WI USA becomes an elected monarchy in 1790s?

I was thinking yesterday... WI Congress decided to make Washington King of USA and he accepted the crown but with one condition... to be elected as King and serve for life and the subsequent Kings after him to be elected thus creating a form of crowned Republic ala Venice style? So if this happens u have King George I 1789-1799 then King John I (Adams) 1799-1826 and so on... What do u think? could this American crowned Republic survive?
 
Washington would have refused. BUT! for the sake of argument, let's say it did happen. Hopefully there would be an impeachment or recall clause in the Constitution. Could you imagine a King Richard reigning from 1968 to 93 or 94 or whenever he died? Or King Bill still fooling around in office? And what would you do if the king had Alzheimers?
 
Washington would have refused. BUT! for the sake of argument, let's say it did happen. Hopefully there would be an impeachment or recall clause in the Constitution. Could you imagine a King Richard reigning from 1968 to 93 or 94 or whenever he died? Or King Bill still fooling around in office? And what would you do if the king had Alzheimers?

The original constitution or an early amendment to it would be neccessary in order to spell that out. In my CoHE TL, there is a section in the Constitution which permits the royal cabinet to inform Congress that the monarch is unable to exercise his/her constitutional duties and to temporarily act collectively in the king's or queen's name.
 
The OTL proposal by Alexander Hamilton was that the President would serve "for good behaviour", or for life unless he is impeached and convicted.
OTOH, Hamilton's plan was booed by the convention. So, you'd need to have less anti-monarchist sentiment among the Patriots. Perhaps the blame is consistently, and correctly placed on Parliament, rather than on HM George III, by the men leading the rebellion? So there's no real ill will against the monarchy idea?
 
I don't think Washington would have refused under such conditions...he was very regal in his behavior, during his term as President. Unless of course that was just to mock the king of England.
 
It would be out of character. He had power during the Revolution to seize control, and you know what he did? He retired. He let go of the power. He did so again when he refused to run for a third term.

I don't think Washington would have refused under such conditions...he was very regal in his behavior, during his term as President. Unless of course that was just to mock the king of England.
 
Washington was a political animal. His "humbleness" was there to build up political capital and popularity; he played it up for the crowd. I have little doubt that, with his position secure, he'd take the opportunity to rule for life. The real reason he didn't take a third term IOTL was probably because he was nearly dead anyway. In addition to, as said below, he had been facing quite a bit of political opposition in the latter part of his administration.
 
Last edited:
I read that his choice to not run for a third term was not out of humbleness but rather out of the fact that there was a good deal of dissent against him in the latter part of his term.
 
I recall one book on the period stating that Washinton rode into Philadelphia roses were thrown at him, and braickbats were thrown at him as he left.

No doubt an exaggeration but it seems to support that his popularity was not universal at his departure.
 
If USA had become a crowned Republic they could imitate Venice i guess... With a large complexed system of electing officials so as to prevent corruption....
 
Of course Washington was a political creature motivated by a desire to achieve fame, power and position. However, his ambition was also to be seen as worthy of that power and position because of his character. In the 18th Century character was seen as not only what you were but what you aspired to be and what you were seen to do. Therefore, a man of character was a man of personal and public honor and a man who put the needs of his nation above his own desires. Washington was such a man and we were damn lucky to have him.
Washington was not dieing or sick when he left the Presidency. He died suddenly of what was probably strep throat and bad doctoring. He was, however, deathly sick of politics and scandal mongering and home sick for his farms. He had no further ambition for power and glory and was happy to leave. Just as his every other act while President created a precedent for his successors, his leaving created a precedent, and he knew it.
Washington was, indeed, formal and distant in his conduct of the office of President. Partly this was due to his nature. He was not normally a boisterous fellow, partly because he believed the new, rough nation needed a bit of formality and dignity. I do not believe he was mocking George III, he was trying to create a nation out of some very rough materials.
Although the concept of an American monarchy, elective or otherwise, is a fascinating topic for AH, I believe that without a major POD which totally changes the nature of the American Revoultion it will remain in the realm of highly unlikely to totally implausible because Washington was the only one who could have started it and he would have nothing to do it with it.
 
Top