The United States is a constitutional monarchy

[Mark Rand]

I've come up with another thread based on the history changing Kulan Gath did in the Marvel Universe.

 

This time, the United States became a constitutional monarchy after the Revolutionary War. This gave us a royal family, orders of knights, a peerage, an appointed House of Lords, and an elected Prime Minister and House of Commons.

 

Comments, questions, ideas?

[Guest Major Tom]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

Hmmm... sounds like your setting has a lot in common with the "Cornwallis"

world setting from GURPS Alternate Earths 2.

 

 

Major Tom

[Mark Rand]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

Hmmm... sounds like your setting has a lot in common with the "Cornwallis"

world setting from GURPS Alternate Earths 2.

 

 

Major Tom

 

Never read that book.

[L. Marcus]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

. . . Who would the Founding Fathers have made king? Some surplus european royalty -- maybe a Frenchman? One of their own -- HRM George I Washington?

[Hermit]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

George Washington had more than one officer suggest he should be king if I recall my history correctly. At least one did so in a letter. Washington's response was basically tell the officer no, and to never ever suggest such a thing again. Washington also kept his own troops from basically performing a military coup. Once elected president, he set the standard of two terms and chose to retire instead. The only way George Washington would, imo, have become King is if he were of a profoundly different character, or things had lined up so that he was essentially forced into the job (as in, this new country can ONLY exist as a monarchy) and the continental congress had gone MUCH diferently.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

But if a different kind of man had followed Washington in rulership, matters might have turned out differently. In many ways the President is equivalent to an "elected king" with constitutionally-proscribed powers.

 

Look at how Julius Caesar gained power as "imperator." The title and powers were conferred by the Roman Senate, supposedly for a limited term at first. Later Emperors chose their own successors, but had the Senate "rubber stamp" their choice for the sake of appearance and tradition. Let an early American President have the popularity to hold office for life, and start a dynasty, and you'd have a de facto monarchy.

[Vondy]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

You could just go with no term limits and FDR surviving another 10 years (and two and a half terms) - leading to an acceptance of long-term leaders and the establishment of the idea of a non-hereditary President for Life with certain constitutional checks allowing his removal under limited circumstances. Its odd and it would require some tweaking, but its one way to go. Of course, there are problems with it being FDR. What if lincoln hadn't been assassinated and had served several terms leading to the same change, or an appointment for life? Or you could do it with Washington if you want the change to occur very early on. In fact, those changes would be much easier early on based on electoral differences in the early system.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

Some changes in the course of the Revolution could (in a speculative, fantasy sense) effect the changes desired.

 

Say...that noble soul Washington being killed early on, or even before the Revolution itself, back during the French and Indian War. The way is then clear for another skilled general to become pre-eminent, someone more ambitious, someone like...Benedict Arnold. Perhaps...Washington killed, Horatio Gates called to take over Washington's troops, leaving Arnold unencumbered by Gates. Arnold wins even bigger at Saratoga and this time actually gets the credit. A few more victories and soon he's the overall Continental commander. After the war and the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the nation looked for stability and a saviour - and Emperor Benedict I (the Great) was happy to oblige.

[Hermit]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

Some changes in the course of the Revolution could (in a speculative, fantasy sense) effect the changes desired.

 

Say...that noble soul Washington being killed early on, or even before the Revolution itself, back during the French and Indian War. The way is then clear for another skilled general to become pre-eminent, someone more ambitious, someone like...Benedict Arnold. Perhaps...Washington killed, Horatio Gates called to take over Washington's troops, leaving Arnold unencumbered by Gates. Arnold wins even bigger at Saratoga and this time actually gets the credit. A few more victories and soon he's the overall Continental commander. After the war and the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the nation looked for stability and a saviour - and Emperor Arnold I (the Great) was happy to oblige.

 

Smoothly done there, SS

[L. Marcus]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

. . . What about Emperor Norton? What if his dissolution of Congress had actually been obeyed?

[wylodmayer]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

Making the United States a Constitutional Monarchy after the Revolution would already assume that not just Washington, but many if not virtually all of the founders were of PROFOUNDLY different character, so if you're already making THAT change, I don't see a problem in setting up George I as King of America. However, if you really can't see casting the profoundly humble Washington in that role, try Aaron Burr, Jr. He had the hubris and the aristocratic attitude, as well as the keen mind and nearly limitless ambition, to be king.

 

Interestingly, this might have spared his daughter her untimely death, and actually brought about women's lib, in one form or another, much earlier. Burr's daughter, whose name escapes me just now, was a brilliant woman that in our day would likely have been a respected scholar; Burr encouraged her academic pursuits fully. In real history, she wound up married to a drunken, abusive man of money and died, tragically, in a sailing accident off the Carolina coast. As the Princess of America, however... perhaps she would one day ascend to the throne, beating out Victoria to become the second of the great female monarchs in English speaking history. As a result, we might have gotten a greater measure of equality for men and women a full century before we actually did.

 

Furthermore, it would have probably spelled the end of slavery. Burr opposed it not just personally, but actively in politics - he was one of the earliest American political figures to court the support of free blacks. While the Southern states would have almost certainly been upset by this disruption to their economic system, if in fact they acquiesced to making Burr a monarch, we might imagine that they would obey his decree (I believe but am not certain - memory is a tricky thing - that Burr was in favor of compensation for slave owners, so they wouldn't have come away empty handed). There is some possibility that if the monarchy was a constitutional one that the issue would have been set "off the books," much as it was in the actual constitutional debates in 1787, and if you choose to take that route, you might even still have had a Civil War as the issue finally came to head - except this time, it would be between Northern royalists (Burr was Northern man through and through, and his royal city would probably have been New York) and rural gentry of the South, far removed from the seat of royal power and used to doing things their own way.

 

Or you reverse it - assume that at some point, Burr's line died out and the throne was claimed by a Southerner whose strings were being pulled by a military commander of mean birth named Jackson (who was called "King Andrew" by his detractors during his Presidency for his broad view of executive power). Under Jackson's influence, the new, Southern King pressures Northern peers into accepting Fugitive Slave laws that apply to their demenses, against their wishes. Later, the new Southern dynasty pushes to repudiate the Compromise of 1840 (wherein an informal meeting of the peers struck a gentleman's agreement to leave new, Southern territories acquired as slaveholding fiefs and Northern ones as free areas) by granting several prominent pro-slavery Dukes and Barons fiefs in the newly acquired Northern territories. Eventually, it builds to a conflict between the King's loyalists and a coalition of northern moneymen and peers led by Baron Seward of New York, carrying on what he sees as the legacy of King Aaron.

 

There's a lot of fun possibilities to it, especially if one considers that Constitutional Monarchy was fairly, but not completely, well established in that day and age. Assume that after the Revolution, England's King George manages to browbeat Parliament and greatly expands the power of the throne, making it more like the monarchs of old. Assume that in the age of Jackson, the Parliament's power becomes severely checked and the constitution rendered a hollow document as well, and the two English speaking monarchies drift toward a more authoritarian position. Perhaps France's monarchs survived, with no American republican example to inspire the sans-culottes, or maybe France is the only truly representative gov't on Earth. Indeed, perhaps the few American founders with republican leanings fled to France and helped brew their revolution, their leadership and vision curbing the excesses of the Terror and preventing the French Revolution from devouring its own children. This would mean no Napoleon, but a stable democracy counterpoised by two monarchies growing ever less constitutional.

 

There are all kinds of implications. Perhaps Germany and Italy take their cues from England and America, not France, and have a weak and ineffectual Parliament with a powerful heriditary leader. If the position of Prime Minister/Chancellor turned out, in fact, to be a nugatory one in those countries, then they would have been safe from fascist overthrow in the thirties - both Mussolini and Hitler maneuvered their way to power via the PM/Chanc. post. Certainly, the over throw of the Tsar by Bolshevik revolutionaries in the early part of the 20th century would have frightened the remaining monarchs into tightening their grip even further, so merely saving Europe from fascism would not necessarily save it from totalitarianism. Indeed, France might have welcomed another putatively republican body (the Communists made a pretense of elections and representative gov't, after all) onto the world stage. And WWII might have still happened as the jumpy Austro-German Empire started trying to grab Eastern Eurpoean countries before the Franco-Russian revolutionary spirit "infected" them... leading to an alliance of England, Germany and Italy against France and Russia!

 

I need to stop before I wade too far into this. The possibilities are endless.

[Mark Rand]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

Making the United States a Constitutional Monarchy after the Revolution would already assume that not just Washington, but many if not virtually all of the founders were of PROFOUNDLY different character, so if you're already making THAT change, I don't see a problem in setting up George I as King of America. However, if you really can't see casting the profoundly humble Washington in that role, try Aaron Burr, Jr. He had the hubris and the aristocratic attitude, as well as the keen mind and nearly limitless ambition, to be king.

 

Interestingly, this might have spared his daughter her untimely death, and actually brought about women's lib, in one form or another, much earlier. Burr's daughter, whose name escapes me just now, was a brilliant woman that in our day would likely have been a respected scholar; Burr encouraged her academic pursuits fully. In real history, she wound up married to a drunken, abusive man of money and died, tragically, in a sailing accident off the Carolina coast. As the Princess of America, however... perhaps she would one day ascend to the throne, beating out Victoria to become the second of the great female monarchs in English speaking history. As a result, we might have gotten a greater measure of equality for men and women a full century before we actually did.

 

Furthermore, it would have probably spelled the end of slavery. Burr opposed it not just personally, but actively in politics - he was one of the earliest American political figures to court the support of free blacks. While the Southern states would have almost certainly been upset by this disruption to their economic system, if in fact they acquiesced to making Burr a monarch, we might imagine that they would obey his decree (I believe but am not certain - memory is a tricky thing - that Burr was in favor of compensation for slave owners, so they wouldn't have come away empty handed). There is some possibility that if the monarchy was a constitutional one that the issue would have been set "off the books," much as it was in the actual constitutional debates in 1787, and if you choose to take that route, you might even still have had a Civil War as the issue finally came to head - except this time, it would be between Northern royalists (Burr was Northern man through and through, and his royal city would probably have been New York) and rural gentry of the South, far removed from the seat of royal power and used to doing things their own way. QUOTE]

 

I like having Aaron Burr as the first king. Oh, his daughter's name, according to the Wikipedia, was Theodosia, as was his first wife's.

[Vestnik]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

Certainly, the over throw of the Tsar by Bolshevik revolutionaries in the early part of the 20th century would have frightened the remaining monarchs into tightening their grip even further, so merely saving Europe from fascism would not necessarily save it from totalitarianism.

 

 

 

Just to nitpick (sorry), the Bolsheviks did not overthrow the Tsar -- he had already abdicated when they seized power. The Tsar was overthrown in the Frebruary Revolution, and the Bolsheviks came into power in November (by the calendar used in Russia at that time).

[wylodmayer]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

Just to nitpick (sorry)' date=' the Bolsheviks did not overthrow the Tsar -- he had already abdicated when they seized power. The Tsar was overthrown in the Frebruary Revolution, and the Bolsheviks came into power in November (by the calendar used in Russia at that time).[/quote']

 

 

No, no - pick away! You're right, of course - working from memory has its dangers. Mind you, the Bolshevik coup would still be seen as a threat, regardless. But, thanks for the correction. I love fellow history buffs.

[Sundog]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

As an alternative: Make the colonies a constitutional monarchy without a revolutionary war.

 

Consider this scenario: Charles the First fights the English Civil War, and as in our timeline, loses. However, he flees from the victorious Roundheads by ship, taking what's left of the treasury and his army to the British colonies in the New World.

 

Once there, he finds he does not have the force to command the colonials to obedience. However, wily colonial leaders see this as a great chance. They make a proposal to the near-broken King: Form a new government here. Make us your new Dukes and Barons. We won't support an absolute monarch, but we've drawn up an agreement we can both live with. Sign it, and we can be your loyal subjects, and you will be King again

 

Now, Charles the First was a believer in the divine right of Kings, and not a very good general, but he wasn't entirely stupid. He might well accept such a proposal, figuring he can always renege later.

 

Unfortunately, he doesn't get the chance. Once Cromwell has the country under his thumb, he sends an expeditionary force to retrieve Charles and restore the colonies to English rule.

 

The expedition fails, but Charles the First, Emperor of the Americas, is killed in the fighting.

 

Charles II steps up. Without the years of debauchery and bad influence he got on the continent in our timeline, he proves to be an amiable, not too smart Emperor. The Congress of Assembled Nobles does most of the ruling.

 

The American Empire stretches it's way across the continent. New France proves an occasionally fractious neighbour to the North, but things eventually settle down. The French Monarchy and the American Monarchy intermarry, and Republican Britain becomes a small, resentful bit player in world politics.

[Basil]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

Alexander Hamilton is another possibility. Ambitious, greedy, none too scrupulous. Rather like Aaron Burr, in many ways.

 

Then again, if the Battle of the Plain of Abraham had gone the other way, and the French kicked the British out of North America, then Frnace had its revolution, and the King did escape, what better place to go than North America? Perhaps, he might try to recover France for a while, eventually give up, and set up a Kingdom in North America.

 

Of course, that's not what the OP was talking about, but thread drift happens.

[Mark Rand]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

We've been talking on another thread I started about Islam replacing Christianity. If that happened in Europe, A deposed king, and his followers, might deside to come to North America and form a constitutional monarchy here, before the Revolutionary War.

 

It might end up as a religious melting pot.

["V"]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

A fun alternate could be if Charles I and his brood fled the English Civil War to the Americas to set up shop there, leaving England in the hands of Cromwell and his parliamentarians.

 

Have Britain evolve as a parliamentary democracy with no monarchy while the royalty continues their unbroken succession in North America.

 

Incidentally - Cromwell was offered the crown following the civil war (there was something in the human psyche back then that seemed to demand kings) and to his eternal credit he stayed true to his ideals and rejected it utterly.

[L. Marcus]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

To paraphrase Pratchett -- "Humanity seemes to have a serious design flaw -- it has a tendency to bend at the knees." and "There seemed to be a part of the brain programmed to go 'Kings -- what a great idea.'"

["V"]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

To paraphrase Pratchett -- "Humanity seemes to have a serious design flaw -- it has a tendency to bend at the knees." and "There seemed to be a part of the brain programmed to go 'Kings -- what a great idea.'"

 

Part of our mammalian heritage no doubt. Without an obvious Alpha to strut around and bark at the other packs we feel a little exposed. Heck, even in modern democracies, the most electable leaders aren't the ones who can most eloquently espouse the complex theories of governance and leadership; the electable ones are the ones who can bark out the most popular slogans and (especially in times of war) grunt and puff out their chest the most to make the tribe feel more comfortable.

[wylodmayer]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

Incidentally - Cromwell was offered the crown following the civil war (there was something in the human psyche back then that seemed to demand kings) and to his eternal credit he stayed true to his ideals and rejected it utterly.

 

Yeah, the 'Lord Protector' who wanted to defend liberty 'stayed true to his ideals'... by gathering to his office more power than Charles I ever had. The man was a hypocrite who claimed to champion the rule of the people but dissolved parliament and persecuted those who dissented with him politically or religiously. He set 'freedom' on The Isle back hundreds of years.

 

And, oh yeah, for a man so 'true' to his principles, let's remember that he spent over a month dithering about whether to accept the crown, and nominated as his successor to the allegedly non-heriditary post... his son. Plus royal-like robes, etc. The only way in which he 'rejected [the crown] utterly' was that he went sailing right PAST it in terms of personal authority. Cromwell may have meant well, but when he got into power, he sacrificed everything he claimed to believe in - rule of law, religious and political freedom, etc - for "security."

["V"]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

Yeah' date=' the 'Lord Protector' who wanted to defend liberty 'stayed true to his ideals'... by gathering to his office more power than Charles I [i']ever[/i] had. The man was a hypocrite who claimed to champion the rule of the people but dissolved parliament and persecuted those who dissented with him politically or religiously. He set 'freedom' on The Isle back hundreds of years.

 

And, oh yeah, for a man so 'true' to his principles, let's remember that he spent over a month dithering about whether to accept the crown, and nominated as his successor to the allegedly non-heriditary post... his son. Plus royal-like robes, etc. The only way in which he 'rejected [the crown] utterly' was that he went sailing right PAST it in terms of personal authority. Cromwell may have meant well, but when he got into power, he sacrificed everything he claimed to believe in - rule of law, religious and political freedom, etc - for "security."

 

You tell him! Anyone who seeks power of any kind probably can't be trusted with it in the first place.

[McCoy]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

Part of our mammalian heritage no doubt. Without an obvious Alpha to strut around and bark at the other packs we feel a little exposed. Heck' date=' even in modern democracies, the most electable leaders aren't the ones who can most eloquently espouse the complex theories of governance and leadership; the electable ones are the ones who can bark out the most popular slogans and (especially in times of war) grunt and puff out their chest the most to make the tribe feel more comfortable.[/quote']

Sad, but true.

[Whitewings]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

It's often forgotten that after the Revolutionary War, the US' Founding Fathers did not immediately establish a republic; they ruled through a military junta for twelve years while they debated and planned the new nation's government. So how about this: During this time, Washington's advisers convince him to accept the interim title of King George the First of the American States, as a strictly temporary measure to give him and his government some extra legitimacy in the eyes of the foreign monarchies they're dealing with, so they don't seem quite so much of a rabble. Despite misgivings, Washington accepts the interim title, and creates the other founders nobles of suitable rank; these are also interim titles, of course.

 

The ploy works very well, and greatly smooths diplomacy with the European powers. The people as a whole have no problems with it, they don't really care in fact; they're more interested in things like getting farms and factories going, and the titles are all strictly interim, so it's not as though the ideals of the War are being ignored. Not everyone's happy about it, but it's considered, for the most part, tolerable.

 

So far, we have only a minor divergence, one that settles out at the end of the Continental Congress when Washington strips the American "nobles" of their titles and renounces his own title. But what if Washington dies eight or ten years into the Congress, of whatever sickness or injury or whatever? Maybe the others decide to put a new king in his place, and that new king decides that maybe this isn't such a bad idea, having a king and an aristocracy for dealing with foreign powers. So the new nation, by the end of things, has an aristocracy and a monarch. But, since they're still committed to the idea of representative rule, only the King holds any measure of actual, legal power, and he must rule through and with the aid of an elected legislature, including a Prime Minister. In theory, the monarch can do almost anything (there are limits in the Constitution, of course), but in practice, the political costs of tyranny are much too high to pay. So the king is there,

 

And one last thing: The monarchy isn't hereditary; the heir is whoever the current monarch wants it to be. The aristocracy is hereditary, but their titles don't have power attached.

[Basil]

Re: The United States is a constitutional monarchy

 

It's often forgotten that after the Revolutionary War' date=' the US' Founding Fathers did not immediately establish a republic; they ruled through a military junta for twelve years while they debated and planned the new nation's government.[/quote']

Err, say what?

First Continental Congress held in Philadelphia Sep 5 - Oct 26 1774

First open fighting against the British, Lexington MA Apr 19 1775

Independence declared in Continental Congress Jul 2 1776

Articles of Confederation adopted by Continental Congress Nov 15 1777

Articles of Confederation took effect Mar 1 1781

Cornwallis surrendered, effectively ending the fighting Oct 19 1781

British cabinet agreed to recognize USA independence Mar 1782

USA, Britain signed peace treaty in Paris Sep 3 1783

Delegates from Virginia, Delaware, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania met in Annapolis, called for a constitutional convention Sep 11-14 1786

Constitutional convention starts May 25 1787, accepts Constitution Sep 17 1787

Constitution declared in effect Mar 4 1789

 

With the opening of the First Continental Congress only 3 years before the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, and the effective date of the Constitution only 11 1/2 years after that, just when is this 12 years of military junta supposed to have occurred?

 

EDIT: Oh yeah, you said the junta was after the Revolutionary War. At best, that means your 12 years start circe Oct 1781---7 1/2 years before the Constitution was declared to be in effect. Say what?