How would you set up a Monarchy in America?

Monarchy is obviously the ideal system of government, so how would you make it?
Pic related is my idea

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gx5i1J4qQXo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>monarchy
monarchists aren't traditionalist they're cocksuckers of the nobility

Beyonce as queen, Jay-Z as prince consort

Noble houses setup an electorate to vote a grand Duke from all the regional dukes. Seneschal's guide each house.

So...what happens if the King of say, California inherits the Kingdom of Nevada? Whilst I support Constitutional Monarchism, I would never support it in a nation that never had a Monarchy or rejected an Imperial ruler (Czech Republic etc).

>Czechia never had a monarchy
Get the fuck out

>Monarchy is obviously the ideal system of government, so how would you make it?
I already am the King - the Abrahamic fantasy world has been cancelled due to developments in reality.

youtube.com/watch?v=gx5i1J4qQXo

We already have a King, we don't need another. For what purpose would we need a tainted king?

Remember Jesus is called the King of Kings, not the King of Presidents

>"So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day."
I'm not saying Presidents are any different, they're basically the equivalent of kings, but there's nothing Biblical supporting the idea that monarchies are the most Christian type of Earthly governance.

>this is your brain on libertarianism
Romans 13:1-6

I'd legitimately rather kill whoever gets appointed the count because shit's terrible enough as it is.

>"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing."
You realize this covers Presidents as well, right? It says "governing authorities" and "rulers", not kings.

This is literally contemporary politics, not history, why the fuck is this here. Idiotic politics that are totally divorced from reality but STILL NOT FUCKING HISTORY, not even & Humanities.

One should take with salt the words of the one so late on the bandwagon who snatched the reigns. All Jesus said was to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

Muh humanities

The House of Representatives functions like OTL, where there are a number of elected Representatives proportional to each state's population who create laws, manage committees, and can veto signed laws. Representatives are elected to 2-year terms with no term limits.

The House of Lords, however, is more complex. It has 2 people from each state, a Senator (appointed by the governor) and a Lord, whose title is usually hereditary (laws of succession vary on the state level). Also present are 7 Senators and Lord-Governor of the American Territories, 6 bishops (3 Anglican, 1 Catholic, 1 Baptist, 1 Presbyterian), and the Lord Chancellor, appointed by the King. The HoL mostly acts as a rubber stamp on laws passed by the HoR, but they're the ones responsible for electing a king.

The King is elected by all sitting members of the HoL through simple majority, with a minimum vote requirement of 47 votes. If the minimum requirement is not reached, then the next round eliminates all candidates with ten votes or fewer (or the single lowest-supported candidate if all have above ten votes). If no candidate is elected within a year of the announcement of the King's death by the Lord Chancellor, then succession immediately falls to a designated heir appointed by the previous king upon his election. There have been a few cases of kings naming unpopular heirs to encourage a speedy election for his successor.

The King must be male, at least 35 years old, a citizen by virtue of territory (i.e., born on American soil or a citizen of a land annexed by the US), a baptized Trinitarian Christian (previously only Episcopal, but expanded by the 12th amendment), and not in the line of succession for a foreign throne. Upon ascendancy, he must renounce all other held titles, domestic and foreign (including American titles above a knighthood). He is elected for a 20 year term, with no term limits. A king can abdicate to his heir, and an election happens in the next 5-year interval.

You dont America and Monarchy are mutually exclusive.

nope, doesnt work.
we tried for so many time,
doesnt work

It's already an Elected Monarchy

>SPQA
>for a monarchy replacing a republic
LAFAYETTE
GET THE GUILLOTINE

Just let people secede, many little monarchies, republics, communes, et cetera will spring up.
The free market of countries would determine the best system.

You used to have one

I'd be down with this, however Id propose we choose the original Counts Kings and Emperors via election, then it becomes hereditary from there.

>how hard would it be to install a monarchy in a country founded by a revolution against a monarchy
The absolute state of monarchists.

Wasn't Lafayette a nobleman and moderate monarchist who helped the American Revolution mainly to avenge his father who died in the Seven Years War ?

pretty simple, the system is already in place

Until they're all conquered by the militaristic dictatorship

>anglo autism

>Monarchy is obviously the ideal system of government, so how would you make it?
If we take the lessons of the last continent-straddling republic formed out of a revolution against monarchy, it would have to be a principate; a de facto monarchy which maintains the outward semblance of a democracy, but where the elections are relegated to mere empty symbolism, and a monarch who is the majority shareholder of the economy pulls strings from behind the curtain while insisting to his subjects that they are still free men, and he is merely protecting the old ways from the scourge of progress

Indeed, but it was this guy

Th entire point is it’s not democracy. Fuck Democracy.

you dont. fuck off monarcuck

Praise the dear leader!

What’s the point of democracy when Israel controls everything?

What makes you think economic expropriation feels any better when it's a domestic tyrant who doesn't even pretend to care about anything or anyone but the status quo propping him up?

Step one: DON'T CALL IT MONARCHY. The Roman Emperors had the right idea, they had all the trappings of a monarchy but they weren't kings, merely "leaders".
Step two: Don't call it a Presidency, either. Hereditary presidencies can exist, but the very word itself suggests some kind of election, using it is asking for trouble.

What you want is to de-power existing institutions and transfer their powers to new institutions that you directly control. Then it doesn't matter of the Congress and Senate still exist, just as the Roman senate was powerless to oppose the Caesars. Disbanding these institutions is a terrible mistake, their leaders will immediately become the "legitimate" authority in the eyes of many, and your opponents will have a clear path to de-throne you. Instead, weaken these institutions and corrupt them, people won't be fooled into thinking they still live in a democracy but your regime will benefit from the figleaf of respectability and your enemies will have no obvious "go to" to lead a resistance,and will b e forced to adopt a truly revolutionary agenda that will put off many potential supporters.

Also this should be a LONG, SLOW administrative process, spanning years or decades of incremental legislation. Any new regime that is installed via a single revolution can be removed via a single counter-revolution, but if you slowly throttle democracy via the law, it is your enemies who will be forced to adopt the mantle of revolutionaries, while you can benefit from being the "status quo guy".

On a gallow.

This is History. Just Future History

...

No.

You could solve that easily enough if the kingship of a state is not a hereditary title, but passes through elective succession.

When the old king dies, the counts of the state gather and elect one of their number to become the new king.

That's basically the electoral college, since that institution is not technically bound to the will of the people.

Except the new King has to be one of the Counts.
It would be similar to the HRE system.

With Patrilineal Successoin that isn't possible. Unless the King of California and the King of Nevada plan on creating a child.

Bump

>leader has limited authority over the nation
TYRANNY HELP!

>The free market of countries would determine the best system.
>fucking libertarian geopolitics

Bohemia was in the modern Czech republic and was a monarchy in medieval europe.

>Monarchy is obviously the ideal system of government

It is