American Monarchy?

Ok I know this is something that has been done before. But I want a double check of an idea before I write up an outline for it to see if this would fit Before 1900 or if it should go into ASB.

At the Constitutional Convention instead of a pure republic they elect for a hybrid republic/monarchy system. They still branch the government into three branches in a systems of checks and balances to make sure one branch doesn't become to powerful.

Executive/Monarch Branch
-Elected by a pure majority of the populate vote. Election is for life time. However on death or abdication (Which ever is first) the position of Monarch of the Kingdom of the United States does not pass to their first living child. The Prime Minister becoming the acting monarch till an election can be held for the next monarch of the Kingdom of the United States. On election of the new monarch the acting monarch will return to the House of Representatives.
-The first living child of a former monarch who has not been disgraced shall become a duke and a non-voting peer.
-Elections for the Monarch will last no more than six months.
-The sitting monarch of the Kingdom of the United States can be removed from power by vote of the citizens of the Kingdom. For this to happen a threshold of 50% much be reached for this to happen.
-The sitting monarch can also be removed from power by impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the House of Lords. This is for High crimes and misdemeanours.
-The monarch is the commander and chief of the armed forces of the kingdom.
-The monarch may go before the legislature branch for a Declaration of War.
-The monarch makes appointment to the courts and foreign offices overseas.
-The monarch is incharge of setting foreign policy. The sitting monarch may appoint members of the kingdom to advise him on foreign policy as they see fit.
-The monarch has to sign all acts for them to become law. This can be overwritten by a 2/3 vote in both the House of Representatives and House of Lords. The monarch may also reject parts of the bill and sign the rest into law. Again this can be changed by a 2/3 vote by both houses.
-The Monarch can only Dissolved the current government when if fails in its stated duties or when an election is to be held.
-Monarchs much resign any party membership before being taking the oath of office as the monarch of the Kingdom of the United States.

Legislature Branch
-The Legislature Branch is made up of two houses, Representatives and Lords.
-The House of Representatives stands for elections every four years. The party with the majority forms the ruling government. If no majority is reach a coalition government can be formed. If a coalition government is unable to be reached a minority government may be formed.
-The Prime Minister can Dissolved the government and call a snap election as they see fit.
-Elections will only last 8 weeks for the house of representatives from the date of the dissolved of the last government.
-They have all the powers stated in Article One Section Eight of OTL, plus they are tasked with running a national bank and giving a yearly budget.
-The House of the Lords can be either elected or can be appointment for great services to the Kingdom.
-Elected members of the House of Lords serve for eight years. There are one for every state in the elected members.
-The appointed members of the House of Lords are known as voting peer. On the death of the rank of nobility passes to the first born child of the voting peer. However the child is a non-voting peer and doesn't have a vote in the House of Lords unless elected on their own.
-Basically they till with internal issues where the monarch deals with foreign but there is enough checks and balances to make sure one doesn't screw the other.

Judiciary
Largely the same as OTL.

Noble Rank
-Nobility is divided into two groups. Voting and Non-Voting Peers.
-Inherited peers will always being non-voting peers. However if they perform service to the kingdom that is warranted they can be made a voting peer.
-Anyone can be made a member of the nobility of the Kingdom of the United States for great service to the Kingdom. They can either be made a voting or non-voting peer depending on the service they had performed.
-Noble Rank may be stripped away in impeachment for High crimes and misdemeanours against the Kingdom.
-Both the monarch and sitting prime minister can named people to nobility. However they have to go through the House of Lords to be confirmed. A simple majority is needed for this. The House of Lords just votes on if this person is worth the title they had been put up. They are unable to change title or voting or non-voting peer part.

Thoughts?
 
It looks quite interesting, TBH. :eek:

I believe, with a few changes in terms of personality and circumstances, like the terms America and the UK split, that this system is plausible, and can be created in a framework similar to its former mother country and OTL America.

One thing that could have caused it: make some of the Founding Fathers a bit more accepting of the idea of a monarch, but still keep some of the democratic, Enlightenment ideas that Paine strove for.
 
Considering that the OTL Constitution was almost defeated in several state ratifying conventions because its indirectly elected President was considered too "monarchical" its indirectly elected Senate was considered too "aristocratic" and its new federal government was considered much too powerful, I believe that a straight up elected monarchy with a hereditary nobility has no chance of being adopted by the states in the period following a successful revolution unless the POD is so far in the past that the radical republican beliefs of many of the Founders such as Jefferson, Madison, Henry, S. Adams etc. are butterflied away.
Seriously, the OTL Constitution was as centralizing as was politically possible at the time and it took every bit of Washington's prestige and the political skills of Hamilton, Madison, Jay, R. Morris and others to drag it across the finish line in 11 states. North Carolina and Rhode Island even refused to ratify until the new government was actually up and running.
Timelines of a U.S. monarchy are interesting thought experiments but I believe that they can not be supported by the facts on the ground.

Your humble servant,
AH
 
Timelines of a U.S. monarchy are interesting thought experiments but I believe that they can not be supported by the facts on the ground.
AH

Couldn't the Philadelphia Convention simply fail and the Articles of Confederation continue to be valid? With this incapable government, general discontent is likely to emerge and an ambitious general (e. g. Washington himself) takes power to "reform" the government. Finally, he declares himself monarch (king or even emperor).
 
Considering that the OTL Constitution was almost defeated in several state ratifying conventions because its indirectly elected President was considered too "monarchical" its indirectly elected Senate was considered too "aristocratic" and its new federal government was considered much too powerful, I believe that a straight up elected monarchy with a hereditary nobility has no chance of being adopted by the states in the period following a successful revolution unless the POD is so far in the past that the radical republican beliefs of many of the Founders such as Jefferson, Madison, Henry, S. Adams etc. are butterflied away.
Seriously, the OTL Constitution was as centralizing as was politically possible at the time and it took every bit of Washington's prestige and the political skills of Hamilton, Madison, Jay, R. Morris and others to drag it across the finish line in 11 states. North Carolina and Rhode Island even refused to ratify until the new government was actually up and running.
Timelines of a U.S. monarchy are interesting thought experiments but I believe that they can not be supported by the facts on the ground.

Your humble servant,
AH
That's the thing, the way I set up the monarch is not hereditary. The nobility is but they have no voice in the government unless they are elected to it or perform great service to the kingdom. I though that might be enough to get it by.
 
Well, GW had turned down the opportunity to do just this when the Continental Congress was in shambles he quashed the Newburgh Conspiracy so I don't think he would be the "ambitious general".
It took a lot of pushing and prodding from his friends to convince him to be an elected and limited chief magistrate and he got out as soon as he could.
I don't think any other general, Knox, Greene, Wayne ??? would have the national reputation or the ability to be any more than a local leader/autocrat/dictator if things fell apart at the Confederation level.
I think that the most likely result of a failure of the Constitution to be ratified is a withering away of the Confederation government and the rise of regional governments such as the Republic of New England, the greater Commonwealth of Virginia (VA, KY and whatever part of the Old Northwest they can grab from Pennsylvania and/or NY) and a Southern Confederation.
This does not rule out a President for Life Andrew Jackson of the Southern Confederation but it is hard for me to see hereditary monarchy arising from even this situation.
Well, that is at least my opinion (for whatever it is worth).

Your humble servant,
AH
 
No way Washington would "reform" or take power for himself in anyway. When he found out what the motives of the Cincinnatus group were really about making him a monarch he was aghast and distanced himself. I think the real people you would have to be worried about going for monarchy would be Hamilton (OTL all for it) and Burr (OTL tried to overthrow the government and conquer Mexico); two people who hated each other, add in inept general Wilkenson and a few others and sure you could have some sort of coup or mass of soldiers wanting a strong executive, especially one that promised to get veterans their promised full pay for life.

Washington being sterile, and Hamilton with his belief that he was truly the next deserving one in line, and given Washington's upstanding morale belief in truly republicanism, one can see Washington stepping down (after 8 years? 10? As short as 6?) in order to possibly affect the election of a predecessor; as a recent Pope in OTL has done. Perhaps this may even cause a Civil War with Jeffersonian Republican-Democrats fleeing to the southwest and setting up a new gov't, a la what happens in the novel For Want of a Nail.
 

Cryostorm

Monthly Donor
It pretty much comes down to how the US gets its independence, if it is otl then this is very hard to do since the US by the time of the Constitutional Convention is solidly republican in nature.

On the other hand if, liked said above, the split is earlier and/or more amicable, without a decade long war, then this is very plausible.

Another thing you might try is that in this atl US get the Founders and revolutionary leaders to acknowledge that it was more Parliament and not the king that was causing the problems that led to war, which in turn would lead to a consensus that you needed a stronger executive, which includes a longer term maybe even life, to defend against the tyranny of the legislature:p. When you think about it it is kind of funny that the US nominally rebelled against the tyranny of the king when all of their grievances originated from Parliament while the king could do little, or at least had no interest, to work against it. Then the Founders went on to create a government with an even weaker executive:eek: and stronger legislature:mad: than the one they left.
 
Well, GW had turned down the opportunity to do just this when the Continental Congress was in shambles he quashed the Newburgh Conspiracy so I don't think he would be the "ambitious general".


A point on the "Newburgh Conspiracy".

It was the most ridiculous and overrated event in American history. Basically a few disgruntled army officers wanting pensions planned an "event" that people interpreted as a coup d'etat.

Problem?

THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN ARMY!

OF ANY KIND!

The US army had been dismantled.

What were a couple dozen army officers going to do when they wandered into New York or Philadelphia (I can't remember which)?

Who would even notice them?

Common soldiers, the few hundred that still existed, are not exactly likely to assist in a revolt over their former officers demanding pensions.

The city watch would have arrested them in hours.

Besides, even if they took over Phil/NY, the states still controlled the finances under the Articles of Confederation.

Why would South Carolina or Massachusetts agree to anything, much less handing over money?
 
I don't see any real opportunity for an American monarch after an 8 year war against the King.

The more likely scenario is the Revolution is prevented and over the following decades, the local american colonies (perhaps in some form of union) demand more and more power until Britain realizes they aren't colonies anymore.

Unlike Canada, New Zealand, Australia and other other commonwealths of the 19th century, American would have eclipsed Britain in population relatively quickly. They certainly would be incapable of forcing their will on the Americans.

Even a Commonwealth might not last for long, as it has in OTL. The two nation's respective aspirations would eventually become incompatible by the 1850's and Queen Victoria might simply have to chose to relinquish one of them to one of her younger children.
 
I agree that in retrospect the Newburgh Conspiracy was a shambolic non event. However, it gave GW the opportunity to evidence in a very public way his feelings toward any sort of military uprising or defiance of the "legitimate" government. It had a very great effect on the men who were there and others when GW's statements became public.
GW reemphasized his view of the supremacy of the civil over the military when he took part in the very public and very organized return of his commission to the Continental Congress as soon as the British evacuated New York.
Let me also put in a good word for my namesake, AH. The real Alexander Hamilton believed in a strong central government in which the avarice of the propertied class was tied to the success of the general welfare by means of a sound financial structure. He also believed in a strong Presidency and would, (at least at one point in time at the Philadelphia Convention) have liked to see the President elected for life.
He worked hard to ratify a Constitution which did not provide for a President for life and to make the elected Presidency for limited terms a success and was never, never a believer in a monarch for the United states.
Not for GW, not for himself, not for anyone he could think of.
Thomas Jefferson and his supporters had a nasty habit of calling anyone who believed in a stronger Federal government or a stronger Presidency "monarchists". It was the worst political insult they could think of (like calling someone today a fascist or a communist) and they used it against AH and John Adams and even against GW. It was not true then and it is not true today.
Rant over, let the festivities continue.

Your humble servant,
AH
 
Kings of America
1789- February 11, 1799: George I (House of Washington)
Feb 11, 1799-May 11, 1799: John I (House of Adams)
May 11, 1799-July 4, 1826: Thomas I (House of Jefferson)
July 4, 1826-Feb 23, 1848: John II (House of Adams)
Feb 23, 1848-Aug 9, 1848: James I (House of Polk)
Aug 9, 1848-July 9, 1850: Zachary I (House ofTaylor)
July 9, 1850- Jan 4, 1851: Millard I (House of Fillmore)
Jan 4, 1851-Oct 8, 1869: Franklin I (House of Pierce)
Oct 8, 1869- July 23, 1885: Hiram I "Ulysses" (House of Grant)
Jul 23, 1885-Jun 24, 1908: Grover I (House of Cleveland)
Jun 24, 1908-Jan 6, 1919: Theodore I (House of Roosevelt)
Jan 6, 1919-Feb 3, 1924: Thomas II "Woodrow" (House of Wilson)
Feb 3, 1924-Jan 5, 1933: John III "Calvin" (House of Coolidge)
Jan 5, 1933-April 12,1945: Franklin I (House of Roosevelt)
April 12,1945-Dec 26, 1972: Harry I (House of Truman)
Dec 26, 1972-Aug 9, 1974: Richard I (House of Nixon)
Aug 9, 1974-Dec 26, 1974: Leslie (House of King)
Dec 26, 1974-Feb 19, 1986: James II (House of Eastland)
Feb 19, 1986-Jun 27, 1986: Ronald I (House of Reagan)
Jun 27, 1986-Jan 4, 2001: George II (House of Bush)
Jan 4, 2001-March 4, 2001: Harold I (House of Stassen)
March 4, 2001-Present: George III (House of Bush)
 
Top