I have heard many different people saying that either Henry of Prussia or George Washington could become King of the USA. How realistic would this be? Also, how much influence over the USA would this monarch have?
Would it be realistic for America to become a Monarchy?
- Thread starter MichiganNationalist1837
- Start date
Very little.
Republicanism had swept the colonies, but they were still loyal to the monarch himself, Big G3, right up till the Proclamation of Rebellion he issued over Boston. Essentially the colonies had believed the British political system (Parliament) was corrupt but the king, supposedly above it all, could step in - as constitutionally mandated - and say 'yo Parli-dudes, ur bein 2 crazy, stahp'. Instead George III in his own eyes believed he and Parliament was doing the right thing in refusing to concede to one specific area of the empire, and to what they saw as a mob in that area in particular. Naturally the colonies and many British disagreed, but that's the point.
So when the one guy they saw as representing EVERY Briton, the empire, the nation, basically said 'screw you' to his own people - they took it personally and figured pure republicanism was the way to go.
If somehow, SOMEHOW, monarchy was established it HAS to be a native-born figure. Americans had also in the course of becoming republican come to see Europe with disdain as too refined and corrupt, so a monarch from across the sea is way too symbolic of that.
Republicanism had swept the colonies, but they were still loyal to the monarch himself, Big G3, right up till the Proclamation of Rebellion he issued over Boston. Essentially the colonies had believed the British political system (Parliament) was corrupt but the king, supposedly above it all, could step in - as constitutionally mandated - and say 'yo Parli-dudes, ur bein 2 crazy, stahp'. Instead George III in his own eyes believed he and Parliament was doing the right thing in refusing to concede to one specific area of the empire, and to what they saw as a mob in that area in particular. Naturally the colonies and many British disagreed, but that's the point.
So when the one guy they saw as representing EVERY Briton, the empire, the nation, basically said 'screw you' to his own people - they took it personally and figured pure republicanism was the way to go.
If somehow, SOMEHOW, monarchy was established it HAS to be a native-born figure. Americans had also in the course of becoming republican come to see Europe with disdain as too refined and corrupt, so a monarch from across the sea is way too symbolic of that.
Maybe. But you couldn't use the word "king". Too many negative associations. Something simpler, like "commander".
I wonder what Commander is in Latin, the colonies definitely had a Roman fetish. They could use the Latin word for commander then.
If only I spoke Latin I could tell you. But I barely speak English, so I guess we're both out of luck.
There's lots of commanders, though. How about something more specific, like "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces"? You could maybe shorten it to "Commander in Chief" if you want.
Did the US ever have anything approaching a military aristocracy? IIUC George Washington was both a rich landholder as well as a high ranking Militia officer, how many people were like this, I have a feeling there might be a lot in higher circles of power?
If private property, political power and high military command are tightly linked then such people make and break leaders and in effect become kingmakers and if you have kingmakers then you can have Kings.
If private property, political power and high military command are tightly linked then such people make and break leaders and in effect become kingmakers and if you have kingmakers then you can have Kings.
Well, monarchy has, in these times, a superb advantage: "Republics don't work". The republics of the ancient times are long gone and the British republican experiment ended in a dictatorship, which was even worse than Charles I's "tyranny". In 1787, the only republics of the world are little, oligarchic states - not something the Founding Father want to imitate.
In 1787, the shattered but still mighty and rich France, the admired Prussia and the universally envied Great Britain are monarchies. There are absolute monarchies on the European continent, but there is Britain, an example for a liberal, constitutional monarchy.
In this world, it's not that unlikely that the founders of a completly new state would choose a monarchy as form of their government.