American Kings other than Washington

TFSmith121

Banned
You're suggesting a monarchy in Anglophone North America after the Revolution?

Hello, as it says in the title, the question today is other than the childless, cliche George Washington, who would have been a good candidate to head an American monarchy? Maybe someone from a prominent family with some war recognition like the Lee family? Or could another successful general potential steal the fame from Washington and accept monarchism in America?

You're suggesting a monarchy in Anglophone North America after the Revolution?

You do recognize the problem with this, correct?

Best,
 
You're suggesting a monarchy in Anglophone North America after the Revolution?

You do recognize the problem with this, correct?

Best,

If we're discussing the OTL Revolution which it seems you are suggesting, yes, there are certainly some problems.

But the point of the topic is to discuss monarchies in an independent America other than the George Washington cliché. It's not limited to OTL Revolution, as there would certainly be a PoD or two needed to form a potential non-Washington monarchy, which is the simple goal here.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Monarchies arise when or if there's someone with the military and/or

If we're discussing the OTL Revolution which it seems you are suggesting, yes, there are certainly some problems. But the point of the topic is to discuss monarchies in an independent America other than the George Washington cliché. It's not limited to OTL Revolution, as there would certainly be a PoD or two needed to form a potential non-Washington monarchy, which is the simple goal here.

Monarchies arise when or if there's someone with the military and/or political force to seize or be offered a crown. Without any sort of detail, if you leave it that open-ended, then the answer literally could be anyone...

Best,
 
Monarchies arise when or if there's someone with the military and/or political force to seize or be offered a crown. Without any sort of detail, if you leave it that open-ended, then the answer literally could be anyone...

Best,

But we're looking at the most plausible candidates who could take on that role.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Sure, but you need some background to get to plausibility, even

But we're looking at the most plausible candidates who could take on that role.

Sure, but you need some background to get to any even semi-informed plausibility, even...

Basics like is this putative kingdom centered on Boston, New York, Philadelphia, or Richmond? Or Quebec City?

Best,
 
Sure, but you need some background to get to any even semi-informed plausibility, even...

Basics like is this putative kingdom centered on Boston, New York, Philadelphia, or Richmond? Or Quebec City?

Best,

Tbh I'd like to here what others have in mind for such an scenario. To dictate standards would take part of the creativity out of it for people.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
That was later, and it was more filibuster

Wasn't Aaron Burr trying to do something along these lines?

That was later, and it was more filibuster a separate new nation in the Old Southwest and/or Spanish/Mexican territory, with Wilkinson.

Best,
 
Honestly, I'm not sure Burr was exactly clear on what he had planned. I think his general outline went...

1. Filibuster
2. ???
3. Profit!
 

frlmerrin

Banned
If we are going to corrupt the American republic with democracy then we should reall go for it. I give you ...

...His supreme highness Thomas Paine Sublime Porte of the United Principalities of America.
 
Given the suspicion of potential foreign intervention and intrigue as evidenced by the Title of Nobility Clause in the Constitution, it is unlikely that the Americans would accept anyone to take the throne who was not solely and originally an American citizen. Even the Federalists who were more favourable to strong executive power were suspicious of foreigners.

Thus Lafayette isn't really a candidate, much as that's a dissapointment. Adams, in one of his rare episodes of broad popularity, might achieve the throne if the time aligns and this might give a reasonable dynasty with John Quincy and Charles Francis. But I suspect as has been said above that an elective monarchy is more likely.

The other issue is the state governments, they would likely remain republican to avoid semblance of feudalism and this would undermine a hereditary federal monarchy.
 
Andrew Jackson kills half of his opposition in congress in drunken duels and uses his popularity with the people and his command of the forces after he is elected and throws a coup to crown himself.

Why, it sounds like something Andrew Jackson would do.
 
Hello, as it says in the title, the question today is other than the childless, cliche George Washington, who would have been a good candidate to head an American monarchy? Maybe someone from a prominent family with some war recognition like the Lee family? Or could another successful general potential steal the fame from Washington and accept monarchism in America?

George III
#Loyalist
#Missmeyet?
 
A basic list of Elected Kings based on OTL lifetimes and who was the POTUS at the time in OTL. Not rigorous by any means, and there are some interesting results...

List of Kings of the United States of America
1. George I Washington April 30, 1789 - December 14, 1799

2. John I Adams April 30, 1800 - July 4, 1826

3. John II Quincy Adams November 30, 1826 - February 23, 1848

4. James I Polk July 30, 1848 - June 15, 1849

5. Zachary Taylor October 30, 1849 - July 9, 1850

6. Millard I Fillmore November 30, 1850 - March 8, 1874

7. Ulysses I Grant July 30, 1874 - July 23, 1885

8. Grover I Cleveland November 30, 1885 - June 24, 1908

7. Theodore I Roosevelt October 30, 1908 - January 6, 1919

8. Woodrow I Wilson May 30, 1919 - February 3, 1924

9. Calvin I Coolidge June 30, 1924 - January 5, 1933

10. Franklin I Roosevelt May 30, 1933 - April 12, 1945

11. Harry I Truman August 30, 1945 - December 26, 1972

12. Richard I Nixon April 30, 1973 - April 22, 1994

13. William I Clinton August 30, 1994 - Present
 
I HATE that idea! Way to European. What's the point in even having a revolution if you're just going to hand the reigns of power back to an inbred elite? (Give it a few generations and such a system will produce family trees that make the Hapsburgs and Rothschilds look simple) I perfer the idea of titles of nobility going to elected officials (Lord Senator, Lord Representive etc) and being non-herditary, and the King being elected from amoung them. In America anyone can grow up to be King.

You do realize that the early US wasn't all that democratic right? The electoral college, the way senators were elected, the fact that the supreme court, the Presidency, Congress and the Governors had no term limits in no way screamed democracy, more of a large ruling class. OTL The founding fathers basically thought ordinary citizens were to stupid to make major decisions by themselves and this would be reflected if they created a monarchy instead. So for the time being, no in America not everyone could grow up to be King.

I think a limit to the founding fathers and their descendants, at least initially, it quite realistic. Some kind of amendment would no doubt change this law later on, but not until most of the founders are dead and there's a very popular candidate who's not a founder descendant. Perhaps Congress could nominate a few candidates and the country votes on the next monarch? Or Congress elects the monarch and the country has to confirm him/(eventually) her?

Sure, but you need some background to get to any even semi-informed plausibility, even...

Basics like is this putative kingdom centered on Boston, New York, Philadelphia, or Richmond? Or Quebec City?

Best,

Chances are we'd still see a planned capital at Washington D.C., perhaps under a different name or a slightly different location, but the reasoning for the general location and need for a more central capital would still be there.
 
Top