Thursday, June 30, 2011

A Monarchy for America?

In prowling about the internet I see that some brave soul is again trying to organize a kingly political party for the United States. I direct those interested to the Monarchist Party of America which hopes to establish a monarchy in the United States under an elevated American dynasty. Believe it or not, this is not the first time such a thing has been tried. There was once the Constantian Society, founded in 1970, which endeavored to inform Americans about the benefits of monarchy overseas and to encourage support for monarchies around the world. It did not survive the death of its founder unfortunately. I recall there used to be a Monarchist Society of America, organized by member of the Qajar dynasty, formerly of Persia, which operated along the same lines, not advocating a monarchy for America but advocating for monarchy overseas. It seems to have receded into web oblivion as well as I can find nothing on it after a quick search prior to writing this. Were I to venture a guess I would say it probably dissolved for lack of interest.

On that subject, in 1998 was founded the Royalist Party of America (the colorful “Purple shirts”) which advocated making the United States a kingdom. In its original incarnation the RPA worked out a plan for what constitutional amendments would have to be passed in order to establish a monarchy in the United States. They also advocated following a more traditional route for countries in need of a monarch but lacking one; inviting a foreign royal not in line for their own throne to take the job. A poll was held and the popular favorite was HRH Princess Madeleine of Sweden (who happens to be living in the U.S. at the moment…hmmm…maybe there’s more to this than meets the eye) to be invited to become the first Queen of the United States of America. However, within a few years the party went inactive due to lack of interest. It was later revived under new leadership, starting putting out a newsletter, sending out membership packages, printing pamphlets and distributing campaign buttons but, again, finally dissolved due to lack of interest. A few years later it was revived again under new leadership with a new website and an on-line newsletter but, again, in even less time dissolved due to lack of interest.

All of this is why, when I am asked, as I occasionally am, what advice I would give to someone looking to set up a royalist or monarchist political party in the United States my sad but sober answer is, “don’t waste your time”. I hate to say that because I don’t want to dampen anyone’s enthusiasm and before I adopted my strict policy of never becoming a member of anything I was caught up in it once myself when I was a young, enthusiastic royalist at university. However, despite the sometimes extensive memberships these groups have achieved (and I say extensive considering that this is the “Great Republic” we are talking about here) time and time again I have seen the same pattern play out. People join up, join up and join up and then lose interest and a handful of the party faithful are left trying to do everything until they finally give up out of sheer exhaustion and an unwillingness by anyone else to take over leadership. There is also the fact that, even though the monarchist presence in the United States is tiny, the few that do exist agree on almost nothing and based on experience I can say most are not going to compromise on anything, for any reason, ever.

For example, some monarchists who firmly support the monarchy of a foreign country or even every foreign country still would not support a monarchy in the United States. I can understand this since monarchy is all about tradition and monarchy is not and never has been a part of the traditions of the “United States of America”. There is a tradition and a heritage of monarchy in North America to be sure, but the political entity known as the “United States of America” has never had a monarch and never been a monarchy. Because of that, there is the additional problem of the lack of a pretender. Aside from the state of Hawaii there is no native born American citizen who has any bloodline right to a potential American throne. The area encompassing the U.S.A. has regions that were under the dominion of the King of Great Britain, the King of France, the King of Spain and the Tsar of Russia but no one monarch or royal house ever held legitimate claim to the whole of what is now the United States of America. The lack of a “legitimate” royal candidate will put many people off all by itself.

Then there are the options of importing a royal or raising an American citizen to monarchial status. Again, since the American people have no common ancestry or common religion, whichever royal is picked to be imported will not please everyone and the same could be said for any potential American candidate for the throne. Even if Americans came around to the idea of having a king, getting everyone to agree on an appropriate candidate would be all but impossible. One could resort to the democratic process but, as I read once, if the issue was to be a matter of popularity America better prepare itself for the reign of “Queen Oprah I”. Personally, I have always said that if America were to ever become a monarchy the only way I could see it happening would be in a way similar to ancient Rome. That is that things fall apart to such an extent that an authoritarian figure must step in to save the day and then slowly establishes a monarchial system while keeping the republican structure in tact so as to avoid inflaming the mob. “King” is still a four letter word in the United States and that mindset is certainly not going to change anytime soon.

None of this, however, should be taken as a swipe against any American monarchists. I wish them nothing but the best and if they buck the trend I will applaud. I speak only as someone who has been around the block in this neighborhood before and, as with anything, experience tends to make one a bit skeptical and jaded. If there are those who want to give this sort of thing a try, I will wish them the best of luck. Heck, sometimes on election day I still wear one of my Royalist Party buttons to the court house just to enjoy the confused looks on peoples faces.

24 comments:

  1. I wouldn't look towards universities for help though, I've been called a communist at some. Hilarious!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm always called a Communist when I'm bashing the 1848 Revoulutions and align them with 1918-1919 in my country's history. xD Also when calling 1956 a Counter-Revolution. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not that I wouldn't love to see a monarchy in the US, you're quite right in it being a total waste of time to advocate for such a thing. We're more likely to elect a Libertarian as president than become a monarchy, and that's saying something.

    The time to do it would have been the late 18th century, when the country was still new and somewhat unstable politically, and when monarchies were the predominant form of government worldwide. It was offered to Washington, he declined, and that was our one and only chance to pull it off.

    Unless, as you say, some future calamity causes the existing system to wholly or partially collapse, allowing one individual leader to emerge and restore order, as happened in Rome and Napoleonic France.

    The big risk with something like that (aside from the terrible unpleasantness that would have to precede it) is danger that the new monarch could wind up coming from the political class in power at the time, which would be less than ideal to say the least. The American media already likes to refer to political families like the Kennedys, Roosevelts, and Bushes as "dynasties", perish the thought of that ever coming to pass for real. Now, a military officer, or even the scion of an old money family might be more palatable.

    All wishful thinking of course. The best thing for American monarchists is to do what we can to help support and shore up monarchies where they still exist or have a realistic chance of restoration, and just content ourselves with admiring them from afar. And try not to get too jealous of Canada's royal heritage, low corruption index and 29% top marginal tax rate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I fully agree. It would be challenge enough to just get the USA back to the original constitutional republic that existed in the begining with voting limited to those actually inclined to care, an un-elected senate and more power for the states. The whole American mythology is built around "king=tyranny" and even the few who don't believe that can never seem to agree on very much else.

    As a monarchist, what seems the appropriate and more realistic thing to do in this country is to simply try to get rid of that prejudice against monarchy when dealing with other nations.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, we live in a changing world. I very much doubt the world is going to stay as it is now for the rest of the century, so maybe conditions in which a monarchy is more favourable to America may be closer than we think. Although, I agree, things would really have to fall apart first. What event would prompt such a calamity, I shudder to think...

    This reminds me of some who have suggested that a 'resident monarchy' could be established in Australia or Canada or the other Commonwealth Realms. We're in a better position because we already have a royal family, and we could invite a Windsor to become our own King or Queen. I think Canada and New Zealand would more readily accept a resident monarch than Australia, but I am content with the current arrangements. If worst comes to worst, though, I'd be ready to support the campaign for a King in Australia.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you read History ( I know you have MM) you will see that things we thing of as utterly impossible become reality. EG, no one thought same sex marriage would be a topic of discussion, even heated debate, in the 1960’s. Much less than it’d exist in several places. Abortion was never, ever considered moral and once upon a Time no one was thinking about legalising it but loony fingers like Margaret “I love Hitler” Sanger. In the past, it was also unthinkable, even in the American Colonies, that people would turn not only on their own Monarch, but Monarchism itself. Yet it happened fairly quickly when it did.

    Also, look at Religion. Christianity’s rapid decline was not predicted in 1910 was it? Then again, today we see it in rapid decline and think its just inevitable that it’ll die, but Historically the same conditions existed in the 18th Century and its made amazing comebacks via Revival, such as the two Great Awakenings.

    I don’t think that the current push towards Democracy will last. I think that the current push for it has actually gotten a whole lot stronger in the last decade than it use to be even back in the 1990’s, and that his is a crescendo. Democracy will become cynically rejected by more people 50 years from now, or at least people will be more sceptical of its promises. Even mainstream books like Hoppe and Anne Coulter are questioning it. Hoppe outright rejects it!

    So who knows?

    ReplyDelete
  7. As to America, I’ve heard the argument before that its never had a Monarchy, and that areas of the US use to belong to different powers, but I find this a weak argument.

    Does it matter if parts of America belonged to Spain, other parts France, and other parts Britain? From my vantage there is only one legitimate claimant to the Throne of America and that is the British Royal Family, and this is not because of my own affections of my ancestry and heritage. Its because if you consider the United States a single political entity, you have to look at its past. America started as 13 Colonised of Great Britain, and the original Continental Congress, as well as the subsequent Untied States Government that formed after the Revolution, were successors to the Crown Government. The entire Political Body grew directly out of, and descended from, the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The whole of America is thus really a successor Government to the original Colonial British Government.

    This is even how American see it. I will prove it.

    We are closing in on the 4th of July. This is the Annual Holiday commemorating he Great Revolution and how America was made Independent of Great Britain.

    Its not a Holiday Celebrated by only the 13 Original States, its Celebrated by all 50 States. Texas may have been Spanish at the Time, but Texans see “Their” Founding Fathers fighting the British. So do Californians. So do people in Kansas. So do people in Alaska and Hawa’ii. They all consider the 4th of July their own Holiday, and all of them think of America’s Founders as “Our” Founding Fathers.

    No one speaks of Alaska being Russian or Texas Spanish territory in that war. No one says that the war was about other people. Its “Our” war, its how “We” gained Independence form Britain.

    The Mythlogy of the Revolution is a National Origins Saga that all Americans share, not just those in the Colonies themselves.

    But, so is the Colonial era “Ours”.

    Even the events like the Mayflower or Jamestown or early Colonial Life in general are thought of as “Our” past, even if “We’ are Latinos living in Colorado or Blacks descended from Caribbean pirates living in Nevada.

    Plus, Americans have an American Culture, the Governments of all States save Louisiana are rooted in the same English Common Law, and all the state Governments have a Constitutional system that mirrors the Federal Government, and each has the same basic sense of Identity as “Americans” that everyone else does with a collectively shared cultural History that my or may not include your actual ancestry, but it still yours by virtue of being American.

    They all share the same Governing Philosophy and Philosophy about Law and Culture too.

    Not to mention what I said before, that the Federal Government is a successor to the original Crown Government.

    To that end, America is really a British Colonial Nation that gained independence then expanded.

    I don’t think the Spanish or French controlled Areas matter as much as that. Had America not Rebelled and broken off it still may have absorbed them anyway at some point, but would never be anything but British had it done so.

    So, unless you are advocating for secession of those area’s, I’d say the Federal Government, and the States that descended form the Governing Philosophy of America’s Founding Fathers, are still descended from a very British Original Parent Country.

    If America went Legitimist Monarchist, then only two options exist. The Windsor’s, so we can share a Monarch with Canada, or the House of Stuart, if we really want to remain distinct.

    I am pleased with either Option.


    But I don’t see anyone else really having a claim on the United States as an existing Political body.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zarove makes excellent points. But I would rather be the subject of a Catholic monarch who reigned and ruled. Her MajestyQueen Elizabeth only reigns, right?

      Delete
  8. As to how the United States could become a Republic, this is whimsical but, I’d start with a basic Amendment that says “A State may choose to be a Constitutional Monarchy”. I may flesh it out a bit but, I’d allow for a Constitutional Monarchy on the State Level first. While only Hawaii is likely to take this up ( And possibly not even them) it’s a start. It’d get rid of the ghastly restriction that states can only have a Republican form of Government. I never did like that clause.

    When people become more use to Monarchy then it can be accepted on a Federal Level, and not just a State Level.


    Otherwise it will be like Rome. I o believe History repeats itself and America is basically new Rome, so in the Future we will have a New Emperor, and a New Fall.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As to America, I’ve heard the argument before that its never had a Monarchy, and that areas of the US use to belong to different powers, but I find this a weak argument.

    Does it matter if parts of America belonged to Spain, other parts France, and other parts Britain? From my vantage there is only one legitimate claimant to the Throne of America and that is the British Royal Family, and this is not because of my own affections of my ancestry and heritage. Its because if you consider the United States a single political entity, you have to look at its past. America started as 13 Colonised of Great Britain, and the original Continental Congress, as well as the subsequent Untied States Government that formed after the Revolution, were successors to the Crown Government. The entire Political Body grew directly out of, and descended from, the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The whole of America is thus really a successor Government to the original Colonial British Government.

    This is even how American see it. I will prove it.

    We are closing in on the 4th of July. This is the Annual Holiday commemorating he Great Revolution and how America was made Independent of Great Britain.

    Its not a Holiday Celebrated by only the 13 Original States, its Celebrated by all 50 States. Texas may have been Spanish at the Time, but Texans see “Their” Founding Fathers fighting the British. So do Californians. So do people in Kansas. So do people in Alaska and Hawa’ii. They all consider the 4th of July their own Holiday, and all of them think of America’s Founders as “Our” Founding Fathers.

    No one speaks of Alaska being Russian or Texas Spanish territory in that war. No one says that the war was about other people. Its “Our” war, its how “We” gained Independence form Britain.

    The Mythlogy of the Revolution is a National Origins Saga that all Americans share, not just those in the Colonies themselves.

    But, so is the Colonial era “Ours”.

    Even the events like the Mayflower or Jamestown or early Colonial Life in general are thought of as “Our” past, even if “We’ are Latinos living in Colorado or Blacks descended from Caribbean pirates living in Nevada.

    Plus, Americans have an American Culture, the Governments of all States save Louisiana are rooted in the same English Common Law, and all the state Governments have a Constitutional system that mirrors the Federal Government, and each has the same basic sense of Identity as “Americans” that everyone else does with a collectively shared cultural History that my or may not include your actual ancestry, but it still yours by virtue of being American.

    They all share the same Governing Philosophy and Philosophy about Law and Culture too.

    Not to mention what I said before, that the Federal Government is a successor to the original Crown Government.

    To that end, America is really a British Colonial Nation that gained independence then expanded.

    I don’t think the Spanish or French controlled Areas matter as much as that. Had America not Rebelled and broken off it still may have absorbed them anyway at some point, but would never be anything but British had it done so.

    So, unless you are advocating for secession of those area’s, I’d say the Federal Government, and the States that descended form the Governing Philosophy of America’s Founding Fathers, are still descended from a very British Original Parent Country.

    If America went Legitimist Monarchist, then only two options exist. The Windsor’s, so we can share a Monarch with Canada, or the House of Stuart, if we really want to remain distinct.

    I am pleased with either Option.


    But I don’t see anyone else really having a claim on the United States as an existing Political body.

    ReplyDelete
  10. To an Australian monarchist any change from the current Constitution in which HM the Queen of Australia is also the Queen of the UK and Her other realms and territories is unacceptable. To reject the House of Windsor is treason in my books.

    ReplyDelete
  11. David I wasn't advocating changing from the current arrangements, nor will you ever hear me want to 'reject' the House of Windsor. I said 'if worst comes to worst...', meaning inviting a member of the Windsors to be our own monarch would be a last resort if a republic is the only other option, e.g. if the Crown of the UK is abolished (God forbid).

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have worked out a plan on how America could be ruled by a native Monarchy. First of all, America, sadly will never accept an old-world Royal as their leader. America as a whole must lose faith in the republic and political correctness and the media, and desire to return to values and unity. My suggestion is that when Monarchy comes to America, it will be first a warrior-king from among its own ranks, much like the Barbarian rulers who toppled Rome. Think an American Odoacer or Theodoric, or Clovis. Once this person is ruling, a system could be set up- Each County in America is presided over by a Count, each state a Baron, Each Region a Duke- Divided into seven or eight. Hawaii would be returned to its royal family, and Alaska would be a region on its own. The Council of Counts consult each Baron, the Barons form a council to consult the regional Dukes, and the Dukes advise the Crown.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Eh, after last night's election results, I am going to try the Monarchist Party idea. I'm going to keep going with it as long as I can. I imagine it will end up as it always does here, but I guess I just don't care anymore about the Republican system. Why not tilt after windmills? It's better that being ground to powder by them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Something I think I should mention is that, many of the Founding Fathers where indeed Christians. I am a monarchist through and through and think that rebellion of any kind is wrong. Yet I believe many of the Founding Fathers of the United States believed, incorrectly perhaps, that it was their divine duty to throw of "tyranny". I would say that many, even the deists Jefferson and Franklin (who did both deny or "doubt" the deity of Christ, a heresy), did at least believe in God and respect the importance of the INSTITUTION of Christianity. Many of them belived in the bible's morals and the Church's institution, yet failed to grasp the whole personal concept. Some founding fathers, if anything can be said about what one say's or did, seemed to be devout Christians.
    I believe that monarchist themselves degrade the founders a little to harshly, and teach that they where not religous (the very thing that our liberal enemies in washington desire us to believe.) Almost all of them where reverent to the Christian church institution, and that many likely had personal faith.

    ReplyDelete
  15. who is entirely a non-partisan leadership symbol in the last 50 years? truly enough that wouldve been dr martin luther king who inspired a nation without being specifically a republican or a democrat.. soo yes.. there is absolutely noone on the horizon to fulfill that role

    btw i as a jew listen to the message of torah and it says in there that one day will be a house of light and prayer goodness and kindness and freedom for all nations..

    THAT is non-partisan that would be something that would be supra national with A kingdom of heavenliness represented on earth..

    now in my own personal opinion that would be a monarchy that one could be affiliated with, without sacrificing any personal national identity... unlike the united nations were its a cesspool of all the nations cavorting and rolling over each other to moral and human rights corruption.

    this is more a left turn into jewish monarchist theory... but think of it in the modern sense most jews beileve that a king will rise up and then after having his whole coronation which everyone "supposedly will just have to be swept off their feet" then he will just glide and build the temple... (a house of light and prayer goodness and kindness and self actualizing Liberty for all nations..)

    some think of that as unnatural unsociable undemocratic sort of the "spirit of the lord will fall upon you" reality-cooking..

    but if you think of it this way jewish tradition states the next king of israel has to be a great man yet... the way we know who he is for sure is he accomplishes building the jewish "worlds" temple (a house of light and prayer goodness and kindness and freedom for all nations..) humanity bonding and moral galvanizing force.

    now the reason the jewish state came to exist most would say was to avoid persecution and find a respite from the german holocaust... but think of it 50 years later people wonder why we have the political right to be in that part of the world to begin with. is it fair to have a hi tech company and a university and a synogogue over there ? that part of the world where our existence is questioned and challenged at every turn...?? if you needed a company a bagels and lox a synogogue a jewish day school you dont need to be there for that......

    you can live in australia or england or brooklyn or anywhere else.... and if you want to have a political state a sort of self administation on the planet we couldve done it in UGANDA definitely not in the middell eayst!!

    the reason the jewish state exists independently is based on the covenenant ONLY of jacob the giving of the torah on sinai and their promise to build a temple of all nations with its sabbatical kindness g-dly capitalist restraint.... etc etc... mainly a house of g-d and prayer for all nations (if it was based on historical sentiments... of the past that would still not be enough to be there in the middle east) the only thing that guarruntees our legitimacy is the fact that our undeniable vision is the future temple that we must build on that site of the previous 2 temples and create a model society based on the commandments of holistic spiritual faith-ful and charitable economy calendar agriculture festivals (i dont mean theocratic regime i mean holistic living)

    soo if you have a prime minister of israel whos express goal is to independently and soverignly build the house of prayer for all people that would de-facto make him a king of israel a sort of (the pawn making it to the other side of the board and giving him the status of queen)

    im sorry in advance if all these ideas are misunderstood or misconstrued i mean only goodness and showing how using the state of israel as an example a true non-partisan national mission creates non partisan national leadership a sort of royal example....

    please do not take any of my words offensively

    ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS IM SAYING IS NOT THE NATIONAL LEADER CREATES A NATIONAL MISSION BUT THE REVERSE!

    ReplyDelete
  16. One the major problems we face is that even among the monarchists in America, there is division. There are those who truly believe in an Absolute Monarchy, then there are those who want a constitution and/or ceremonial monarch. Then there is the royal problem: many monarchists I've spoken to seem to think that the monarch of America would have to be from another nations Royal family, whereas others (myself included) want to establish a new Royal Family. Personally, I believe in a pan-monotheistic theocracy in the form of an absolute hereditary monarchy, which separates me from others, even in this small movement. And there are many different Royalties in the nation: the Heir to the Iranian Qajar throne lives in Dallas, and there's a member of Belgium Royalty (can't remember his name), etc. You mentioned this problem yourself. I think we could convene a council of monotheistic clergy from every monotheistic religion to elect a Monarch, whose family would then be the legitimate heir, similar to how the Islamic monarchies in the Arabian Peninsula traditionally work, and we could simply make a very basic constitution to prevent the Monarch from following in the footsteps of Ivan the Terrible. But I digress: my point is this: Before there is monarchy in America, we, as monarchists, have to be able to unite in the goal of monarchy, and not separate into smaller groups.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree that it would be very difficult to rally Americans to support a monarch when it's just not part of our tradition. Republicans and Democrats often disagree on how to run the country but one thing almost everyone agrees with is our republican system of government, in the same way as the citizens and Parliament of the UK strongly favor the Crown. If there was ever such a drastic change in public opinion that a monarchy achieved great support here, I'd prefer we have a native monarch who is a citizen of the United States, and is easily replaceable should Congress unanimously vote to remove him/her. I'd like the monarch to be non-hereditary, elected to a single term of 20 years or so. I hate the idea of a permanent "royal family."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Monarchy is initiated everywhere when a strong center of decisive action is required. No committee by whatever name really rules a nation; it may appear, or be decreed as such, but behind it must be an unbridled but untitled monarch.

    Monarchy becomes hereditary if and when it can maintain itself as that strong center.

    There has been no true monarchy since the advent of constitutionalism.

    A true monarchy must unite in itself, in the person of the monarch, all the attributes of the nation, including its religious heritage. A king is also a priest, if not a god.

    The office of Christian Emperor within the Church was threefold: pre-eminent preacher of the Divine Dispensation (Law and Gospel), dispenser of Divine Healing (the royal touch), and living icon of God the Father.

    The person of Christian Emperor within the State was likewise living icon of God the Father, who thence begat his people, to whom he was not just symbolic, but literal, father, and from him, through his people, proceeded the spirit of the nation, its ethos, the lord and giver of its life.

    In this way, monarch, people, and ethos not only reflected, but actually incarnated, the Holy Triad of the Divine Nature: One substance in three persons. Thus, Orthodox Christianity, as a complete revelation of the One God as a society of persons, equal in substance but differing in function, was, is, and shall be the perfect foundation of earthly society, both spiritual and temporal.

    Pure monotheism as Judaism is an incomplete revelation; Islamic monotheism, a compromise with humanistic reason. Neither ever did, can, or could produce a true monarchy, only an anticipation (pre-Christian kings of Israel and Judah), or an imitation (the Caliphate).

    Whether or not a country has ever been governed by monarchy, it may still become a monarchical civilization. Indeed, when a nation finally realizes that its very survival depends on it, it will abandon the unsuitable and wasteful aberrations it once called government, even though its origins were formerly lauded as noble, and return to monarchy.

    We can only hope that when it is ready, it will fall to Orthodoxy, not to Islam or to some other new pseudo-religious philosophy, to bring the nation to ethical rebirth and true monarchy.

    Ο εχων ους ακουσάτω τί το Πνευμα λέγει ταις εκκλησίαις.
    ‘Whoever has ears, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I've deleted my December 1, 2013 post because I mistyped part of it. So please let me repeat my questions for our friend who wants an elected monarch to rule for 20 years. First, what would a term-limited monarchy have in common with the U.S. Presidency? Second, what would ensure that an elected monarch would rule to protect the common good, not to get political power that American politicians want too often? Third, when would that monarch learn how to rule, after coronation? I hope not.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Perhaps my comment is a statement that falls out of the topic that is really under discussion here. Perhaps because it posits a theistic, even a Christian premise, it may seem purely philosophical. It does, I assure you, lead to a very solid pragmatism, and that is why to pursue it farther, or even to notice it, might be dangerous. Though as a historian I thoroughly enjoy the study of the royal families of Europe and Asia, I do not look to them, or long for them, to make a come back in the twenty-first century. Instead, a new form of monarchy that harkens back to the primeval, having much in common with Israel, is what I see coming.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Britain is a constitutional monarchy with its line of succession based on the hereditary principal. Apart from the rather overlooked today, '1689 Bill of Rites' Britain does not have a written constitution. There is no rule book, only precedent. If a monarch fails to measure to what is expected of them they be almost certainly placed under considerable pressure to abdicate.
    As a royalist myself, having done my share of political radicalism, there was never a time when I did not cease to revere Queen Elizabeth. One of my earliest memories is of her Coronation, so royalism must be deeply ingrained in me. She has been a rock in the lives of most British citizens for most of their lives. Prime ministers come and go, and are usually quickly forgotten. Political careers in a democracy nearly always end in failure anyway. On the other hand, monarchies can attach their names to a whole age. I think we all have our own interpretation of what 'Victorian' means, and its nothing to do with a Victory or anything like.
    If America feels the need for a monarchy of her own in place of ours they had best start by picking a good looking candidate with a poker face, and a strong bladder. Then make the rest up as you go along.

    ReplyDelete
  23. there has already been a native king in America in fact it also owned great amount of Canada
    it was over thrown by u.s. in the last civil war not too much is taught of the natives in the schools but if you watch documentary's about George Washington your notice there is a king in one of the scenes of him he runs up and hammers Washington's prisoner in the back of the head
    also this is not from Pocahontas's tribe that would be a chiefdom
    any how im a descendent of his and if im not mistaken the king and myself would be a descendent of Prince Rupert as it was from north Dakota and also known as Rupert's lands in till the last civil war
    which would be a royal bloodline of the house of stewards and relative of Elizabeth the 2nd

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...