I’ve become a royalist. There, I’ve said it.
I wonder how many Americans can say that? I mean, after all, we rebelled against the idea of a king 235 years ago.
Thus, as a nation we don’t even have a heritage of a royal family. Who do we make king or queen: a Kennedy, a Bush, Britney Spears?
I just think our experiment in democracy has failed in this new century. What I really should say is that our dabbling in republicanism is a disaster. As everyone knows, we are really a republic, not a democracy.
The unwashed rabble (let them eat cake!) putrifying America’s major cities these days tell me what it would be like if we really were a democracy. I would move overseas if we became a pure democracy. (Oh, wait, I already have.)
What is my problem with the republic our Founding Fathers gave us? Nothing, in and of itself.
If I were the embodiment of the American people, I would look at the Constitution (after all, the progressives out there say it is “living and breathing”) and say in the manner of George Constanza, “It’s not you, it’s me.”
John Adams wrote,”Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Twenty first century Americans are neither moral or religious.
The Constitution gives our people freedom on the basis that we can handle it in a responsible manner. We are as a government and as a people completely irresponsible.
This is where a king comes in. I think we are a little bit like the Israelites at the time of the Judges. When they looked at the state of their society, they went to their leader Samuel and asked for a king.
Israel was a theocracy at the time. In theory, God was their ruler. A series of judges, men like Samuel, Gideon and Samson, governed them.
However, the Scriptures say that this era was a time when everyone did what was right in their own eyes. The people were corrupt, and at least one of their judges (Samson) was, too, as well as Samuel’s sons.
As a result, I think the law and order plank won the day in Israel and the movers and shakers decided that having a king or queen was in order. Samuel told them the implications of this.
The last judge in Israel told them that they would be under the king’s thumb. Their sons would have to fight in the army and their daughters would have to serve the kingdom.
The people would lose their property rights to “eminent domain”. The king would take the wazoo out of the Israelites, taking the best of everything.
The people did not relent. They still insisted on a king.
I think a monarchy would be just fine nowadays. It might return the United States to some measure of respectability.
The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty discusses some of the advantages of a monarchy on their website:
*Monarchies are magical and special;
* Monarchies provide the nation with a collective identity;
* Monarchies are grand and inspiring:
* Monarchies provide strength and stability:
* Monarchies provide a calm and dignified center;
* Monarchies offer traditions and continuity.
In my book, a royal government would be the best source of economic prosperity and national security. Why, a king or queen might actually get our borders under control.
The Commission notes:
Kings tend to be protective and build and strengthen the nation for a long and prosperous future for his loved ones and the people. In other words, he invests in the nation and its people.
For a good part of my life, America has been run by people of opposite ilk than this. These presidents and congresspersons have been corrupt, weakened our country and thrown the futures of our children down the toilet.
A cursory review of the Internet shows that a few individuals have actually had royal ideas in the last part of the 20th century, enough to even form a political party. These parties are documented by a website called “The Mad Monarchist”.
However, they have been abject failures due to lack of interest. The “Mad Monarchist” makes comments such as “don’t waste your time” and ‘king’ is still a four letter word in the United States and that mindset is certainly not going to change anytime soon”.
I wonder who we could make king or queen? George Washington turned down the right to be our first monarch, but maybe we could use his bloodlines as a criterion for choosing our royal family.
According to “The Daily Beast”, there is a man named Paul Washington in Texas who, based on rules of succession, could be a candidate for King of America. He is a descendant of George Washington’s older brother. George himself was childless.
The Mad Monarch offers that in this day and age, if we chose to go the royal route, we’d need to get ready for a “Queen Oprah”. I would agree, given the state of our pop culture.
He says there was a royalist group in the 1990s who thought that Princess Madeline of Sweden would be an appropriate choice. It was common during the day when monarchies were prevalent for countries to invite foreign royalty to assume their thrones, and this lady apparently lived in the United States at the time.
Whomever we chose as our king or queen, we’d have to do better than Prince Charles. How about Larry the Cable Guy?
I’m serious. Why not a monarchy? It has to be a more honorable form of government than the current operation.
A monarch would carry with him or her a sense of noblesse oblige. Noble people would act nobly. This would be far better than the ignoble behavior which comes from our leaders now.
Slow News Day 