly replicate the system that the europeans held by the time; a hereditary "absolute" system. Despite I agree that it would be hypocritical that the americans who waged years of war for "liberty" against the English, must now serve a new king, that came literally from a completely smallfolk' military american family. I would also add that by the time, as Cody said, having a monarch that came from literally nowhere would tarnish the reputation of the contemporary monarchies of the time, which were considered of heavenly rule, an authority which could be only granted by the church and God itself. Also the fact that the congress should grant Washington the title of king, is also hypocritical in certain aspects, taking in consideration that Washington was also a very humble man.

But now I'm going with my point of view; which could obviously change depending of the facts which I consider correct or not.

First, the mere concept of an American monarchy, is a revolution itself. I don't consider that an American monarchy would be one of authoritarian rule, as depicted in the video. Washington, would never adopt a stance of absolutism and authoritarianism, and he wouldn't recreate the same system that Europe had by the time.

In my opinion, to avoid this same system that in fact, caused the American revolution, he would reinvent the concept of monarchy in America. The title of king would be instead, the same than a president, but for life. Hereditary monarchy would be likely banned, with something similar to a national election for King being held in the United "Kingdom" in order to maintain a certain level of democracy in the country; so a possible elective monarchy system would be held, with members of House of Washington, or any other regional houses with promising and actually competent candidates, being able of participate in this election. The position of Prime Minister would be likely created, in order to reduce the power of the monarch in certain political aspects, but the King would likely have the same powers that OTL POTUS holds.

After George's death, I doubt that a random would be elected as King; instead it could be any of the OTL successors of Washington, since they would likely become barons and counts of their own lands (in a ceremonial level, more than administrative, of course) and would consequently win the Royal Elections.

Europe would initially have a bittersweet relation with America, for the same fact that their monarchies are "legitimate" and American isn't. That would obviously change with the course of the years, with America economically prospering as they did IOTL while sharing their constitutional and democratic thoughts to the rest of America and the world.

I lack of a concise opinion about the people's reaction if a monarchy is established, but as it happened during the AR, it would be very mixed.

This is only a brief review of the video, and my view of how would this monarchy be using my own logic and common sense.
 
His view is that the mere concept of an American monarchy would be chaotic and the monarchy, should exactly replicate the system that the europeans held by the time; a hereditary "absolute" system.
That argument seems to rest on American propaganda, and, dare I say it, ignorance. Most historical European monarchies weren't absolutist, and in particular the British monarchy as of 1776 wasn't absolutist. George Washington had more power as President than George III ever did as King.
 
So...an elective American monarchy? As in a "president" but with the royal title?
There were examples of elective monarchies in Europe -- Poland-Lithuania, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Republic of Venice, all spring to mind.

It wouldn't even need a big change to the US Constitution -- the US President's powers are comparable to those of a post-Glorious Revolution British monarch as it is. All you need to do is make the Presidency tenable for life rather than for a term of four years, and you've basically turned the US into a de facto elective monarchy.
 
Maybe an English Civil war that produces a linger lived, more oppressive commonwealth sees minor aristocracy and a few less minor take up residence in the colonies? The Exiled Charles II is unable to remain in Europe as they normalize relations with the Cromwell dynasty, and goes to the colonies, establishing a monarchy in exile; the commonwealth tries to suppress them but cannot lasting project power far enough for long enough. Emigration to the Kingdom of America continues from Europe, and by the present day, OTL north eastern America and south Eastern Canada are a constitutional monarchy; the nobility forming an upper house, representatives from the Counties forming the lower house.
 
There were examples of elective monarchies in Europe -- Poland-Lithuania, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Republic of Venice, all spring to mind.

It wouldn't even need a big change to the US Constitution -- the US President's powers are comparable to those of a post-Glorious Revolution British monarch as it is. All you need to do is make the Presidency tenable for life rather than for a term of four years, and you've basically turned the US into a de facto elective monarchy.
This could definitley work, you just need a regularly elected 'prime minister' equivalent so perhaps they go the roman route with elected consuls ever 4 years?
 
@Fabius Maximus You should do a thread on what a US constitution would look like with a life presidency; who is eligible, how are they voted for, how often do they have 'consul's, what are their powers etc, and how this affects development of the US and its international relations. I imagine there's a 'no direct relations in succession' rule, for a start.
 
The major issue with an hereditary monarchy is actually ensuring that the dynasty would continue - I could see a Roman-style system of adoption.

It would be eighteenth-century constitutional monarchy, not absolutist.
 
Elected-for-life presidents easily become hereditary because the president can raise and train their chosen successor better than someone outside the center of power, justifying hereditary rule in exactly the same way that pro-monarchy Enlightenment thinkers did. So there would need to be an explicit Constitutional provision disqualifying someone whose parent (or grandparent) was President-King from the Presidency.

A Prime Minister position already sort of existed in early American democracy OTL- the independently elected Vice President, who is explicitly the "President of the Senate." I can see this position remaining independent of the Presidency in your hypothetical. Perhaps a short-term (4 years) position as head of Congress, nominated by the State-appointed Senators with approval from the popularly-elected House.

I also don't like the idea of lesser noble titles below the elected monarch. While a king over the States is possible (OTL some asked Washington to do just that) there's a very strong cultural objection to inherited nobility on the ground in the early states. The British colonies were populated by second sons of impoverished nobles looking for prestige and wealth, merchants looking to make bank, and lower-middle-class commoners trying to make something they couldn't in Europe; Americans liked their oligarchs to be monied capitalists, not blue-blooded royals. So no "barons" or "dukes" here.

Otherwise ... this seems plausible. Fabius is absolutely correct:
There were examples of elective monarchies in Europe -- Poland-Lithuania, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Republic of Venice, all spring to mind.

It wouldn't even need a big change to the US Constitution -- the US President's powers are comparable to those of a post-Glorious Revolution British monarch as it is. All you need to do is make the Presidency tenable for life rather than for a term of four years, and you've basically turned the US into a de facto elective monarchy.
 
Elected-for-life presidents easily become hereditary because the president can raise and train their chosen successor better than someone outside the center of power, justifying hereditary rule in exactly the same way that pro-monarchy Enlightenment thinkers did. So there would need to be an explicit Constitutional provision disqualifying someone whose parent (or grandparent) was President-King from the Presidency.
I believe Venice, and probably the other Italian republics too, had provisions against first-degree relatives holding the Dogeship (or local equivalent) in succession, so something like this would be plausible for the US.

I also don't like the idea of lesser noble titles below the elected monarch. While a king over the States is possible (OTL some asked Washington to do just that) there's a very strong cultural objection to inherited nobility on the ground in the early states. The British colonies were populated by second sons of impoverished nobles looking for prestige and wealth, merchants looking to make bank, and lower-middle-class commoners trying to make something they couldn't in Europe; Americans liked their oligarchs to be monied capitalists, not blue-blooded royals. So no "barons" or "dukes" here.
I don't know, Napoleon handed out titles to his subordinates, and whilst France had a tradition of titled aristocrats, it had also gone through a much more radical and pro-egalitarian revolution just a few years previously. If he could create princes, dukes, counts, and so forth, I suspect George Washington can as well.

Or if having a proper aristocracy would be too much, perhaps the titles could be made non-hereditary, a bit like modern British life peerages. Essentially then noble titles would function like the Presidential Medal of Freedom or Congressional Gold Medal, i.e., honorific rewards for good service.
 

Alcsentre Calanice

Gone Fishin'
Did any of the Founding Fathers discuss what an American monarchy could look like? I mean, they discussed getting a king from Europe, so they probably also had ideas how to integrate him into the American polity.
 
Did any of the Founding Fathers discuss what an American monarchy could look like? I mean, they discussed getting a king from Europe, so they probably also had ideas how to integrate him into the American polity.
From what I understand, the powers given to the US President in the constitution were what the Americans considered to be typical powers of a monarch - it's just that the position ended up being elected for a limited term.

I suspect it would be like How The King Aught To Be, Rather Than Tyrant George (or some such).
 
I believe Venice, and probably the other Italian republics too, had provisions against first-degree relatives holding the Dogeship (or local equivalent) in succession, so something like this would be plausible for the US.


I don't know, Napoleon handed out titles to his subordinates, and whilst France had a tradition of titled aristocrats, it had also gone through a much more radical and pro-egalitarian revolution just a few years previously. If he could create princes, dukes, counts, and so forth, I suspect George Washington can as well.

Or if having a proper aristocracy would be too much, perhaps the titles could be made non-hereditary, a bit like modern British life peerages. Essentially then noble titles would function like the Presidential Medal of Freedom or Congressional Gold Medal, i.e., honorific rewards for good service.
Napoleon handed our titles and fancy hats to his Marshals and supporters, and made other countries pay so that they could have lavish lifestyles befitting counts and dukes. Only one of Napoleon’s brothers was not made a king, and that was because Lucien was a supporter of a republic, was against Napoleon making himself Emperor, and fled France, later being kept locked into his property (after Napoleon conquered Italy) for refusing to divorce his wife so he could be married off to a queen. Republics of all sorts were swallowed up by France or had Napoleon force himself on them, like when he kept getting the choices for President of the Cisalpine (or Italian) Republic. With the exception of maybe Nassau (and later Denmark), every single country bordering France had either a Bonaparte as the monarch or had one (or one of Napoy’s adopted kids) as their spouse. Napoleon was looking out for Napoleon. Though in retrospect, I misread the intent of your post a bit, so most of my stuff doesn’t really matter.

Anyways, I don’t see Washington needing to take those sort of steps to get support or consolidate power. Not like he will have the riches of conquered countries at hand to pay for everything. Actually, I wonder how western territories would be dealt with in a Royal America, and how much influence the King would have in giving land grants to favored people.
 

Alcsentre Calanice

Gone Fishin'
From what I understand, the powers given to the US President in the constitution were what the Americans considered to be typical powers of a monarch - it's just that the position ended up being elected for a limited term.

I suspect it would be like How The King Aught To Be, Rather Than Tyrant George (or some such).
So you would just replace the dispositions for the Electoral College by an order of succession and call it a realistic outcome of a monarchist Constitutional Convention?
 
So you would just replace the dispositions for the Electoral College by an order of succession and call it a realistic outcome of a monarchist Constitutional Convention?
I am not qualified to answer that question, unfortunately. My gut feeling is probably a bit more than that, but close enough.

However, the Electoral College would work perfectly well in the event of an elective monarchy.
 

Alcsentre Calanice

Gone Fishin'
I am not qualified to answer that question, unfortunately. My gut feeling is probably a bit more than that, but close enough.

However, the Electoral College would work perfectly well in the event of an elective monarchy.
Alexander Hamilton argued in a long speech before the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that the President of the United States should be an elective monarch, ruling for "good behavior" (i.e., for life, unless impeached) and with extensive powers. Hamilton believed that elective monarchs had sufficient power domestically to resist foreign corruption, yet there was enough domestic control over their behavior to prevent tyranny at home. Hamilton argued, "And let me observe that an executive is less dangerous to the liberties of the people when in office during life than for seven years. It may be said this constitutes as an elective monarchy... But by making the executive subject to impeachment, the term 'monarchy' cannot apply..." His proposal was resoundingly voted down in favor of a four-year term with the possibility of reelection.

In his later defense of the Constitution in The Federalist Papers, he often hints that a lifetime executive might be better, even as he praises the system with the four-year term. Political scientist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote that Hamilton "regretted that the United States could not become a monarchy."
The English Wikipedia seems to confirm your instinct.

Given how hard it is to impeach a US President, I imagine only few American kings/emperors would actually be impeached.
 
Top