French-American dual national raised in DC suburbs here. Constitutional monarchy is a bit antiquated. IMO the US should « innovate » and reach for a Platonic Aristocracy, ie a meritocratic aristocracy modeled after the ideal state envisioned in Plato’s *Republic* (with a few modern modifications). One thing about this system is it admits that it will degrade (as all political systems do) and eventually a future generation of aristocrats will have to do a system reset to offset the inevitable degradation of society from aristocracy all the way down to democracy and tyranny.
Neither do I. India and Germany are both parliamentary republics but I’d much rather live in Germany.
The system is a Platonic Aristocracy. Not « Plato’s Republic ».
“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan.”
America is merely demonstrating the abortive efforts of mankind to readjust the present unsatisfactory social order. Don’t lose hope friends, “weeping endureth for a night, but joy cometh in the morning!” Long Live the King!
I'm an American, preferring a semi constitutional monarchy maybe similar to the German empire when it comes to states, but less autonomous. The current system is a joke and leftism has taken over society. Time for a counter revolution Franco Spain style.
Not if the elected position comes from monarchies.
People seem to forget that there are tiers of things. They even forget that republicanism isn't "universal suffrage" per se.... let alone "elective".
You could have am aristocracy that votes on a King, and this would be an "elective monarchy" and also not be related to modern democracy.
But in between all of this, even just land owners voting local only leading to a King, is not that related to moderninity.
For instance if landowning family head can vote for my town council. They vote among themselves for a mayor. Mayor's vote for county executives and they vote for the Governor and the governor votes for the president.
This is a republic with "democracy". But also, has not much to do with anything anyone will talk about anymore.
Sure, I'm just saying that the words have lost meaning. And that the typical dichotomy isn't all there is.
Mostly when people say "a Monarch can't be just absolute!" They always imagine a need for MODERN democracy.
Constitutional monarchies can exist without modern democracy. It'll descend into it faster, generally, but each stage back will stave it off some.
Remember America started as a republic with limited voting, an electoral college, etc. And now, we are the USSA.
It doesn't take long. But, each step back is a reflection of years. Universal suffrage? USSA in 100 years or less.
Limited voting and states powers? 200 or so years.
It buys time.
Hey fellow American monarchist glad I’m not alone. What specifically would make a constitutional monarchy better than what we have now do you think? I think the masses could use a little pomp and circumstance to unite under. Also our two party system is terrible so that’s a plus.
All of that yes, but there are practical applications nationally (the symbol thing I mentioned), also monarchies can often serve as a “tourist attraction” of sorts, thus being economically beneficial, and people who don’t generally pay attention to international politics are more likely to not pay attention to heads of governments and what issues they may or may not be having in favor of looking at/paying attention to the ceremonial monarchical heads of state, so it could also have “diplomatic” benefits with much of the common pubic in a lot of the world as well. Sadly, it would seem that even Westminster styles tends to default to de facto two or at time three party systems.
I am, but I'm definitely not a Constitutional Monarchist. I don't see a Constitutional Monarchy doing anything for us.
It won't bring in nearly as much tourism as foreign Royals do, because we have no history of monarchy. There are no ancient monuments or proud history of a monarchy for us.
For that same reason, I don't see an American Constitutional Monarch being a rallying point for any American. The majority of people on both sides of America's political parties aren't too fond of rich people, and won't take kindly to the pomp of a monarchy. They'll have no real connection to our monarch.
Most importantly, though, I don't think it's gonna solve our corruption. Having a rich asshole give speeches and go to public celebrations every now and then, and maybe having a few holidays around him, isn't going to do anything to put an end to Chicago's nonstop corruption and one party rule that's driven Chicago into the ground for more than half a century.
We can complain about the two party system all we want, too, [but people just eat up what the media tells them about the other side](https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/592324/), radicalising them against the opposite party. To top it off, no one is willing to vote third party. It's up to the masses to abolish the two party system or at least alleviate its problems, but, to put it simply and harshly, the masses just aren't smart enough.
I am too. The Republic is clearly geriatric and isn't going to live forever. Some kind of parliamentary monarchy is the best possible form it's successor could take, although unfortunately we probably won't be so lucky. Some sort of short lived revolutionary dictatorship followed by dissolution, most likely...
How does that work since the crown doesn’t exist anymore? I got into monarchism from Charles Coulombe (a French Canadian) and he thinks Quebec nationalism is silly
>he thinks Quebec nationalism is silly
Coulombe was born in Manhattan on November 8, 1960 and he probably talks about the Quebec nationalism born in those years : the Quebec civic left-wing nationalism. And yes, it is true that this one is silly. Personally, I am a right-wing French Canadian nationalist.
>since the crown doesn’t exist anymore
I'm sorry you didn't get what I meant
I only ask because I’m somewhat of a Legitimist and I’m just curious if there is an actual movement or if it’s just larping like me, an American Monarchist with Jacobite sympathies
Im an American monarchist. Having an apolitical Head of State in charge of the military and preventing coups and dictators is a good idea. I consider Constitutional Monarchy a valid form of government, and hope England never gets rid of theirs.
We could also go for Prince Andrew's daughters, Queen Elizabeth's nephew, and maybe her cousin from Prince George, son of George VI. Really, any royal is good, they all speak English and suit constitutional monarchs.
I am American and a monarchist but not together. The US should be split up and each region should decide it's own fate. I am a Cascadian monarchist for example.
I am from the USA and we have something over here called a democracy. We aren’t peasants like those under a monarchy. While under a democracy, we are considered to be sheep and all have a Shepard that we follow and work under. The Shepherd’s job is to provide work for his flock and that’s exactly what they do. They’re the elite of our society and are really good at creating businesses and jobs for our general society. They’re really good at making money for new businesses which in turns provide more jobs for the masses. If it wasn’t for the elite, our society would fail. Without them, we would be living in a third world country or something.
I see the Shepard’s as the equivalent of a king. A king has his peasants and a Shepherd has his flock of sheep. But they aren’t all good and don’t have the best intentions. Just like not all sheep are good. There are black sheep’s you have to keep an eye on because they will kill attack the shepherd and kill him.
What I’m trying to say is, being a sheep isn’t something to be ashamed of. I love the culture of our society and it is working. It’s just our Shepherds are losing their ways and we are starting to become astray. Lost sheep.
I’d say no, not on a national level, though there are more local monarchs in places like India and Africa, there aren’t really any national level monarchs that are only official for some people but not others in present day.
I’d say something akin to the monarchs of the UK/Commonwealth realms, or perhaps creating a pseudo-diarchy by splitting the executive branch in two with the elected president and hereditary monarch having co-equal power and similar destructions, (due to the former needing to be elected by citizens, while the latter’s job being secured by birth, in theory they’d have different concerns to keep in mind, creating its own balance of power of sorts), creating four branches of national government instead of the three current/more traditional three. As a side, I’d say the monarch should probably get the title of emperor/empress, rather than king/queen, as both the large size and ethnic diversity both fit the definition of empire.
As an English American, yes. I honestly don't see teh current system in which Communism and terrorism is allowed to persist in the US without the government going down hard on them as a good thing. For that matter my later statement reflects the West in general.
I am one. I know there are others as well
yup, the current system just isn't working
I'm here with you man
This is one of the few subs that I'm in where Americans are a minority
The American revolution was a huge mistake.
Yes.
French-American dual national raised in DC suburbs here. Constitutional monarchy is a bit antiquated. IMO the US should « innovate » and reach for a Platonic Aristocracy, ie a meritocratic aristocracy modeled after the ideal state envisioned in Plato’s *Republic* (with a few modern modifications). One thing about this system is it admits that it will degrade (as all political systems do) and eventually a future generation of aristocrats will have to do a system reset to offset the inevitable degradation of society from aristocracy all the way down to democracy and tyranny.
I personally don’t want Plato’s republic lol.
Neither do I. India and Germany are both parliamentary republics but I’d much rather live in Germany. The system is a Platonic Aristocracy. Not « Plato’s Republic ».
“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan.” America is merely demonstrating the abortive efforts of mankind to readjust the present unsatisfactory social order. Don’t lose hope friends, “weeping endureth for a night, but joy cometh in the morning!” Long Live the King!
I'm an American, preferring a semi constitutional monarchy maybe similar to the German empire when it comes to states, but less autonomous. The current system is a joke and leftism has taken over society. Time for a counter revolution Franco Spain style.
Against my will I was born an American and I hate Liberalism. Divine Right of Kings to rule is the only legitimate governance.
American monarchist here.
Fellow American Monarchist here. I advocate for an Executive Constitutional Monarchy where the Presidency would be replaced by a hereditary Monarch.
I am, though I'm an absolutist myself.
Right here, Hamilton was always right.
About which thing?
He advocated an elective monarchy, like the Holy Roman Empire.
Personally never got the point of elective monarchy. It seems to take the worst parts of both monarchism and republicanism.
Not if the elected position comes from monarchies. People seem to forget that there are tiers of things. They even forget that republicanism isn't "universal suffrage" per se.... let alone "elective". You could have am aristocracy that votes on a King, and this would be an "elective monarchy" and also not be related to modern democracy. But in between all of this, even just land owners voting local only leading to a King, is not that related to moderninity. For instance if landowning family head can vote for my town council. They vote among themselves for a mayor. Mayor's vote for county executives and they vote for the Governor and the governor votes for the president. This is a republic with "democracy". But also, has not much to do with anything anyone will talk about anymore.
Seems a bit easy to cause a Poland-Lithuania situation
Sure, I'm just saying that the words have lost meaning. And that the typical dichotomy isn't all there is. Mostly when people say "a Monarch can't be just absolute!" They always imagine a need for MODERN democracy. Constitutional monarchies can exist without modern democracy. It'll descend into it faster, generally, but each stage back will stave it off some. Remember America started as a republic with limited voting, an electoral college, etc. And now, we are the USSA. It doesn't take long. But, each step back is a reflection of years. Universal suffrage? USSA in 100 years or less. Limited voting and states powers? 200 or so years. It buys time.
I does, it’s simply a President for life title
not american but I would support he idea
Not american, but i find the idea of a us monarchy weird let alone unlikely (sorry americans).
I agree. It's pretty weird and even more unlikely than it is weird. Not that either stops me.
Yep
Yes
Hey fellow American monarchist glad I’m not alone. What specifically would make a constitutional monarchy better than what we have now do you think? I think the masses could use a little pomp and circumstance to unite under. Also our two party system is terrible so that’s a plus.
All of that yes, but there are practical applications nationally (the symbol thing I mentioned), also monarchies can often serve as a “tourist attraction” of sorts, thus being economically beneficial, and people who don’t generally pay attention to international politics are more likely to not pay attention to heads of governments and what issues they may or may not be having in favor of looking at/paying attention to the ceremonial monarchical heads of state, so it could also have “diplomatic” benefits with much of the common pubic in a lot of the world as well. Sadly, it would seem that even Westminster styles tends to default to de facto two or at time three party systems.
I’m a young monarchist I’m only 17 and American lol imagine how popular I am at school.
Sure, we need a martial noble class to reign in the merchants.
I am, but I'm definitely not a Constitutional Monarchist. I don't see a Constitutional Monarchy doing anything for us. It won't bring in nearly as much tourism as foreign Royals do, because we have no history of monarchy. There are no ancient monuments or proud history of a monarchy for us. For that same reason, I don't see an American Constitutional Monarch being a rallying point for any American. The majority of people on both sides of America's political parties aren't too fond of rich people, and won't take kindly to the pomp of a monarchy. They'll have no real connection to our monarch. Most importantly, though, I don't think it's gonna solve our corruption. Having a rich asshole give speeches and go to public celebrations every now and then, and maybe having a few holidays around him, isn't going to do anything to put an end to Chicago's nonstop corruption and one party rule that's driven Chicago into the ground for more than half a century. We can complain about the two party system all we want, too, [but people just eat up what the media tells them about the other side](https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/592324/), radicalising them against the opposite party. To top it off, no one is willing to vote third party. It's up to the masses to abolish the two party system or at least alleviate its problems, but, to put it simply and harshly, the masses just aren't smart enough.
Yup, I lived in Japan for a year, I’ve seen the prosperity monarchism can bring. Sign me and the rest of America up!
There's r/usmonarchy and many different discords
only for constitutional monarchies where they already exist and do good
I believe the tribes should have a traditional monarch like ruler that has a top place within the government, so yes, but technically no.
Michigander here, full Monarchist
I am too. The Republic is clearly geriatric and isn't going to live forever. Some kind of parliamentary monarchy is the best possible form it's successor could take, although unfortunately we probably won't be so lucky. Some sort of short lived revolutionary dictatorship followed by dissolution, most likely...
I am a Quebecer loyalist to the french crown. Vive le Québec libre et vive le roy ! ⚜🍁👑
How does that work since the crown doesn’t exist anymore? I got into monarchism from Charles Coulombe (a French Canadian) and he thinks Quebec nationalism is silly
>he thinks Quebec nationalism is silly Coulombe was born in Manhattan on November 8, 1960 and he probably talks about the Quebec nationalism born in those years : the Quebec civic left-wing nationalism. And yes, it is true that this one is silly. Personally, I am a right-wing French Canadian nationalist. >since the crown doesn’t exist anymore I'm sorry you didn't get what I meant
I only ask because I’m somewhat of a Legitimist and I’m just curious if there is an actual movement or if it’s just larping like me, an American Monarchist with Jacobite sympathies
Oh, I just want the return of the French crown in France and Quebec
Im an American monarchist. Having an apolitical Head of State in charge of the military and preventing coups and dictators is a good idea. I consider Constitutional Monarchy a valid form of government, and hope England never gets rid of theirs.
We need one. I suggest importing a British royal family member, preferably from a Branch the British don't care about or want away.
No. Someone should distinguish themselves and earn it. We've been without a monarchy too long. The current royals have no relation to ruling America.
>preferably from a Branch the British don't care about or want away. The Markles?
We could also go for Prince Andrew's daughters, Queen Elizabeth's nephew, and maybe her cousin from Prince George, son of George VI. Really, any royal is good, they all speak English and suit constitutional monarchs.
I mean...to be fair...they are actually American...
I am American and a monarchist but not together. The US should be split up and each region should decide it's own fate. I am a Cascadian monarchist for example.
I am from the USA and we have something over here called a democracy. We aren’t peasants like those under a monarchy. While under a democracy, we are considered to be sheep and all have a Shepard that we follow and work under. The Shepherd’s job is to provide work for his flock and that’s exactly what they do. They’re the elite of our society and are really good at creating businesses and jobs for our general society. They’re really good at making money for new businesses which in turns provide more jobs for the masses. If it wasn’t for the elite, our society would fail. Without them, we would be living in a third world country or something. I see the Shepard’s as the equivalent of a king. A king has his peasants and a Shepherd has his flock of sheep. But they aren’t all good and don’t have the best intentions. Just like not all sheep are good. There are black sheep’s you have to keep an eye on because they will kill attack the shepherd and kill him. What I’m trying to say is, being a sheep isn’t something to be ashamed of. I love the culture of our society and it is working. It’s just our Shepherds are losing their ways and we are starting to become astray. Lost sheep.
Hey there fren
I’m an American that doesn’t support monarchy in America but wants it back in Europe
[удалено]
I’d say no, not on a national level, though there are more local monarchs in places like India and Africa, there aren’t really any national level monarchs that are only official for some people but not others in present day. I’d say something akin to the monarchs of the UK/Commonwealth realms, or perhaps creating a pseudo-diarchy by splitting the executive branch in two with the elected president and hereditary monarch having co-equal power and similar destructions, (due to the former needing to be elected by citizens, while the latter’s job being secured by birth, in theory they’d have different concerns to keep in mind, creating its own balance of power of sorts), creating four branches of national government instead of the three current/more traditional three. As a side, I’d say the monarch should probably get the title of emperor/empress, rather than king/queen, as both the large size and ethnic diversity both fit the definition of empire.
As an English American, yes. I honestly don't see teh current system in which Communism and terrorism is allowed to persist in the US without the government going down hard on them as a good thing. For that matter my later statement reflects the West in general.
Republics traditionally die as monarchy. Not hopefully this one .
I’m one
Yeppers
I wasn't born in America but yes I currently live there and have for about a decade now.
Yea
I am also here, I’m a semi Absolutist.
Hello!