Hello, as it says in the title, the question today is other than the childless, cliche George Washington, who would have been a good candidate to head an American monarchy? Maybe someone from a prominent family with some war recognition like the Lee family? Or could another successful general potential steal the fame from Washington and accept monarchism in America?
American Kings other than Washington
- Thread starter Prussian1871
- Start date
The French might want to put one of their minor branches on the throne for helping out the revolutionaries with guns and troops. However it will have to be a figure that is still palatable to the English, Spanish and the Austrians unless you want the War of Spanish Succession/French and Indian war all over again. Although a more romantic me would favor Marquis de La Fayette, it would be more likely that he would stay on as general, kingmaker and diplomat while the title goes to some minor German or even Polish prince with blood ties to the French royal family. I am no expert on royal houses, especially the ones before the French revolution. So I'm just throwing out some wild guess: Isn't there still a former Scottish prince around somewhere? I think the last of the Stuarts could be acceptable to both the English and the French as well as to many Americans themselves.
I had an idea for the USA as an elective monarchy similar to Rome durring the pre-Republic period. After all, OTL's US constitution was heavily inspired by ancient Rome anyway. In this model the King of the Americans has all the same powers as OTL's president, but a life mandate. He reigns until he dies, abdicates or is impeached, then an Interrex, selected by some method stipulated in the constitution, rules as acting king until a new king is elected and crowned. Rinse and repeat.
I was thinking more like an American president with a life mandate and crown, but if that helps then fine. The big difference from a European elective monarchy would be that the king would come from congress, rather than a noble class.
On another note: What is the difference between having a prince as a ruler and having a king. I know the HRE had a good deal of principalities that were ruled by princes, many of them even 'elected' by some sort of council. And then there is of course the Pricebishopry of Liege (still around until 1790...) where the council of clergymen selects the new bishop and then the council of noblemen affirms this person as their prince. I don't know the details, but it seems to me that the requirements for becomming a prince are a bit less strict then for a king, so may be the 13 colonies could become an elective princedom rather then an elective kingdom.
Just an idea, but perhaps limit who can be elected King to the descendants of the founding fathers. Such a limitation could work when we consider that the Senators were elected by the state legislatures and that most of the founding fathers were already the American equivalent of gentry to begin with. Plus it would make more sense, the monarchy being more exclusive I mean.
I HATE that idea! Way to European. What's the point in even having a revolution if you're just going to hand the reigns of power back to an inbred elite? (Give it a few generations and such a system will produce family trees that make the Hapsburgs and Rothschilds look simple) I perfer the idea of titles of nobility going to elected officals (Lord Senator, Lord Representive etc) and being non-herditary, and the King being elected from amoung them. In America anyone can grow up to be King.
The founders were already quite anti-populist (or elitist, depending on how you look at things) as evidenced by the electoral college, senatorial elections through state legislatures, vetoes and the powerful Supreme Court. It was all designed precisely so that not anybody can grow up to be President, or at least not any populist.
If they're going for a monarchy, what makes you think they'll be moving to a more democratic system at the same time? I see two options: symbolic (hereditary/elected) or powerful (probably not hereditary). Probably have the monarch be crowned by both houses of congress, with the voters either getting to confirm a set of options presented by congress, or being cut out of the monarch selection system and voting for representatives and their state legislatures instead.
If it were hereditary, no idea who they'd seriously consider. A European would definitely be a symbolic/ceremonial monarch filling out the role of Head of State. Maybe they'd let it be hereditary with an American monarch, but with significant fetters on their powers and a recall mechanism for when/if the dynasty becomes unpopular/dies out/succession crisis.
I actually had an idea for an elective American Monarchy. I've even wrote up a list of monarchs.
- King Benjamin the 1st. (1790-1800)
- King Thomas the 1st. (1800-1827)
- King (later Emperor) Andrew the 1st. (1828-1850)
- Emperor Winfield the 1st. (1850-1863)
- Emperor John the 1st. (1864-1900)
- Emperor Theodore the 1st. (1900-1925)
- Empress Alice the 1st. (1925-1980)
Principalities are smaller than kingdoms, and a prince may be subordinate to a king/emperor, though not always.
If the United States were a monarchy it'd be a kingdom. It's much too large to be a humble principality.
I think only Catholics or states in the Holy Roman Empire had any obstacles (other than
if you were way too small) to simply creating a Royal crown for themselves. So yeah, no reason for the US to limit itself to being a prince, they'd definitely go Royal. Probably not Imperial though.