There will never be an American Crown

He doesn't have enough of a pedigree to be respectable.

Above statement applies to a lot of "political dynasties."

Sounds pretty comfy but the elected Governor would just give his son power and when he dies, it transitions just like a hereditary monarchy.

> There will never be an American Crown
You guys are welcomed to return home.

What's Dom up to these days?

>You guys are welcomed to return home.
YO HOL UP

Prince Henry of Prussia, supposedly. Ben Franklin probably would've hung himself as he thought there were too many germans in america as it was.

Post kickass American monarchist heraldry.

>Who would be the royal family anyway?
I suppose that would depend upon how exactly the monarchy was established.
At the demands of a political movement? - Then the leader of that movement would be the natural choice.
At the behest of the military? - Then a popular general.

>Would it be male-preference primogeniture?
All of the best monarchies have been.

>What would be their roles in the American political system?
Appointing the head of the American military, dissolving a house should its current composition prove to be ineffective/unworkable, helping to determine foreign policy ect.

All of that said.
I would personally like to see an Imperial America, organised under a 'federal monarchy'.

>be monarchist

>be born in Am*rica

You mean to tell me we could have had our own Frederick the Great?

America is already filled with political dynasties though. The Bushes, Clintons, Roosevelts, Adams, Cheneys, Pauls and Trumps. You name them.

>letting new money anywhere near the monarchy
Absolutely plebian

The oldest of these families you listed is only some 400 to 500 years old. Habsburgs were able to breed super chinlets by that time. Also, Bill Clinton took his stepfather's name. He does not actually descend from the famous Clintons.

Ew, why would you want that

At absolute best Royal families are nothing but tourist attractions

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_scheme

It was something considered, but then we went "yeah let's not"

I laughed.

youtube.com/watch?v=VWpk4kdgQAM

just give it another seven years for someone to realize we need a second chief executive. Two executives, one selected by popular vote and the other by the electoral college. The popular executive would have less power than the elected executive, but operate in a similar manner.

This could be a possible solution to the problem of the increasing workload dropped on the POTUS. Kind of like the Romans having two consuls.

Why not just elect the king or queen like the Polish-Lithuanians used to do instead?

>Kind of like the Romans having two consuls.
I was about to bring that up before you mentioned it.

Personally what I think we should do is just install a king that's basically a figurehead for the people to care about, and replace congress with a parliamentary system where the head of the controlling party is PM.

>just install a king that's basically a figurehead for the people to care about, and replace congress with a parliamentary system where the head of the controlling party is PM.
We aren't Great Britain you know. Why would we need a PM when we have a President and a King? Congress is already super strong.

The king would take the place of the president as the guy the people actually give a shit about.

The Bonaparte.

Monarchy is superior because it reminds politicians that they have someone to answer to.

A long-serving monarch is also a valuable advisor to the changing political leaders.

They also act as the source of honours and government appointments, so they become less political (even when they are "on the advice of the PM")

>king would take the place of the president

nah. The President as executive is actually stronger than a King, and we don't need to depower the Executive branch so much as restructure it.

No you misunderstand me, I mean that people care far too much about who is president even though congress and the SC honestly means a lot more. In that case, why not just replace him with a figurehead?

We can bring in Hamilton's "Governor"

I actually think that the President and Vice-President should just be switched around.

President
>Head of the Senate
>Carries out head-of-state duties overseas

Vice President
>Leads cabinet
>Runs executive branch

Because the role of Commander in Chief is invaluable, centralization of power can be a real benefit.

Also, have you seen Congress lately? It's a shitshow, not ideal.

what?

kekd

See

That's what he said
>de-facto constitutional monarchy

>Because the role of Commander in Chief is invaluable, centralization of power can be a real benefit.

In the world wars we had a chosen Supreme Commander of all US forces. Clemenceau said that war is too important to be left to the generals, but I disagree. If we did leave war to the generals, the middle east problem would've ended long ago.

The problem with divorcing the military entirely from the politicians is you may end up with an Imperial Japan situation where the military is such an in-group that it acts independently of the government and does whatever it wants. There's already far too many soldiers in the US whose loyalty in combat is to their fellow troops and no one else.

Dangerously close to this atm, desu.

The Supreme Commanders were of combined Allied forces, and still are in NATO. Regardless, they still answered to the civilian leadership.

>One day having King Charls
Yeah, no, thanks.

Almost every monarchy was started by new money conquerors/usurpers.

Nah we're not there yet, mainly because the generation that remembers how we treated our soldiers returning from Vietnam aren't serving anymore. The current generation has had nothing but constant dick-sucking from the public, we support our troops now on a level that hasn't existed since WW2.

Not him but as much as I don't like Charles, he's the only legitimate potential heir that would be able to do the job and not crash the whole monarchy into the ground.

I hope he'll immediately declare William his regent and never bother with a real coronation.

The Bonapartes. Nappy should have left for America after being exiled to Elba, to be honest. Leave yuropoor bullshit behind.

Can we just AI instead?

He is our Princeps not our Dominus.

Only if we can kill the AI king and replace him with a new one if he fucks up too much.

>you will never see the republic function as it was intended
Just kill me

>>be monarchist
>>be born in Am*rica

Could be worse - you could actually be an Emperor born in America.

youtube.com/watch?v=oNK655iUtr0

>Brittany
>part of the UK
American education

Yeah and what if he gets hacked?

>wanting to be someone's subject and not a citizen
>wanting to have your rights granted to you by someone rather than being born with rights inherent and inalienable to your person
Top cuck

In practice Democratic Constitutional Monarchies and Democratic Republics aren't that disimilar, but the source of their rights is different. I couldn't live with myself thinking I was legally someone's property tbqh

Modern Constitutional Monarchies are such in name only. If Queen Elizabeth every tried to act like she was more than a living museum exhibit she would quickly have to abdicate due to "health concerns" and we'd have a King Charles. Britain is a republic where everyone is in on the joke with the royals.

Yeah I understand that, in practice it is the same thing... but the normative legal source of everything in British law is technically the Queen.

In theory, if she wanted, tomorrow she could wake up in a bad mood and abolish the rights of all Britons - The monarchy "granted" the people their rights, they are not inalienable to them. Of course in practice this would lead to the end of the monarchy so it will never happen.

But it doesn't change the fact that legally the British are still subjects, ruled by a sovereign under her divine right granted by God.

The practical implications are the same and the differences cosmetic. But still, of given the choice between two democracies I would choose the republic.

I sleep better knowing my rights are mine alone and it is not written somewhere that they were granted by the grace of some monarch.

>kilt
>breton
my sides

...

>>wanting to be someone's subject and not a citizen
>>wanting to have your rights granted to you by someone rather than being born with rights inherent and inalienable to your person
that's quite the implication there

He is lowborn, New Money trash. He's only the second generation in his family to be born in America. It should at least be a WASP East Coast family with deep roots in America, like one of the Boston Brahmins or the Virginia Tidewater planter families.

>ITT: LARPing Americans
There's nothing special about living in a monarchy. This thread is cringey as fuck

We have something even better...

IIRC he wanted to.

>I couldn't live with myself thinking I was legally someone's property tbqh
>Whig_history.jpg

You were subject to the realm.

The Monarch isn't just one man, it's a fucking institution. There's a reason why they're big on continuity and shit like European Kings having repeating names or Chinese emperors named after the defining quality of their reign.

George was too nice of a guy, besides, he didn't want to be associated with that "other" George.

His compatriots would not have it even if he wanted to. And since they were all indoctrinated by the Enlightenment to think monarchy was bullshit it wasn't happening.

If we're going to be silly and go off technicaility then our real ruler is god.

>god
>real

Christ this is cringy.

Philosopher King Artifical Intelligence when

Who is this guy and why hasn't he cummed on my face yet?

Forefathers are rolling in their graves

...

You can do better. He's drinking Bud Light, for Christ's sake.

The Elective monarchy led to it's downfall. Russia began to bribe the nobles to elect a pro-Russian king and this led to internal instability allowing Prussia, Austria and Russia to take chunks of land without much protest.

Is it really all that surprising that there's an overlap between monarchists/trumpcucks and 40k faggots?

The royal house of Eisenhower would act similarly to how the executive branch works in our current system. The king would appoint ministers of state and reserve the right to veto legislation.

>tfw the Hawaiian monarchy was overthrown
>tfw they never united with Samoa and other islands creating a pacific micro Empire
>tfw you'll never be a knight of kamahameha or win a kamahameha cross in service of the crown

King David is my Kingfu; smart, world traveler and dedicated to saving his people and culture. I still wont eat Dole fruit for their role in the coup.

Should've been the Lees of Virginia. The most noble of all the Americans.

Wasn't Washington popular enough that he could have even become king or was it even proposed by some?

American royalty is like Ugandan science. Technically it could exist but it would make you shit your pants with laughter when someone tells you about it.

>Yeah and what if he gets hacked?

The president is "hacked" so it's not like that's a difference.

Not at all. Washingtons can trace their lineage as manorial lords in medieval England.

Yup. But he wanted (((democracy))) like an idiot.

Its literally word games youre playing. As people have pointed out in other threads citizenship is meaningless in our socalled """"democracies"""". In practice were no different than sibjects to rules and laws created by our elite oligarchic superiors who have made our laws and who wield the monopoly on violent force to crush us at their will. The idea of citizenship is a fucking joke considering hpw we place such faith in a toothless concept