NS--70 Years on Throne--QEII--Total Badass--God Save The Queen!!!
- Thread starter CowboyUp
- Start date
I bet he supports Paris Hilton as the queen....
I'm not sure, and have never been sure about whether brt is just a lunatic with sincerely held beliefs and an ongoing cocaine habit or a really effective and genius troll.
brt had previously posted support for the King of Spain ruling the US because he's Catholic.
The only thing that mitigates against this dude being a brt sock is that brt would probably call the English monarchy illegitimate since the time that Henry the VII formed the Church of England.
I don't know who this brt person is you keep referencing. I did search his name though and saw that he supports an absolute monarchy. I do not support that. I support a constitutional hereditary monarchy. I would even support something similar to an elective monarchy that Alexander Hamilton proposed. While I would prefer the former, the latter would be an improvement on what we currently have.
I am a Catholic and will admit that this is partly why I am a monarchist. Catholicism and monarchism go hand in hand. However, one can defend a monarchy apart from Catholic belief. Many are clearly monarchists without being Catholic.
I also would not support the King of Spain ruling the US. As for Queen Elizabeth, I firmly believe she is the legitimate ruler of the United Kingdom. While what occurred with King Henry VIII (not Henry VII) was wrong and regrettable in my view, Queen Elizabeth is no doubt legitimate.
Well @_Insider_ , you’re kind of correct about the “unifying” part. Never before have people from the left and right on this board come together in agreement. Everyone is holding their noses to your monarchy idea.
The only difference between a monarch and a dictator is that one generally gains power via strength of arms while the other has it decried as a birthright. Neither demonstrates a ruling style. Saudi Arabia has a monarch, but I'm pretty sure that's the kind of ruler very few in the US want to sign up for.
I'm under no illusions that there is not opposition to a monarchy in this country from those on both the right and left. It appears that many posters on this board are invested in their own political side and readily embrace the complete mess that is our current system of governance. It is much easier to be a domestic partisan and go with the flow of one's "side" than to pull back and look at the larger picture. To really question the framework that creates many of the problems that both sides attack the other for.
Last edited:
This is not correct and a misunderstanding of what I am advocating for.
Our current system of governance was obtained via strength of arms. Any system of governance can be obtained via strength of arms. What many Americans fail to realize is that our system of governance encourages the eventual rise of dictators. This has been shown throughout history. So far, we have been lucky.
I am also not advocating for an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia has. I am advocating for a constitutional monarchy, such as the United Kingdom has. I would also support an elective monarchy, along the lines of what Alexander Hamilton proposed.
Yes, what America needs is ANOTHER figurehead politician appointed by birthright? /eyeroll
And our system doesn't lead to dictators. Any system where power gets consolidated to a very few will lead to dictators. Period. Our founding fathers (in their brilliance) recognized that and worked to limit federal rights, as well as putting checks and balances across government to try to reduce the risk of a dictatorship or single-party rule occurring. Unfortunately 250 years has allowed for a lot of bloat and expansion of the federal government, and 25 years of elevated partisanship and political extremism has seen a lot of the controls for moderation being unraveled.
BTW, the monarchy of England was also established by might. Ever heard of William the Conqueror?
This. For as good as Queen Elizabeth is, Prince Harry would be a woke fiasco as a spoiled brat ruler.
I must admit, this response comes across as rather "Churchillian". (spoken with a John Cleese accent)
Last edited:
How is our current political system doing at taking care of the American people? How many spoiled rotton power obsessed children have we had and do have running the show in this country?
The complaint you are making could be leveled at any system of governance.
I'm not advocating for an Old Testament style of monarchy.
A King or Queen in a constitutional monarchy is not a politician. In fact, he or she is the opposite. That is the whole point of a constitutional monarchy.
Our system does lead to dictatorships, as the evidence you described perfectly illustrates. I'm sure you want to blame the other political party for what has transpired, but that is what I was referencing earlier.
As I stated earlier, any system of governance can be obtained via strength of arms.
Sorry pal, but polyarchy (yep, made up that word, I guess) is the best you can hope for. At least 15 different racial groups would want their own monarch, not to mention the 26 different genders. By the end of the day, you'd probably end up with about 536 (maybe 545) different people in DC fancying themselves as "King". Hey, wait a miniute........
I agree with your assessment of our current flawed system of governance.
Hopefully, one day we will fix it before one of those wannabe kings ends up a dictator.
I am a Catholic too and I don't know if I agree with you that Catholicism and monarchism go hand in hand. I partly understand where you are coming from, but there are other types of governments that a Catholic can support that are consistent with Catholicism.
I have some questions for you. First, since you are a constitutional monarchist, do you believe we should embrace a parliment in this country like Great Britian has? Do you believe we should have a House of Lords or would you keep the House and Senate? Second, what role do you believe religion should play in a United States constitutional monarch. Would the King or Queen be both head of state and the defender of the faith? If so, what faith? Thirdly, how would we even go about choosing a King or Queen of the United States? Do you want someone who is already crowned to be our sovereign (such as Queen Elizabeth) or crown a new person? If we were to have an elective monarchy, how would that work out? Would the King or Queen have the position for life?
Sorry JD, but this board is nothing but nonsense nowadays.
I am curious about the position he or she is advocating for. Wondering how he/she thinks it would work out.
I guess with a king/queen you only have to lop off one or two heads during an insurrection. Louis and Marie can attest. Yet, the French went extreme and lopped off a bunch of heads.
When you have a bunch of traitors to the revolution you gotta lop a bunch of heads
Some of the stuff I have read, realizing the winners write most history, implies they lopped a few undeserving heads.
Lot of questions there. I will try to answer all of them.
Yes, I would favor a parliamentary system over our current system. Ideally, we would have a King/Queen who would appoint a Prime Minister who is the leader of the party with the most members in Parliament. I don't foresee any type of House of Lords forming within the US if we were to move towards a constitutional monarchy, so having a second body known as the Senate to review the bills of the House would be acceptable. That body though would be similar to the way the Senate was once set up before the 17th Amendment.
I do not support the separation of church and state. Therefore, I believe the King/Queen should be both head of state and the defender of the faith. The faith should be the Christian faith, encompassing all Christian denominations.
As to how we would choose a King/Queen, that is a good question and is one that is debated among American monarchists. Some believe we could choose one of George Washington's descendants to be the sovereign. Others have suggested asking a foreign King/Queen to become our sovereign, such as Queen Elizabeth. I don't really like either idea, although both have its merits. I would argue that either we elect the first King/Queen and after that it be hereditary or whoever is the leader of the Monarchist Party that is able to transition this country to a constitutional monarchy be named King/Queen.
Those who support an elective monarchy, which I don't really favor but would take over our current system, argue that the position of President could be reformed and the person holding the sovereign position would be elected for life. Similar to how the Holy Roman Empire functioned, although it essentially ended up being a hereditary monarchy. They desire to essentially take Alexander Hamilton's suggestion and make it into reality.
So essentially, you want to change about everything there is to change regarding government that sets up apart from governments around the world, correct?
I mean do you seriously think any of this has a chance in **** of happening in this country?
I do want to change much about our system of governance. I think we are eventually doomed for a dictatorship if we don't.
I am under no illusions about the reality of our government transitioning to a constitutional monarchy in the immediate future. Odds are probably better that our current form of government will collapse and a dictatorship will arise. I can hope that one day more Americans will awaken to the inherit problems with our system of governance before it is too late. I will continue to support what I believe is best for our nation and the nations of the world.
