His Majesty, King Washington

DaHound22

Banned
So im sure all the Americans on here like myself have heard the story of how early Americans wanted to crown George Washington as our first king. Being the man of honor that he was, he declined, and instead later became the first president, in a new system of governance. So, what if ol' Georgey said yes? How would the USA look as a monarchy? How would Washington rule? Who would succeed him? And would this government amd this new nation survive to the modern day? Let me know what you think!
 
Elective Monarchy with the King serving much as a President would, except with a much reduced Executive power that is probably shared with his Prime Minister.
 
So im sure all the Americans on here like myself have heard the story of how early Americans wanted to crown George Washington as our first king. Being the man of honor that he was, he declined, and instead later became the first president, in a new system of governance. So, what if ol' Georgey said yes? How would the USA look as a monarchy? How would Washington rule? Who would succeed him? And would this government amd this new nation survive to the modern day? Let me know what you think!
the king would serve the same place as president, but be hereditary, the rest of the government is the same with old king being unable to make laws, only suggest laws like otl presidents.
 

DaHound22

Banned
I certainly see Washington kingship being restricted, however, i dont see everything remaining the same. For one, i think party lines wouldve been drawn much earlier, between Monarchists, led by Washington and Hamilton, and Republicans, led by Jefferson and Adams. Secondly, i think the executive would have more power than in OTL, even if not much more, like say for example direct command over the military or greater ability to issue exective orders. Kind of like a magna carta king. Lastly, i think Washington would have gotten more of what he wanted done than OTL, which causes the countries foundations to alter in shape.
 
One of the numerous problems is that GW didn't have any kids.

A lifetime ceremonial presidency? Yeah, that's possible. I could be CALLED a monarchy. But it wouldn't be.
 
One of the numerous problems is that GW didn't have any kids.

For this discussion, let us say that that either a family member no matter how distant a relation or an appointed successor; i.e. Hamilton was selected; would it not be possible that the Monarchy could be done away by a Constitutional Amendment?
 
They had the existing example of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which had a non-hereditary elective monarchy. Some scholars have described the state as a Republic.

Also, having a republic with an elected head of state who was called something other than a King but who was in office for life was feasible. And remember that "elected" was never going to be by direct popular vote. There were republics in existence in the eighteenth century, just the top guy was not exactly chosen by popular election. The American ally during the war of independence, the United Provinces (the Netherlands) was a republic where the top job for some reason was always filled by the House of Orange. It was Napoleon who first turned it into a kingdom.

One problem was that Washington really didn't want the job for life, and had to be talked into going for a second term. The second was that Poland was already advanced in the process of being swallowed up, and the framers of the Constitution saw it as an example to avoid. For example, the "natural born" requirement to become President was pretty obviously put in there because of the record in Poland of foreign princes being able to bribe enough of the electors to get themselves elected King.

The framers of the Constitution didn't envisage the presidency becoming as powerful as it did. If the President , or elected King, was elected for life, presidential elections would have become really, really interesting.
 
Top