Slide towards Monarchy

So, I have a rather simple question.

Could a Republic in the late 18th or early 19th centuries, such as the United States become a 'Presidential Dictatorship', with said President eventually proclaiming themselves 'President For Life' and then passing on the Presidency to their eldest son when they die?

They might even name their son Vice President or something to strengthen their legitimacy. Now, after a long enough period, do you think it is possible for this Hereditary Presidency to acknowledge itself as a full blown Monarchy and restyle it's image appropriately (either as King or Emperor depending on it's size and power)?

I'm talking well into the 20th century here if need be. In any case, this could even be in conjunction with democratic reforms ironically enough. The last in a long line of hereditary President-For-Lifes decides to restore democracy, but instead transforms his title into a ceremonial Constitutional Monarchy. This allows him to remain in power in some capacity while the people finally get their elected official. Think of it like Spain, almost.

Would either of those scenarios work over a long period of time? Presuming this causes quite a few butterflies in the world in general.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
This wouldn't happen. The United States is, if anything, consistently anti-monarchy. Presidents often bent over backwards not to appear like royalty, because such a comparison would always be negative. If you mean for a U.S. President to pull a Napoleon, that could work somehow, but certainly not by appropriating the stylings of a king. Not even the Roman Empire had their rulers be designated clearly by heredity and called kings, and that was after centuries.
 
This wouldn't happen. The United States is, if anything, consistently anti-monarchy. Presidents often bent over backwards not to appear like royalty, because such a comparison would always be negative. If you mean for a U.S. President to pull a Napoleon, that could work somehow, but certainly not by appropriating the stylings of a king. Not even the Roman Empire had their rulers be designated clearly by heredity and called kings, and that was after centuries.

Mind you, all I'm looking for is a gradual shift. What people view as unacceptable in 1783 is not the same as what people would view as acceptable in 1883 after a century of hereditary dictatorship. Also, if 'Emperor' or whatever works better, sure. Also, eventually Roman Emperors did start going by Greek titles that meant 'King', although we today generally style them as 'Emperor'.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Mind you, all I'm looking for is a gradual shift. What people view as unacceptable in 1783 is not the same as what people would view as acceptable in 1883 after a century of hereditary dictatorship.

But that has almost never happened before in history. Emperors that come out of republics never take on the direct title of "king" or clearly lay out a dynastic succession. Napoleon was always just the Emperor of France, and not the King of it. Roman Emperors were never kings, even if they came as close as possible. The same is true from Latin America to the Middle East in modern times.
 
But that has almost never happened before in history. Emperors that come out of republics never take on the direct title of "king" or clearly lay out a dynastic succession. Napoleon was always just the Emperor of France, and not the King of it. Roman Emperors were never kings, even if they came as close as possible. The same is true from Latin America to the Middle East in modern times.

Added a bit of elaboration in my previous post. Basically, if declaring himself "Emperor" or whatever would be more acceptable (for reasons I don't really understand...) then that is fine. Although, Napoleon clearly DID intend for his son to succeed him. That is laying out a succession.
 
I find it hilarious as an outside observer when someone says the US is anti-monarchy. Outside of actual dictatorships or wobbly democracies you don't see a lot of dynastic politics - except in the US. Kennedy's passing along Senate seats like a fiefdom; the Bushes with each generation broadening the political holdings; New York, the Cuomo duchy; the Daleys, the Chicago Barons; the Tafts of Ohio; New Jersey's unpronoucible Frelinghuysens; the Longs of Louisiana; the Romneys; the Rockafellers. The Harrisons and the Adams of the 19th Century. We are likely to see second generation Clintons and three generation Carters in the years to come.

My conclusion and continuing observation is that America loves royalty - its own and other peoples. So I think it is not implausible to try to create a scenario over a number of years where America accepts a "lifetime" president - Washington? Roosevelt: Theodore or F.D.R?
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Added a bit of elaboration in my previous post. Basically, if declaring himself "Emperor" or whatever would be more acceptable (for reasons I don't really understand...) then that is fine. Although, Napoleon clearly DID intend for his son to succeed him. That is laying out a succession.

True; the main reason for this is that what makes a republic a republic and not a kingdom is that the head of state isn't well... a monarch. So yes, the distinction of 'Emperor' is salient to the rhetoric.

I find it hilarious as an outside observer when someone says the US is anti-monarchy. Outside of actual dictatorships or wobbly democracies you don't see a lot of dynastic politics - except in the US. Kennedy's passing along Senate seats like a fiefdom; the Bushes with each generation broadening the political holdings; New York, the Cuomo duchy; the Daleys, the Chicago Barons; the Tafts of Ohio; New Jersey's unpronoucible Frelinghuysens; the Longs of Louisiana; the Romneys; the Rockafellers. The Harrisons and the Adams of the 19th Century. We are likely to see second generation Clintons and three generation Carters in the years to come.

My conclusion and continuing observation is that America loves royalty - its own and other peoples. So I think it is not implausible to try to create a scenario over a number of years where America accepts a "lifetime" president - Washington? Roosevelt: Theodore or F.D.R?

I meant they hate the words "king" and "monarchy", not necessarily that they dislike dynastic dictatorship, which was made evident by my comparisons to the Roman and French Empires.
 
Last edited:
I know that the US during its foundation took a lot of examples from the United Provinces (Netherlands), for example the declaration of independence was formulated after the dutch decl. of independence. At that time the UP had something called a stadtholder (and was officially a republic), which essentially is a hereditary presidency.
Maybe the US takes the example a step further and introduces the position of 'stateholder' something that could first be only symbolic and maybe due to politics become more influential.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
I know that the US during its foundation took a lot of examples from the United Provinces (Netherlands), for example the declaration of independence was formulated after the dutch decl. of independence. At that time the UP had something called a stadtholder (and was officially a republic), which essentially is a hereditary presidency.
Maybe the US takes the example a step further and introduces the position of 'stateholder' something that could first be only symbolic and maybe due to politics become more influential.

I don't see the Anti-Federalists being very keen on accepting a constitution with a lifelong, hereditary President. For instance: http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/74.html

"The writer of these essays has clearly proven, that the President is a King to all intents and purposes, and at the same time one of the most dangerous kind too - an elective King, the commander in chief of a standing army, etc. And to those add, that he has a negative power over the proceedings of both branches of the legislature. And to complete his uncontrolled sway, he is neither restrained nor assisted by a privy council, which is a novelty in government. I challenge the politicians of the whole continent to find in any period of history a monarch more absolute. . . "
 
I could see something like this happening if Congress appropriated a greater share of the power over time, leaving the Presidency as a relatively apolitical office. Have some popular *1812 war hero elected whom nobody cares to try to oust, and then when he retires/dies let his son take over. That might be just in time for a Civil War when Congress fails to provide effective leadership, when the son can point out that, not only is he commander-in-chief, but also has a bunch of other neglected powers that may or may not be fully spelled out in the Constitution. Achieve a satisfactory enough resolution to the crisis, and the people might even let the hereditary dictatorship persist.
 
Top