Any Southern FOFCers familiar with the Dominion of British West Florida?

[Izulde]

Fascinating stuff, especially for a monarchist like myself.

Of course, I doubt it'll ever achieve dominion status like it wants or be recognized by the US.

As one of the activists admitted, it's unlikely that Elizabeth II even reads the petitions, but are probably "tossed in the trash by some third assistant as nutjob mail."

[Young Drachma]

This is like one guy doing this (http://dbwf.net/), right?

[wade moore]

Fascinating stuff, especially for a monarchist like myself.

Of course, I doubt it'll ever achieve dominion status like it wants or be recognized by the US.

As one of the activists admitted, it's unlikely that Elizabeth II even reads the petitions, but are probably "tossed in the trash by some third assistant as nutjob mail."

I mean this in the nicest way - you're as bad as Flasch sometimes ;).

[Izulde]

This is like one guy doing this (http://dbwf.net/), right?

It's a small group yes, but it's more than one.

There's a lot of roadblocks in the way of a viable American Monarchist party, unfortunately. Attempts have been made along the way, but there tends to be a lot of join and then be apathetic membership.

Even if a higher degree of activism were installed, there's a lot of division among U.S. monarchists over what form the monarchy should take. While there seems to be a general consensus that there should be some form of constitutional monarchy, no common consensus can be reached on whether the British monarchy should serve as the head of state or if a new American dynasty would need to be found (I'm of the latter opinion, personally, but that begs the question of how to select a family line to serve as the ruling dynasty.)

Religion is also a topic of hot concern, divided chiefly between Pre-Vatican II Catholics, who would have a traditional Catholic monarchy and well, pretty much everyone else, who either favor Christianity as a state religion, just not the traditional Catholicism of the first group or those, like me, who prefer not to have an official state faith.

What does seem to be universally recognized is the impossibility of an American monarchy. The tradition of the republic is far too strong and far too ingrained in the US history and consciousness to allow for anything else, barring some apocalyptic style event (Thanks, George Washington! Way to ruin the monarchy for us!)

I'd also like to see an aristocracy personally, but I'm not certain how much traction that particular issue has among monarchists or what the opinion is.

So most American monarchists these days tend to lend their support to more viable monarchist movements in those countries that both have a monarchist tradition and are small enough to where a small minority has a greater impact and greater potential for growth.

I did make the suggestion that we should try something along the Free State project lines to try and build a monarchist party in the US that way, but we simply don't have the numbers for it.

[Izulde]

I mean this in the nicest way - you're as bad as Flasch sometimes ;).

In what way? :)

[Young Drachma]

It's a small group yes, but it's more than one.

There's a lot of roadblocks in the way of a viable American Monarchist party, unfortunately. Attempts have been made along the way, but there tends to be a lot of join and then be apathetic membership.

Even if a higher degree of activism were installed, there's a lot of division among U.S. monarchists over what form the monarchy should take. While there seems to be a general consensus that there should be some form of constitutional monarchy, no common consensus can be reached on whether the British monarchy should serve as the head of state or if a new American dynasty would need to be found (I'm of the latter opinion, personally, but that begs the question of how to select a family line to serve as the ruling dynasty.)

Religion is also a topic of hot concern, divided chiefly between Pre-Vatican II Catholics, who would have a traditional Catholic monarchy and well, pretty much everyone else, who either favor Christianity as a state religion, just not the traditional Catholicism of the first group or those, like me, who prefer not to have an official state faith.

What does seem to be universally recognized is the impossibility of an American monarchy. The tradition of the republic is far too strong and far too ingrained in the US history and consciousness to allow for anything else, barring some apocalyptic style event (Thanks, George Washington! Way to ruin the monarchy for us!)

I'd also like to see an aristocracy personally, but I'm not certain how much traction that particular issue has among monarchists or what the opinion is.

So most American monarchists these days tend to lend their support to more viable monarchist movements in those countries that both have a monarchist tradition and are small enough to where a small minority has a greater impact and greater potential for growth.

I did make the suggestion that we should try something along the Free State project lines to try and build a monarchist party in the US that way, but we simply don't have the numbers for it.

What, being a subject to the federal government isn't enough for you? Or do you not pay enough in taxes?

[Passacaglia]

What does seem to be universally recognized is the impossibility of an American monarchy.

Well, at least y'all can agree on something! :)

[Izulde]

What, being a subject to the federal government isn't enough for you? Or do you not pay enough in taxes?

Would taxation necessarily change in a monarchy?

[Izulde]

Well, at least y'all can agree on something! :)

And that's pretty much the only thing. :D

[Critch]

I'm a citizen or subject or something of a monarchy and it's not all it's cracked up to be. They don't really do anything interesting, they have no special powers and they're not omni-present or anything. They just wave. Best you can hope for is that their inbred offspring don't embarrass the country too much.

We had one who drove into a wall once, that was good news for a few days. Since then they've all been boring.

[Young Drachma]

Would taxation necessarily change in a monarchy?

No. I'm just wondering why the hell you'd want to fundamental desire a change that's universally accepted as outmoded and completely opposite to the very fabric of what makes this country what it is.

Well that and such a gig would be pretty freakin' ceremonial.

Or do our elected 'leaders' not act with enough hubris that you figure we need another layer on top of an already bloated system of government that doesn't really do much other than exist to justify its own existence.

[Izulde]

I'm a citizen or subject or something of a monarchy and it's not all it's cracked up to be. They don't really do anything interesting, they have no special powers and they're not omni-present or anything. They just wave. Best you can hope for is that their inbred offspring don't embarrass the country too much.

We had one who drove into a wall once, that was good news for a few days. Since then they've all been boring.

But I'd like to see a monarchy where they -did- have powers, if nothing else, at least the power to control a nation's foreign affairs, as it's my belief that the masses and the popularly elected officials know next to nothing about statecraft or how to handle the delicate balance that international relations involves.

Furthermore, the constant change of leadership does not lend itself, in my opinion, to long-term stability or a sustainable balance of power system. That's not to say it should be a despotic monarchy. I believe there still should be a legislature to handle domestic affairs, because it'd be the people deciding how they want their day to day lives to go.

But putting foreign policy in the hands of those who are not qualified for it is a disaster.

[Izulde]

No. I'm just wondering why the hell you'd want to fundamental desire a change that's universally accepted as outmoded and completely opposite to the very fabric of what makes this country what it is.

Well that and such a gig would be pretty freakin' ceremonial.

Or do our elected 'leaders' not act with enough hubris that you figure we need another layer on top of an already bloated system of government that doesn't really do much other than exist to justify its own existence.

The government could always be pared down... Eliminate the House of Representatives, for example, and have the Senate as the sole chamber.

[wade moore]

In what way? :)

In the way that if it wasn't for DC posting that link most of us would be like, "uhhh.. what the heck is he talking about?" because of the lack of info ;)..

That's all, nothin' major.. just a baffling thread for most folks I think without the link.

[Young Drachma]

In the way that if it wasn't for DC posting that link most of us would be like, "uhhh.. what the heck is he talking about?" because of the lack of info ;)..

That's all, nothin' major.. just a baffling thread for most folks I think without the link.

You win the thread. I didn't know what the hell he was talking about, but I googled it and then I thought, "what? is this serious?"

And figured we'd all wonder the same thing.

Mississippi is barely in America, who the hell think QEII wants it?

[flounder]

Could we burn the Lutheran heretics? If we could, I'm all for it.

[clintl]

An American monarchy would only be worth it if Paris Hilton or Lindsey Lohan was named first queen. Otherwise, our American royal family would not be able to compete with Britain's for tabloid coverage.

[clintl]

Dola...

In all seriousness, though, Izulde, what makes you think that the system we have doesn't produce competent foreign policy experts? I think it does, and does it pretty well.

[Coffee Warlord]

I henceforth nominate myself as your first sovereign.

Imperator Robert the First, Ruler of the United States and her Territories, Defender of the Realm, has a nice ring to it.

edit: King just isn't as cool as Imperator, though.

[Izulde]

Dola...

In all seriousness, though, Izulde, what makes you think that the system we have doesn't produce competent foreign policy experts? I think it does, and does it pretty well.

Maybe it's the fact that the current administration appears to be clueless as to the realities, sensitivities, and histories of the region that we're presently engaging ourselves in.

Or perhaps it's because it seems like the last time we had any real extended peace in the world was the Congress of Vienna, which reaffirmed the balance of power system and made things by and large peaceful for approximately 100 years.

Incidentally, Vienna was also the last peace conference where the monarchies and the aristocracies were the ones who agreed upon and signed off on terms.

From then on, it was all democratically elected governments, at least in terms of major peace treaties, starting with Versailles. We all know how well -that- went.

World War II only worked because there was a bipolar system in place, with the world for the most part divided either into the American sphere or the Soviet sphere. Not too hard to maintain relative peace with just two superpowers at play.

I think that by creating a division of powers between domestic power (as I would have the legislature do) and foreign power (in the hands of the monarchs and possibly aristocracy), with neither able to interfere with the other, a lot more would be accomplished in both realms and at least in the international scene, you'd have a lot more stability because of the hereditary aspect of the monarchy I would employ.

Note: Primogeniture systems are flawed, in my opinion, so I would leave it up to each monarch and/or noble to designate whomever they wished as their successor. Not only would this naturally incline towards a hereditary model, but also would, I feel, have the best chance of merit-based succession.

[st.cronin]

Note: Primogeniture systems are flawed, in my opinion, so I would leave it up to each monarch and/or noble to designate whomever they wished as their successor. Not only would this naturally incline towards a hereditary model, but also would, I feel, have the best chance of merit-based succession.

Isn't that pretty much exactly what we have?

[Crim]

Dennis: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior.
King Arthur: Well I am king.
Dennis: Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis: Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
King Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?

[EagleFan]

Amusing stuff, in a "look at that lunatic" kind of way.

We tried that whole monarch thing once, it didn't work...

[Groundhog]

First I'd ever heard of American monarchist.

I guess my questions would be:

a) Who would be the royal family? A king or queen would usually be established by force, so assuming that doesn't happen any time soon, how would someone be chosen?

b) Wouldn't having a hereditary king or queen involved in domestic and international politics - ie. someone who may or (more likely) may not be qualified to do so - be a pretty bad idea?

As far as I can see, a monarchy is an outdated concept and only exists because of the history behind it, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to establish a new one outside of a power hungry dictator or a group of romantic anachronists.

[Crim]

...a group of romantic anachronists.

ding ding ding!

[Passacaglia]

Or perhaps it's because it seems like the last time we had any real extended peace in the world was the Congress of Vienna, which reaffirmed the balance of power system and made things by and large peaceful for approximately 100 years.

Don't tell that to the Prussians...or the revolutionaries. Unless you meant 17 years.

[AlexB]

But I'd like to see a monarchy where they -did- have powers, if nothing else, at least the power to control a nation's foreign affairs, as it's my belief that the masses and the popularly elected officials know next to nothing about statecraft or how to handle the delicate balance that international relations involves.

Furthermore, the constant change of leadership does not lend itself, in my opinion, to long-term stability or a sustainable balance of power system. That's not to say it should be a despotic monarchy. I believe there still should be a legislature to handle domestic affairs, because it'd be the people deciding how they want their day to day lives to go.

But putting foreign policy in the hands of those who are not qualified for it is a disaster.

And why would a regent with no connection to the real world with his/her advisors be any more effective in foreign policy than a half-witted president or prime-minister with no connection to the real world with his bunch of advisors?

[Young Drachma]

Izulde, you should go to Eshraval (http://www.eshraval.com).

[CamEdwards]

Somehow I have a feeling there are a LOT of Renn-tards in the American Monarchist movement.

Also, would inbreeding be a qualification for who gets to become King? If so, perhaps we should start looking for our next leader in the Appalachian Mountains? What's that kid from Deliverance doing these days?

[Airhog]

But I'd like to see a monarchy where they -did- have powers, if nothing else, at least the power to control a nation's foreign affairs, as it's my belief that the masses and the popularly elected officials know next to nothing about statecraft or how to handle the delicate balance that international relations involves.

Furthermore, the constant change of leadership does not lend itself, in my opinion, to long-term stability or a sustainable balance of power system. That's not to say it should be a despotic monarchy. I believe there still should be a legislature to handle domestic affairs, because it'd be the people deciding how they want their day to day lives to go.

But putting foreign policy in the hands of those who are not qualified for it is a disaster.

You never see bush going to have tea with the Queen. Whenever he goes across the pond, he always talks to Tony Blair. I dont see how this is any different.

[Izulde]

First I'd ever heard of American monarchist.

I guess my questions would be:

a) Who would be the royal family? A king or queen would usually be established by force, so assuming that doesn't happen any time soon, how would someone be chosen?

That's probably the hardest question to answer and right now, I don't have one.

b) Wouldn't having a hereditary king or queen involved in domestic and international politics - ie. someone who may or (more likely) may not be qualified to do so - be a pretty bad idea?

Well, that's why I would have them in my ideal government be involved only in international affairs, leaving the domestic to the legislature. And I do think they'd be more qualified than the current system we have, especially over time.

As far as I can see, a monarchy is an outdated concept and only exists because of the history behind it, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to establish a new one outside of a power hungry dictator or a group of romantic anachronists.

Oh there's a few countries where there's still very strong monarchist movements, but they're admittedly smaller states that have a long history of monarchy.

[Izulde]

Don't tell that to the Prussians...or the revolutionaries. Unless you meant 17 years.

I'm talking major international conflicts. Of course, there should probably be a qualifier here as to what major is, but I'll look more into it when I'm not so tired.

[Izulde]

And why would a regent with no connection to the real world with his/her advisors be any more effective in foreign policy than a half-witted president or prime-minister with no connection to the real world with his bunch of advisors?

Because a royal class trained to statemanship and an understanding of international affairs and the world situation is better than random slick politician who juggles too many balls and is beholden to too many interests in order to stay in power?

[Izulde]

Izulde, you should go to Eshraval (http://www.eshraval.com).

Bookmarked. It'll be interesting seeing what happens once they finish the redesign.

Jennifer Nation? something like that, was fascinating too.

[Izulde]

Somehow I have a feeling there are a LOT of Renn-tards in the American Monarchist movement.

It's possible. I didn't do a Rennie check or anything like that.

Also, would inbreeding be a qualification for who gets to become King? If so, perhaps we should start looking for our next leader in the Appalachian Mountains? What's that kid from Deliverance doing these days?

Now, now let's not pick on the Hapsburgs. They already get enough shit. :D

[Izulde]

You never see bush going to have tea with the Queen. Whenever he goes across the pond, he always talks to Tony Blair. I dont see how this is any different.

Blair is, like Bush, a popularly elected politician.

Bush doesn't have tea with the Queen because she has no political power. She's only a symbolic figurehead, which is not what would occur in the monarchy I envision.

[rkmsuf]

We could have a big Magic The Gathering tournament to determine our first King!

[flere-imsaho]

Because a royal class trained to statemanship and an understanding of international affairs and the world situation is better than random slick politician who juggles too many balls and is beholden to too many interests in order to stay in power?

What you want pretty much already exists - it's called the U.S. Foreign Service. Generally very objective, very intelligent, very experienced and highly trained. Give senior Foreign Service members more input into policy than they already have (though I'm not sure how you codify this) and Bob's your uncle.

[JHandley]

It's a small group yes, but it's more than one.

There's a lot of roadblocks in the way of a viable American Monarchist party, unfortunately.

Oh really? Like what?


What does seem to be universally recognized is the impossibility of an American monarchy.

Ah. Yes. Impossibility of an American Monarcy. Quite a roadblock indeed.