What would a US Constitutional Monarchy be like?

Reagan was pretty popular. That's why Bush won, running his campaign as Reagan's third term. But anyways, an American monarchy, assuming one somehow comes to exist, would most likely just be Washington in a purely ceremonial position, and separate from the President. Overall, the only thing different that I see is that taxes would be a bit higher, to pay the royal family, and maybe nations like Liberia or the Philippines would be in personal union with America.

Yea, but the dems ran Dukakis, who probably would have lost to anyone. I'm not arguing that he didn't actually deserve it, he probably did and probably more so than Eisenhower or Clinton, but if it was based on 1988 public opinion I don't think he'd be seen in a good enough light.

Anyway, taxes wouldn't really change. To fund the stupid lifestyle of our inbreds over here it only costs us about 50p a year each I think.
 
I was under the impression that the USA had an elected constitutional monarch. It's just that they get to be replaced by another elected one from time to time. The only mistake is giving them power as well as prestige.

Britain wisely keeps the two apart.
 
I was under the impression that the USA had an elected constitutional monarch. It's just that they get to be replaced by another elected one from time to time. The only mistake is giving them power as well as prestige.

Britain wisely keeps the two apart.

In the Perception of the US president thread, one could actually say that some of the American public think this.
 
I was under the impression that the USA had an elected constitutional monarch. It's just that they get to be replaced by another elected one from time to time. The only mistake is giving them power as well as prestige.

Britain wisely keeps the two apart.
Well, yeah, the United States doesn't have separate positions for the head of state and the head of government.

Any US constitutional monarchy would most likely have such a separation with a mostly ceremonial monarch; I don't see any of the founding fathers wanting it any other way. The thing is, I'm not sure how that could have happened historically.
 
Reagan was pretty popular. That's why Bush won, running his campaign as Reagan's third term. But anyways, an American monarchy, assuming one somehow comes to exist, would most likely just be Washington in a purely ceremonial position, and separate from the President. Overall, the only thing different that I see is that taxes would be a bit higher, to pay the royal family, and maybe nations like Liberia or the Philippines would be in personal union with America.

Actually if its the Washington family taking over they very conceivably could pay for themselves as monarch, they could go the route the English kings have done and give the revenue from Mount Vernon and their other businesses to Congress and get a stipend worth less than their land.
 
Fascinating discussion. If we were to go the way of having retired Presidents become King or in a King-like position, there are several options. 1. We could use something similar to the Late Ottoman succession, in which they would become King in the order of their presidencies, for life. For example today Jimmy Carter would be King, and when he dies it would go to George H.W. Bush, then Clinton, then Bush Jr and finally Obama. Or we could have something similar to Malaysia. Malaysia has a King that is elected from the Rulers of the nine Hereditary Malay States and reigns for five years. A person can only become King again after all rulers of the other states have also stood for election. So it could be that a system would develop that the King would be chosen from the living former Presidents. Each would serve a number of years then the next would be elected. Not very likely initially mind you but would be the best for the US in later years,

Next he have a hereditary Monarchy, either with the House of Washington or the House of Hohenzollern (the Prussian Royal House for those who don't know). If its Washington the matter of Succession comes up. Would the throne go to his step-grandson,George Washington Parke Custis, or his nephew and heir Bushrod Washington. At this point the throne could become semi-elective, with the Washington family providing candidates and being elected King for life, either by direct election/electoral collage or by congress.

The interesting question is how powerful would the monarchy be compared to OTL's presidency. Initially it would be weak because of Americans understandable distrust and reluctance on having a King, similar to how none of the Roman Emperor's called themselves Rex, even when it was obvious that there was a monarchy. But would the Crown grow more powerful like the Presidency did? Would there be a hereditary Peerage/aristocracy? or would there be a Life-peerage type? What would the title of the Monarch be? King, Emperor or something unique/less royal sounding, like Princeps or First Consul? Would there be a Crown estate, like the British had or would there be a civil list? How would an American Monarchy change European perception of the US?

Personally I can see a Monarchal US developing similar to the early Terran Hegemony, from the Battletech universe. In it, members of the reigning Cameron dynasty were nominated to serve as Director-General and would be elected by the people, for life. Also, the nobility titles were granted for life to individuals who had achieved special accomplishments and were recognized for them. People like scientists or inventors or possibly artists. I would assume that some of the founding fathers families would be granted hereditary titles in recognition for their actions in the Revolutionary war and subsequent years.
 
The interesting question is how powerful would the monarchy be compared to OTL's presidency. Initially it would be weak because of Americans understandable distrust and reluctance on having a King, similar to how none of the Roman Emperor's called themselves Rex, even when it was obvious that there was a monarchy. But would the Crown grow more powerful like the Presidency did?

My best guess is that the monarch stays weak, but steps into politics occasionally. I would, for example, be surprised if the king wasn't pretty deeply embroiled in the Civil War (for which matter, if we're talking a House of Washington he might have sided with the south; interesting thought that, an American monarchy that is abolished during Reconstruction). In terms of power though, I really wouldn't expect it to grow. IMO OTL's growth in presidential power would mostly be seen in the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives becoming more and more prime ministerial over time.

Hard to say on the other things; certainly not at first, but other hereditary and monarchical institutions seem pretty likely to follow in the long run.
 
My best guess is that the monarch stays weak, but steps into politics occasionally. I would, for example, be surprised if the king wasn't pretty deeply embroiled in the Civil War (for which matter, if we're talking a House of Washington he might have sided with the south; interesting thought that, an American monarchy that is abolished during Reconstruction). In terms of power though, I really wouldn't expect it to grow. IMO OTL's growth in presidential power would mostly be seen in the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives becoming more and more prime ministerial over time.

Hard to say on the other things; certainly not at first, but other hereditary and monarchical institutions seem pretty likely to follow in the long run.

An interesting point would be the Civil war. OTL it is considered the point at which the balance of power between the States and Federal government shifted to the Feds. If the Monarch supports the Union his own power might just increase as well. However, we can't guarantee that there would still be a civil war and if there was on how it would start. Remember the straw the broke the horses back was the election of Lincoln as President. If there is no Presidential position to be elected to then who knows how the war would start.
 
An interesting point would be the Civil war. OTL it is considered the point at which the balance of power between the States and Federal government shifted to the Feds. If the Monarch supports the Union his own power might just increase as well. However, we can't guarantee that there would still be a civil war and if there was on how it would start. Remember the straw the broke the horses back was the election of Lincoln as President. If there is no Presidential position to be elected to then who knows how the war would start.

I think that there would have to be a presidential position. Otherwise, the people, and for that matter, many of the Founding Fathers, would rebel again, and there goes the Union.
 
I've thought about this for years and have time and time again revised a timeline about an American Monarchy. Lately, I've come to believe that without Thomas Paine the citizens of the colonies, in general, may be more open to the idea of a homegrown monarch.

Also I see that the power and position of the Monach changes over time. The earliest period would be the era of the Articles of Confederation and then the adoption of the Constitution. I'm not sure about the present of the ACW, its entirely likely, an idea gleaned from an early AH essay, that the Monarch may prove to be the calming hand that prevents the outbreak of war. It is also possible that, much like the later Austro-Hungarian Empire, that the American Monarch would be king of two republics - the US and the CS.

Annexation, a pesky and entirely unconstitution convention, would be settled by the various colonizers, the Texans and Californians and later Hawaii, for example, just offering the American Monarch the crown of their nations.

I read a biography of Pedro II of Brazil years ago and I don't think any US Constitution would grant the Monarch any 'special power', but the king would remain as Head of State, with the President serving as Head of Government.
 
Top