Does America need a monarchy? Serious discussion

Yes, but he/she would have to be of colonial English/German descent with some Native Amerindian ancestors, perhaps some Spanish heritage as well.

Honestly you can't have an Irish/Italian/Polish/African type monarch. No one would take them seriously. They would be bad rulers and most of America revolt.

They would have to be descended from the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee, George Washington, Samuel Hancock to have a royal appeal.

But this is America, and our country was founded on the fight against monarchy. Also, descendants of the Founding Fathers are proud people who take pride in their heritage and becoming a monarch would go against that.

So no Monarchs.

Let's be real. What this country was founded upon means nothing and our very constitution is molested and challenged daily by our government.

TSA scanner wrote:

Yes, but he/she would have to be of colonial English/German descent with some Native Amerindian ancestors, perhaps some Spanish heritage as well.

Honestly you can't have an Irish/Italian/Polish/African type monarch. No one would take them seriously. They would be bad rulers and most of America revolt.

They would have to be descended from the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee, George Washington, Samuel Hancock to have a royal appeal.

But this is America, and our country was founded on the fight against monarchy. Also, descendants of the Founding Fathers are proud people who take pride in their heritage and becoming a monarch would go against that.

So no Monarchs.

michaelmatthews wrote:

Let's be real. What this country was founded upon means nothing and our very constitution is molested and challenged daily by our government.

Yes but the media and government can only go so far before its completely obvious to the people.

Also, when the government is bankrupt and run by people who came to this country later than the revolution (Irish, Italians, Poles, Hispanics, Jews) and these people are supported by Blacks, and socialists who hate America and its mercantile beginnings, they have little affiliation with what it actually means to be American.

To them they think being American means having a job, being in a union, supporting the Democrat no matter what, and that everyone in the South is racist and that racists are 10x worse than Hitler.

These newer comers who don't really care what it means to be American don't understand, and when they run government they will run it right into the ground along with the country.

Yes it does. It should be the British monarch, currently QEII. Independence was a mistake.

reunite wrote:

Yes it does. It should be the British monarch, currently QEII. Independence was a mistake.

The British Monarchy is German and no one in Britain takes them seriously.

Also, the United States could invade Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in 5 weeks and turn everyone in those countries into slaves if it wanted.

Why shouldn't we?

jamba jews wrote:

reunite wrote:

Yes it does. It should be the British monarch, currently QEII. Independence was a mistake.

The British Monarchy is German and no one in Britain takes them seriously.

Also, the United States could invade Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in 5 weeks and turn everyone in those countries into slaves if it wanted.

Seriously, I'd say the answer to that question is yes.

One of my Political Science professors made a very persuasive argument in favor of having a monarchy within a democratic society. In Great Britain, Queen Elizabeth plays a key role in mediating disagreements and conflicts between political parties. Unlike the elected leaders, she is able to act in the best interest of the entire country, not a political agenda. She doesn't have to pander to special interests because she doesn't need more power or more money, and she doesn't have to worry about being re-elected.

Contrast that with what's happening in the U.S. today - few to none of our Congressmen and women care about anything except climbing the Republican or Democrat power ladder or pandering to lobbyists who fund their re-election campaigns. Everyone's looking out for number one.

I look forward to hearing other arguments on this one!

No, it does not, and this is not a "serious discussion"

Thanks for the response, it was a good one.You took it in a direction I wasn't even thinking of.Do you think a monarchy would work best as a bloodline of mediators between opposing selfish parties or as the supreme decision maker?It seems selfish and egotistical to be the royal commanding bloodline until you think that these people are bred to lead. They are force-fed history and country leading lessons from the time they are children to adulthood by great professors, historians, economists, and military leaders. These people's sole existence is to better their country and improve the lives of its citizens and its mark on the world.

well queen E. certainly has special interests: for example

make sure she receives welfare from the government and

that her real estate is not nationalized by the same government.

We already have a dictatorship. The government is the dictator.

michaelmatthews wrote:

What do you think?

Yes. Roe Conn, but just for a year.

EXACTLY! Wouldn't it be in better interest to at least create a central power that has the countries interests at heart, rather than their own agendas? We have a dictatorship that doesn't even work for us.Do you think Obama would be willing to work for free? Do you think he would be willing to fight another country's leader to the death? Do you think he would be willing to force his children to 8 hrs per day of private tutoring on how to lead this country? Do you think he would be willing to truly become a servant of our nation?

would-be-investor wrote:

We already have a dictatorship. The government is the dictator.

Your professor is acting foolish or playing devil's advocate. A monarchy is unelected and therefore can never be said to have the best interest of the country at heart. The "political agenda" you speak of is what the elected official feels is the mandate from the people. A queen cannot be removed if her thoughts and actions are not in line with the will of the people.

I think you really don't know history. Basically, all royal houses in Europe are related to each other.

Do you think Britain was an isolated island until the 1700s? Where do you think the Angles and Saxons came from? Where did William I come from? Have you ever noticed that there are a lot of words in English which have French origins? Anyway, the current monarch is a descendant of Alfred the Great.

Kings and queens are symbols of national unity. For royalists they even embody the nation. Yet they have rarely been thoroughgoing members of the nation or nations over which they reign. This is because from at least the early Middle Ages royals have chosen or been required to marry other royals, who have been almost inevitably foreigners.

So, for example, Spain came to be ruled by Habsburgs, who were German, and then by Bourbons, who were French. Elizabeth of England's rival, and sometime brother-in-law, Philip II of Spain, had only one Spanish grandparent, and, being blond, he took after his Flemish (or Belgian) grandfather, and didn't look Spanish at all. Our own Royal Family is no different. It is true that the Queen can trace her descent from the Saxon king Alfred, heroic defender of Wessex against the Danes and also from the 11th-century Scottish king Malcolm Canmore (the Malcolm of Shakespeare's Macbeth); but there have been rivers of foreign blood since. Royalty are among the most successful of immigrants.

The United States could invade these countries, but it would be on the receiving end of nuclear missiles.

And what exactly is driving the monarchy to do any of this? They are unelected, are wealthy and have no direct connection to the lives of everyday people. Why would a monarch have the countries best interests at heart? They wouldn't and they don't. And the worst thing is, they cannot be removed.

michaelmatthews wrote:

EXACTLY!

Wouldn't it be in better interest to at least create a central power that has the countries interests at heart, rather than their own agendas? We have a dictatorship that doesn't even work for us.

Do you think Obama would be willing to work for free? Do you think he would be willing to fight another country's leader to the death? Do you think he would be willing to force his children to 8 hrs per day of private tutoring on how to lead this country? Do you think he would be willing to truly become a servant of our nation?

would-be-investor wrote:

We already have a dictatorship. The government is the dictator.

If it weren't for the British monarchy and the ambitions of the monarch, there would have been some other country with another royal house in its place, building an empire in the same way. We would be speaking Russian, French, or Spanish.

michaelmatthews wrote:

What do you think?

Why would we need a monarchy? Can you give me a reason?

reunite wrote:

If it weren't for the British monarchy and the ambitions of the monarch...

False logic.

So you are saying any other form of government other than monarchy would not have resisted/fought against foreign invasion?

By the way, you do know the current british monarchy is French right? Had you paid attention in high school European history, you would have known after the death of Harold II of England, the British monarchy was passed over to the French monarchy lineage after the Norman Conquest of England in 1066.