How Long before the USA Republic falls into Monarchy?

[spittle]

If history has taught us anything it is that Republics always evolve into systems with Monarchs/Emperors.

 

How long before America accepts this painful truth and re-instates English Monarchs has their head of state?

[M. Porcius Cato]

You must be drunk. An English monarch in the US is about as likely as an Etruscan one coming to rule Italy or a Druid re-establishing rule over England.

Edited November 23, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[spittle]

Well, maybe not English Monarchs, or even a Monarch at all. But what about a President taking ultimate power for himself? Refusing to stand down.......I imagine Reagan or F D R could have had a chance if they had wished.

 

Arnold Swarzennegger. First Emperor of USA ?

 

Hilary Clinton. Servilia the Younger?

 

Condy Rice. Todays Cleopatra?

[The Augusta]

You must be drunk. An English monarch in the US is about as likely as an Etruscan one coming to rule Italy or a Druid re-establishing rule over England.

 

I doubt that there'll be an English monarch in England beyond our present queen, Cato. She is the last of a dying breed. Actually, the thought of a monarch ruling the US makes me chuckle to myself by its sheer absurdity.

 

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

[Rameses the Great]

A mocarchy in America? My friend the objective of the Constitution, supreme law of the land, is to prevent this from happening. No tyrant will take over as emperor the president dos not have that much power. The federal army would be in there before the guy even has a prayer!

[Ursus]

In some parts of what is charmingly known as the "Bible Belt" there are people who would set up a Protestant Theocracy if they could.

[Lost_Warrior]

The government is slowly eating away at the ideals of the Constitution. The "beauty" of the Constitution is that it is so mutable. A double edged sword. And if the government decides to, they can simply through it out. It won't be popular, but if they all agree, or some use force, it can happen. The actual Constitution cannot fight back; only if it is upheld does it actually have power.

 

How many of us follow the Twelve Tables today?

[Primus Pilus]

There will be no monarch of the United States of America. If that were to happen, the afore-mentioned entity would cease to exist.

[Lost_Warrior]

Good point.

[phil25]

Monarchy is surely simply a type of government - usually rule by one person which is hereditary (though many monarchies have, or have had elective elements - it still remains within the English coronation service).

 

There are many names for "kings - ricon ard-righ, Tsar, emperor, Kaiser, Caesar, rex, roi - to name but a few. A man or woman "called" president, could still effectively be a monarch.

 

Indeed, the current US presidency has many monarchical features and in the Nixon-era the term "imperial presidency" was widely used. Are there now also "dynasties" already present in the elective post - the Bushs, Kennedys and Roosevelts spring to mind.

 

England has had a monarchy for over 1,000 years, if you treat the coronation of Edgar in 971 as a staring point. In that time, our unwritten "constitution" has changed many times - there have been periods when kings have ruled absolutely and when they have been cyphers, even a time when there was no "king" at all, but a Lord Protector who was offered a crown!!

 

My point is that in the next 1,000 years the US could see many changes in its Government, even should it last so long as an independent country or a single unit - it has already had one civil war.

 

Who can predict what changes may be welcomed in the circumstances of the future - after all only 60 years or so ago , the US decided to limit how many terms a president could serve. A future demagogue might seek and gain additional powers which would be granted almost by applause because of the times in which he presents himself to the people. Napoleon confirmed his absolute power by plebisicte, so did Hitler.

 

Who can predict what military coups, internal problems, external threats, demographic trends or natural disasters (I recognise of course that the US does not regard climate change as real) will bring political change in their wake, and that the result might not be something politically close to "monarchy" though deliberately called something else.

 

Up to the mid C19th, terms like king and emperor were often assumed by rulers of new states. Since the same period, terms like Chairman, President-for-life etc have been fashionable. But what's the difference?

 

Caesar recognised that the term king/rex was anathema to the Romans, so he used Dictator for life, but was he not effectively a king? Octavian found a new term - his honorofic name, Augustus, or was referred to as first citizen - but was he not a king in effect?

 

A wise reader of history will look at the stories and political development of countries of long-standing - France, the Italian states, the German states, the constituent parts of the UK - or older examples, dynastic Egypt, Rome itself - and recognise that huge changes took place in political relationships, names and titles, and the balance of power in those states. The USA is not, and will not be IMMUNE to that process, IMHO.

 

An inauguration can become a coronation with little change, and it does not require crowns or chrism to do it. It requires a person with political will and the right backing, and circumstances that make it appropriate.

 

All that said, I reject any idea that a british monarch will ever sit on an American throne again.

 

And Augusta, I think the UK will have a monarchy for some generations to come. The danger point will be when there is a consensus as to what should replace it. There is none today. George VII (as I believe Charles wishes to be known) will be a good king rather like Edward VII - but will probably NOT be Head of the Commonwealth or monarch of many of the old Dominions (though Canada and New Zealand might still recognise him as Head of State). William will follow him (unless we have an unexpected political revolution). We cannot reform the House of Lords with a clear view, let alone decide on wider constitutional changes.

 

But that the territory now called the USA could, over the next 1,000 years, become (by evolution, revolutioon, coup or accident) effectively a monarchy is, I believe, wholly within the bounds of reasonable probability.

 

Phil

[Guest poetoftheLord3]

If history has taught us anything it is that Republics always evolve into systems with Monarchs/Emperors.

 

How long before America accepts this painful truth and re-instates English Monarchs has their head of state?

The republicans are trying their best to create aone party govt. like all the great nations Russia,China,Nazi Germany , ha-ha , seriously they have done this redistricing ie in Texas. The scary thing is that Bush can declare martial law and try to suspend elections. Some of the things the reps. in passing certain laws is very similar to Nazi Germany and the ignorance of Americans is allowing them, just to feel safer! Monarchy is less likely than a military dictatorship.

[Germanicus]

And Augusta, I think the UK will have a monarchy for some generations to come. The danger point will be when there is a consensus as to what should replace it. There is none today. George VII (as I believe Charles wishes to be known) will be a good king rather like Edward VII - but will probably NOT be Head of the Commonwealth or monarch of many of the old Dominions (though Canada and New Zealand might still recognise him as Head of State). William will follow him (unless we have an unexpected political revolution). We cannot reform the House of Lords with a clear view, let alone decide on wider constitutional changes.

 

I'm curious. The Governor General in Australia is our head of state, appointed by the Queen, he's a rubber stamper these days, and weilds zero power. In your own constitutional monarchy, what does the queen actually do in terms of government, besides open parliament etc ?

 

PS- Your right on Charles - I predict Australia becomes a Republic when the Queen falls off the perch.

[Titus001]

well it wont matter if we fall into monarchy b/c things would not change since we would still have a few number of people ruling over the people.

Edited November 24, 2006 by Titus001

[M. Porcius Cato]

Whether republicanism will rescue Britain from an anachronism like Charles is an open question, but apparently it's one that has long frightened the legions of royal boot-lickers. So much so, in fact, that they passed the 1848 Treason Felony Act, which makes it "a criminal offence, punishable by life imprisonment, to advocate abolition of the monarchy in print, even by peaceful means." This law remains on the books in Britain to this very day, and when the Guardian began its 2000 push for the republic, it was forced to seek an official declaration from the government that it would not be liable to private prosecution under the Act. Unbelievably, the attorney general refused to issue such a statement!

 

If there is an intellectual, principled case that can be made for the monarchy, then it must be a very flimsy case indeed--a case so poor that it requires special government protection from its intellectual competition.

 

BTW, I agree with Phil that Charles will be a fantastic king--Britain surely needs someone to remind the British public that modern architecture is a scourge, that the meritocratic goals of public education are worse than the hereditary class system that puts a genius like him on the crown, and that cancer is best cured with coffee enemas. With this kind of monarch, Charles will truly fulfill his duty of proving once and for all that monarchy is a system by which in-bred fools govern their intellectual superiors (which in his case would be anyone who passed his O-level maths).

Edited November 24, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[The Augusta]

Call it feminine intuition - but indulge me. Charles will never rule England. This has nothing to do with whether we keep the monarchy or not. His mother will outlive him. He is 58 years old already, you know, and Elizabeth, even if she does not have quite the robust constitution of her mother, is still showing no signs of real frailty. Nor will she ever abdicate; nor would she accept a Regent. Even if she only goes on for another 10 years, Charles would be almost 70. Few Windsor men have lived to a great age.