Styling a Washington Monarchy

How would a George Washington monarchy style itself? If he did accept a crown would he take the title of King or would he go something like Emperor?

Also who do you think would succeed him when he died? Assuming male primogeniture it would most likely be his nephew George Steptoe Washington, considering he is the eldest living son from Washington's next youngest brother. There were no children left from Augustine Washington's first wife, and by the time George Washington died IOTL all his male siblings were dead, and allot of his nephews were dead.
 
He'd probably be King; "Emperor" in those days still meant the Holy Roman Emperor, and that's probably not the sort of ruler the US wanted to emulate.
 
President for life.

Princeps.

Dictator perpetuus.

That are REPUBLICAN titles, known to the Americans (at least the two Roman ones) and not connoted with bad impressions of Europe like king or emperor.
 
I agree that the terminology would be styled after Rome, not existing European royal nomenclature. I also believe a Washington monarchy would NOT presume inheritance of the "crown" by offspring. I'd see a mix of republican and monarchical concepts...Washington (and all subsequent "Princeps") would be chosen by an Electoral College and serve for life until death or voluntary retirement, at which point a new Electoral College would be convened to select a successor - who may or may not be related to the deceased princeps. It's had to imagine the USA ever legalizing the idea of a "royal family" or any type of hereditary nobility.
 

scholar

Banned
It's had to imagine the USA ever legalizing the idea of a "royal family" or any type of hereditary nobility.
In the south and middle part of the country, it would be hard not to imagine seeing the monarch of the united state as an agrarian aristocrat with a premium placed on blood and wealth. The north prefers the orator, merchant, and lawyer - but even they had inclinations to be snobby when it game to heritage. All the way up until near modern times, the citizens of the United States cared a great deal about your parents, grandparents, and so forth - how and where you were raise, military service, how well you can speak, and how much money you have. Hell, those are still highly recommended marks of being a public servant.

That, and most British people thought the American Revolution would eventually settle into a system much like their own in Great Britain. It took a few decades for those ideas to die out as the older generation was phased out and the people began to trust in the republican government. Presidents stepping down after two terms and politics being a peaceful transfer was, perhaps, the most pivotal mark of the new democracy. Just by having it be for life may inevitably lead to a pull in the opposite direction as people look more towards Europe, especially with European immigrants flowing into the country.

It is thought that the young nation believed they were intellectually superior, but culturally inferior to Europe until the twentieth century. Should this new government keep the intellectual rhetoric, but more closely align its culture to Europe, then the changed nature of the "presidency" or elective monarchy can easily culminate in one family taking on de facto, if not de jure, control over the nation.

After all, the French Revolution was in many ways more radical than the American Revolution with people who had even greater reasons to question the regime than the taxes that were almost mere pittances on the people, and an occupation that was tame by almost any contemporary standard. They fell to monarchy three times, five republics, and a handful of intermediary dictatorships. I honestly think people do not realize just how significant the United States's history really is as a peculiar event in human history.
 
Last edited:
How about Imperator.

The Latin word "imperator" was originally a title roughly equivalent to commander under the Roman Republic.

Later it became a part of the titulature of the Roman Emperors as part of their cognomen. The English word emperor derives from imperator via Old French Empereür. The Roman emperors themselves generally based their authority on multiple titles and positions, rather than preferring any single title. Nevertheless, imperator was used relatively consistently as an element of a Roman ruler's title throughout the principate (derived from princeps, from which prince in English is derived) and the dominate.

In Latin, the feminine form of imperator is imperatrix, denoting a ruling female.
 
How about Imperator.

The Latin word "imperator" was originally a title roughly equivalent to commander under the Roman Republic.

Later it became a part of the titulature of the Roman Emperors as part of their cognomen. The English word emperor derives from imperator via Old French Empereür. The Roman emperors themselves generally based their authority on multiple titles and positions, rather than preferring any single title. Nevertheless, imperator was used relatively consistently as an element of a Roman ruler's title throughout the principate (derived from princeps, from which prince in English is derived) and the dominate.

In Latin, the feminine form of imperator is imperatrix, denoting a ruling female.

They'd probably just render it into English as Commander-in-Chief or something. The President is sometimes referred to that IOTL anyway.
 
In the south and middle part of the country, it would be hard not to imagine seeing the monarch of the united state as an agrarian aristocrat with a premium placed on blood and wealth. The north prefers the orator, merchant, and lawyer - but even they had inclinations to be snobby when it game to heritage. All the way up until near modern times, the citizens of the United States cared a great deal about your parents, grandparents, and so forth - how and where you were raise, military service, how well you can speak, and how much money you have. Hell, those are still highly recommended marks of being a public servant.

Here's a challenge: find an American founder who actually wrote that the nation should have a king. Not a strong elected executive, but a king.
 
Here's a challenge: find an American founder who actually wrote that the nation should have a king. Not a strong elected executive, but a king.

Alexander Hamilton, proposed to have an elected President and elected Senators who would serve for life, contingent upon "good behavior" and subject to removal for corruption or abuse; this idea contributed later to the hostile view of Hamilton as a monarchist sympathizer, held by James Madison.

John Adams, throughout his lifetime expressed controversial and shifting views regarding the virtues of monarchical and hereditary political institutions. At times he conveyed substantial support for these approaches, suggesting for example that "hereditary monarchy or aristocracy" are the "only institutions that can possibly preserve the laws and liberties of the people."
Yet at other times he distanced himself from such ideas, calling himself "a mortal and irreconcilable enemy to Monarchy" and "no friend to hereditary limited monarchy in America." Such denials did not assuage his critics, and Adams was "dogged" throughout his career with accusations of being a Monarchist. Many of these attacks are considered to have been scurrilous, including suggestions that he was planning to "crown himself king" and "grooming John Quincy as heir to the throne".
 

scholar

Banned
Here's a challenge: find an American founder who actually wrote that the nation should have a king. Not a strong elected executive, but a king.
Before, during, or after the revolution? I've got Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington for before the Revolution. During the revolution there were still a few lying around, depending on how you define founder. Alexander Hamilton, however, probably would not have objected too much.
 
Top