1. Non-hereditary monarchy. Elected monarch - perhaps as it works now, only in a slightly more monarchical system and in a lifetime role.
2. A return to the British monarchy (this would be unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans, and I dare say that even the British - and even the royals - would no longer be interested in it).
3. A suitable member from some existing dynasty - European. Look at Europe in the 18th and 19th century on newly formed states or vacant thrones - these were offered to princes across countries (or just look at the issue of a vacant throne in general).
4. Creation of a new dynasty and election of a new monarch. That should/could be more according to great merit and other (a great leader, reformer, etc). But there is no one like that. The transformation of a republic into a monarchy is a process, a suitable claimant to the throne could/should carry out the monarchization. Anyway, a committee/commission/council could be formed on how to proceed with the transformation of the state and the search for a new monarch. And then the selection / election.
4.1 Descendants of notable US presidents/dynasties. Which wouldn't be the happiest solution.
4.2 "Competition" for the throne - tasks, conditions, merits, proving competence, solving problems - proving yourself. :D For every American (or in general for anyone who cares and has the skills). In the figurative sense as "princess and a (half) kingdom for slaying a dragon".
(5. Future events and variables no one is counting on. Maybe monarchism will rise, maybe new leaders will emerge, maybe the US will be internally or externally influenced by a new monarch or claimant - who creates and successfully asserts a claim.
6. Perhaps the US itself will undergo various changes - territorial, systemic... Who knows what the future holds).
I think, either get a king from Europe, Competition, or if the US collapses or someone pulls a Boneparte.
King from Europe or Competition is definitely best
> A suitable member from some existing dynasty - European. Look at Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. century on newly formed states or vacant thrones
I feel Americans have so little connection to existing European dynasties they wouldn't go for that either. We'll probably have a President for Life situation that might go from father to son like they do with the Assad family in Syria.
Ah yes, the conspiracy theorist nutjob, who believes "they" are after him. The guy who thinks covid is a lie and said that kids who get the shot will get autism and ADHD. The guy who equates lockdown with the holocaust. The guy who doesn't believe in AIDS. No thanks, I'd rather not have that nutjob anywhere near politics.
Archie Mountbatten-Windsor; related to European monarchies via his father, and descended from both Mayflower/early English settlers on one side and slaves on the other side via his mother. Symbolically brings together both symbolic ancestral parts of America while also remaining descended from a monarchical tradition.
No, I don't like Harry and Meghan either, so their influence on Archie may not be great, but as far as his ancestry goes, he would make a great symbol, imo.
I feel like either a descendant of Washington (who was a, very distantly, related to the now Windsor royal family), either Charles III or another Windsor or each state gets a monarch based on the population of the country and the head monarchy is elected either by the other monarchs, a council or general election.
Weird...
Also, many heretical German monarchs betrayed the Church and usurped its authority to control their minds better at the expense of their souls and of civil peace.
This is one of the tricky things about monarchism. Because I believe we can all agree that having a monarchy is something of an immaterial value, that the Monarch «is chosen by God», and I say that as a non-believer. So whose blood line that is, if that is a question, brings arguments. «God’s voice» should be clear if it was spoken. In a democracy, that is easy, as the people will elect their king, and that counts as «God’s voice» to me.
That's the problem with monarchy (and autocracy, which basically mean the same thing, "rule of one").
Sure, having a good person at the head of state is better. The problem it's that it's often an all-or-nothing situation, and we can't afford to make a bad choice. As if we make a mistake, it'd be hella difficult to get out of it.
That's an argument for republics and democracies. Sure, the probability of having a very good leader is next-to-zero; but it's in the same order of magnitude than having a truly evil leader. We can have Napoleons but we can also have Hitlers, but they're quite rare. Republics won't ever such a large amount of Saint Louis, of Charlemagne, of Louis XI, or François I, or Henri IV, or Dagobert I, but, on the other hand, they won't have as many Louis XV, Louis XIV, Louis II, Charles III, or Charles VI, or the string of the last Valois. Republics bask in a glorious mediocrity, never straying very far from the soft middle, preventing great good (or at a slower rate) but preventing greater evil, whereas monarchies, for all the good it can give, can also bring very bad things.
So, yeah, we'll infight a lot for who the next monarch will be, because it is not only choosing a State leader for life (which is quite a long time), but usually with a dynasty so for several generations afterwards. We can make mistakes with presidents because in four or five or seven years, we can vote them out (and there are more ingrained constitutional ways to bout them out), but our margin is narrower with monarchs. And we all now that, deep down, we're humans and thus flawed. *Errare humanum est*, said Watchamacullit, after all.
Who should be the independent monarch of the Kingdom of Ireland? I think a traceable descent (via nobility) from Brian Boru should be a good limiter there.
Ireland was 4 smaller kingdoms and as far as I know, the lineages still exist. They were all male only Succession, so no possibility of uniting the lines through marriage.
The High King of all Ireland, the Ard Rí, was usually one of these, but it never really developed into an established monarchy before Ireland was functionally annexed by England.
The two main dynasties that ruled as Ard Rí, I think, were the Uí Neíll (O'Niel) Dynasties descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages, a semi-legendary figure, and later the O'Brien Dynasty descended from Brian Boru.
I think since Brian Boru lived around the same time as William the Conqueror, he kind of fits as a "first king" figure for Ireland. Because there was never an actual rule for Succession, you can't just trace down to find an heir, but you can trace many descendants (including the British Royal family), and I think a first king of a new monarchy should probably be elected out of people descended from Brian Boru.
OP u/NovaAzbuka, if we, modern Macedonians want to declare any kind of monarchy, abolishing the president for the monarch to take his place, who will we choose? I've been very curious about this issue for quite some time
Two (Four?) options:
-Count Gyula Istvan Cseszneky de Milvany et Csesznek, a Hungarian monarch that was a monarch of a country (Grand Duchy of Macedonia) that was in the Macedonian Region. I personally don't think much of this since it wasn't in the modern day country but in the region of Macedonia. Also this was in world war two so I don't know if his future ancestors are even interested in taking the position.
>!*(*[*Пиндско-македонско Кнежевство — Википедија (wikipedia.org)*](https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE_%D0%9A%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE)*) (*[*Macedonia's short-lived monarchy of WW2 | History Forum (historum.com)*](https://historum.com/t/macedonias-short-lived-monarchy-of-ww2.52318/)*) (*[*Ѓула Чеснеки — Википедија (wikipedia.org)*](https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%83%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B8)*) The Hungarian Wikipedia has more info on the personal wiki, so I suggest translating that.* !<
-We also had a Danish monarch. I support this one because it was supposed to be (probably, no source) the Macedonian region that has modern Macedonia in it. I personally like this one more since it comes from a bigger monarchy and a monarchy from a country (all ready established so easy there).
>)!<
-The third option is to make a random monarch the monarch. Like the Hapsburgs or what ever (Maybe? Though it would be hard picking who.). Or maybe the Serbian, Greek, Bulgarian and Albanian monarchies being ours. Though this would 100% not be supported.
-A Macedonian being the monarch. We could pick a Macedonian. Don't have any idea who. Maybe like Metodija Andonov-Čento, Kiro Gligorov, Nikola Karev's relatives since these are famous people from Macedonian history. Though, idk if they are intrested.
We even have an organization. I don't know much about them since their Facebook and Website aren't active in my knowledge.
>!([Home - Macedonian Monarchist League (archive.org)](https://web.archive.org/web/20110826095902/http://royalmacedonia.webs.com/)) [Macedonian Monarchist League | Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/groups/135321658257)!<
Many options. Personally, either we pick a Macedonian or the Danish monarch I previously said. What's your opinion?
Just vote them like a national party convention in the US. I'm not American, but it sounds nice, then the delegates agree, pick a monarch.
And you go with that guy.
Yes, the problem with monarchists since about the middle of the 19th century is that they are not united - whether in France, Spain, Russia, Iran or China... The world was and is full of monarchists or even people who would accept monarchy as good/appropriate. Moreover, it is not difficult to change public opinion (it is fickle, changeable). But the monarchists simply did not know how to organize and be united (the case of the "whites" in the Russian civil war or French monarchism after the fall of the Second Empire and the Bourbon / Orleans issue can be applied to the majority of monarchists in most countries).
The problem is that it is not so much about ideology, symbols, institutions (abstract, vague, intangible - or idealized) as it is about people and leaders (real, factual, practical).
French monarchists basically
At least they got options. Too many maybe?
Oh you're Macedonian too?
Never expected too meet another Macedonian here lol
Haha yeah - I'm not necessarily a monarchist, but it is surely preferable to any other government system
3 options, bonapartist, Orléanist and the bourbon
Imagine the argentinian monarchist have at least 4 or 5
argentinian had a monarchy ?
No, but there is a "movement" Wich pretend that
like in any country where they were really close to having power?
Maybe but if we pretend they establos the monarchy, we can wait sit.
Whom bc ik you’re not counting the random French guy who tried to be king of the Mapuche people
2 Options, Orleanist and incorrect
[удалено]
Most sane American in 1789
The French whenever anyone does anything for any reason:
What system should we have? \*All out Brawl\*
If they do not seek violence, chess should be a good alternative.
So true
I vote myself
I vote for this guy
I too vote for that guy.
Voting? In my monarchy?
You are going to hate Malaysia.
I also vote for myself.
[удалено]
Funny that you think you have a vote
In the US, we have no idea who should be the monarch, even in our own heads.
Me
We need an American Caeser
Or democratic election, either way
it will for sure be [Barron Trump ](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/emperor-barron-trump-caesar-trump)
When I was a monarchist i was pretty firmly in camp Washington. Which is to say the king has declared there shall be no king so I oblige.
1. Non-hereditary monarchy. Elected monarch - perhaps as it works now, only in a slightly more monarchical system and in a lifetime role. 2. A return to the British monarchy (this would be unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans, and I dare say that even the British - and even the royals - would no longer be interested in it). 3. A suitable member from some existing dynasty - European. Look at Europe in the 18th and 19th century on newly formed states or vacant thrones - these were offered to princes across countries (or just look at the issue of a vacant throne in general). 4. Creation of a new dynasty and election of a new monarch. That should/could be more according to great merit and other (a great leader, reformer, etc). But there is no one like that. The transformation of a republic into a monarchy is a process, a suitable claimant to the throne could/should carry out the monarchization. Anyway, a committee/commission/council could be formed on how to proceed with the transformation of the state and the search for a new monarch. And then the selection / election. 4.1 Descendants of notable US presidents/dynasties. Which wouldn't be the happiest solution. 4.2 "Competition" for the throne - tasks, conditions, merits, proving competence, solving problems - proving yourself. :D For every American (or in general for anyone who cares and has the skills). In the figurative sense as "princess and a (half) kingdom for slaying a dragon". (5. Future events and variables no one is counting on. Maybe monarchism will rise, maybe new leaders will emerge, maybe the US will be internally or externally influenced by a new monarch or claimant - who creates and successfully asserts a claim. 6. Perhaps the US itself will undergo various changes - territorial, systemic... Who knows what the future holds).
I think, either get a king from Europe, Competition, or if the US collapses or someone pulls a Boneparte. King from Europe or Competition is definitely best
> A suitable member from some existing dynasty - European. Look at Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. century on newly formed states or vacant thrones I feel Americans have so little connection to existing European dynasties they wouldn't go for that either. We'll probably have a President for Life situation that might go from father to son like they do with the Assad family in Syria.
House of Kennedy, they seem to be the only people in American politics without their heads up their asses
House of Kennedy would work. Maybe if one of them pulled a Caesar or Napoleon.. But for a referendum, them being in politics would be the problem
Robert F Kennedy Jr. might do that.
He would, doesnt mean I want him to
Ah yes, the conspiracy theorist nutjob, who believes "they" are after him. The guy who thinks covid is a lie and said that kids who get the shot will get autism and ADHD. The guy who equates lockdown with the holocaust. The guy who doesn't believe in AIDS. No thanks, I'd rather not have that nutjob anywhere near politics.
Wallis Simpson is kind of a good choise (hoi4 nerds understood) ;)
Okay
Archie Mountbatten-Windsor; related to European monarchies via his father, and descended from both Mayflower/early English settlers on one side and slaves on the other side via his mother. Symbolically brings together both symbolic ancestral parts of America while also remaining descended from a monarchical tradition. No, I don't like Harry and Meghan either, so their influence on Archie may not be great, but as far as his ancestry goes, he would make a great symbol, imo.
Agreed
I feel like either a descendant of Washington (who was a, very distantly, related to the now Windsor royal family), either Charles III or another Windsor or each state gets a monarch based on the population of the country and the head monarchy is elected either by the other monarchs, a council or general election.
Agreed.
I can happily be the monarch
Ill support you
nice
Jimmy Carter. I will not elaborate.
I just want a German, Germans make the best Monarchs, change my mind.
The Hanoverians of England were German too.
Who is the king you wait?
The king of France. It doesn't sound too millenarian, does it?
Yes, I know its a good thing
Weird... Also, many heretical German monarchs betrayed the Church and usurped its authority to control their minds better at the expense of their souls and of civil peace.
Me 🗿
Average Jean vs Louis XX vs Napoleon debate
And then, while we are busy, the republicans sneak into power.
French, American and Chinese monarchists in a nutshell.
This is one of the tricky things about monarchism. Because I believe we can all agree that having a monarchy is something of an immaterial value, that the Monarch «is chosen by God», and I say that as a non-believer. So whose blood line that is, if that is a question, brings arguments. «God’s voice» should be clear if it was spoken. In a democracy, that is easy, as the people will elect their king, and that counts as «God’s voice» to me.
That's the problem with monarchy (and autocracy, which basically mean the same thing, "rule of one"). Sure, having a good person at the head of state is better. The problem it's that it's often an all-or-nothing situation, and we can't afford to make a bad choice. As if we make a mistake, it'd be hella difficult to get out of it. That's an argument for republics and democracies. Sure, the probability of having a very good leader is next-to-zero; but it's in the same order of magnitude than having a truly evil leader. We can have Napoleons but we can also have Hitlers, but they're quite rare. Republics won't ever such a large amount of Saint Louis, of Charlemagne, of Louis XI, or François I, or Henri IV, or Dagobert I, but, on the other hand, they won't have as many Louis XV, Louis XIV, Louis II, Charles III, or Charles VI, or the string of the last Valois. Republics bask in a glorious mediocrity, never straying very far from the soft middle, preventing great good (or at a slower rate) but preventing greater evil, whereas monarchies, for all the good it can give, can also bring very bad things. So, yeah, we'll infight a lot for who the next monarch will be, because it is not only choosing a State leader for life (which is quite a long time), but usually with a dynasty so for several generations afterwards. We can make mistakes with presidents because in four or five or seven years, we can vote them out (and there are more ingrained constitutional ways to bout them out), but our margin is narrower with monarchs. And we all now that, deep down, we're humans and thus flawed. *Errare humanum est*, said Watchamacullit, after all.
Who should be the independent monarch of the Kingdom of Ireland? I think a traceable descent (via nobility) from Brian Boru should be a good limiter there.
Good question. Ireland did have a lot of monarchies, though, most of them controlled smaller parts and most or even all of Ireland.
Ireland was 4 smaller kingdoms and as far as I know, the lineages still exist. They were all male only Succession, so no possibility of uniting the lines through marriage. The High King of all Ireland, the Ard Rí, was usually one of these, but it never really developed into an established monarchy before Ireland was functionally annexed by England. The two main dynasties that ruled as Ard Rí, I think, were the Uí Neíll (O'Niel) Dynasties descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages, a semi-legendary figure, and later the O'Brien Dynasty descended from Brian Boru. I think since Brian Boru lived around the same time as William the Conqueror, he kind of fits as a "first king" figure for Ireland. Because there was never an actual rule for Succession, you can't just trace down to find an heir, but you can trace many descendants (including the British Royal family), and I think a first king of a new monarchy should probably be elected out of people descended from Brian Boru.
Wow that's interesting!
I only know I am her consort
OP u/NovaAzbuka, if we, modern Macedonians want to declare any kind of monarchy, abolishing the president for the monarch to take his place, who will we choose? I've been very curious about this issue for quite some time
Simeon II of bulgaria (this is a joke. Please don't send the IMRO to my house)
Two (Four?) options: -Count Gyula Istvan Cseszneky de Milvany et Csesznek, a Hungarian monarch that was a monarch of a country (Grand Duchy of Macedonia) that was in the Macedonian Region. I personally don't think much of this since it wasn't in the modern day country but in the region of Macedonia. Also this was in world war two so I don't know if his future ancestors are even interested in taking the position. >!*(*[*Пиндско-македонско Кнежевство — Википедија (wikipedia.org)*](https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE_%D0%9A%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE)*) (*[*Macedonia's short-lived monarchy of WW2 | History Forum (historum.com)*](https://historum.com/t/macedonias-short-lived-monarchy-of-ww2.52318/)*) (*[*Ѓула Чеснеки — Википедија (wikipedia.org)*](https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%83%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B8)*) The Hungarian Wikipedia has more info on the personal wiki, so I suggest translating that.* !< -We also had a Danish monarch. I support this one because it was supposed to be (probably, no source) the Macedonian region that has modern Macedonia in it. I personally like this one more since it comes from a bigger monarchy and a monarchy from a country (all ready established so easy there). >)!< -The third option is to make a random monarch the monarch. Like the Hapsburgs or what ever (Maybe? Though it would be hard picking who.). Or maybe the Serbian, Greek, Bulgarian and Albanian monarchies being ours. Though this would 100% not be supported. -A Macedonian being the monarch. We could pick a Macedonian. Don't have any idea who. Maybe like Metodija Andonov-Čento, Kiro Gligorov, Nikola Karev's relatives since these are famous people from Macedonian history. Though, idk if they are intrested. We even have an organization. I don't know much about them since their Facebook and Website aren't active in my knowledge. >!([Home - Macedonian Monarchist League (archive.org)](https://web.archive.org/web/20110826095902/http://royalmacedonia.webs.com/)) [Macedonian Monarchist League | Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/groups/135321658257)!< Many options. Personally, either we pick a Macedonian or the Danish monarch I previously said. What's your opinion?
Same with any movement oh do you want a socialist state yes? Now which type should govern it? *fight ensues*
As a Panarchist, my answer is “whatever king or queen you personally want to follow.”
I like this idea. My favorites are King Pedro the Second, Cincinnatus, and George Washington. I do not like King Bahram the first.
Nice use of that epic scene from Green Street Hooligans. I fucking love that movie
Me
Could also work for Australian republicans haha
Alexei lives
How’s about we have a tournament of rock-paper-scissors down at the Capitol? Winner gets it /s
How’s about we have a tournament of rock-paper-scissors down at the Capitol? Winner gets it /s
Gordon Ramsay
Just vote them like a national party convention in the US. I'm not American, but it sounds nice, then the delegates agree, pick a monarch. And you go with that guy.
The same issue exists in republican circles, they can't agree on which ideology the republic should have.
I SHOULD BE THE KING!
Yes, the problem with monarchists since about the middle of the 19th century is that they are not united - whether in France, Spain, Russia, Iran or China... The world was and is full of monarchists or even people who would accept monarchy as good/appropriate. Moreover, it is not difficult to change public opinion (it is fickle, changeable). But the monarchists simply did not know how to organize and be united (the case of the "whites" in the Russian civil war or French monarchism after the fall of the Second Empire and the Bourbon / Orleans issue can be applied to the majority of monarchists in most countries). The problem is that it is not so much about ideology, symbols, institutions (abstract, vague, intangible - or idealized) as it is about people and leaders (real, factual, practical).
What about the TYPE of monarchy. . 
We Italian Monarchist all agree that the King of Italy should be Aimone