Why have all monarchies failed?

Stupid white people and their "democracy" crap.

Name a better sounding name for a country. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Attached: United Kingdom of America.jpg (1920x1080, 459K)

>Why have all monarchies failed?
Because feudalism was no longer necessary and absolutism is dogshit.

>And what would an American monarchy look like?
Realistically? Probably very similar to the structure of the real american government, but with executive nobility. This would probably extend beyond the federal level.

I've actually been working on a concept for an alternate history scenario. The system of government has an elected figure (essentially president, though the term might not be technically accurate) and monarch as co-executives on the federal level, with each state having both a prince and an elected governor as co-executives, and this system continuing down to more local levels of politics. The nobility are a check on the power of the wealthy pseudo-aristocracy, while the elected officials are a check on the power of the nobility. Long term governmental planning is easier, but the executive branch can still respond well to short-term changes/issues. The executive is more powerful than in real life when the co-executives cooperate, and less powerful when they oppose each other.

>Wanting a British monarchy for america
Absolutely disgusting. If America is ever to have a monarch, we should have an AMERICAN monarch.

Why have all governments and nations failed?

Honestly, I'd be ok with a real Monarchy as long as the Monarch wasn't some Jew puppet cuck. And non of this Constitutional Monarchy bullshit either. A Monarch with little or no power isn't really a Monarch.

Constitutional monarchy is the the only type of monarchy that's proper, long term. The only debate to be had is to what extent the monarch is limited.

this

Attached: 134512545215.jpg (765x628, 503K)

Kek.

The big issue is that there isn't really anyone right now who could reasonably be made monarch. They'd have to transcend party politics, and there's no way that's happening right now.

Not saying I want a British Monarch. Just saying it sounds fucking awesome and the titles aren't bad either

Any spawn of Washington can be made our king.

I could see us with an selected/elected king, selected from an aristocratic body. A hereditary monarchy in its strictest form cannot work here.

If America were to be a monarchy, it should still be at least pseudo-federal, and the name should reflect that.

Most if not all european royal bloodlines are well analized in the bible alas the book of kings, so they are pretty much the same family with a common father.

Your scenario sounds redpilled and cool

He literally didn't have any, and it's been too long for that to be viable, anyway.

Plus, making some rando king because of who his great to the umpteenth grandfather was would send a bad message.

Only because you want the monarch to have too much power.

>How People become Monarchists
youtube.com/watch?v=8NbVhFh9_-c
>The King of Future America
youtube.com/watch?v=C8AiIIvAs14

Attached: Imperio.jpg (736x805, 93K)

No one other than the maker of America deserves to be our king, or maybe we should have multiple kings for each american state who work in a union instead?

Thanks huebro, auto subbed to that channel.

This is basically true. Monarchies were basically brought down by "capitalists" who wanted to take the power for themselves, because they can more-easily control democracies than monarchs.

>"Manufacture, on a small scale, created the middle-class; on a large scale, it created the working-class, and raised the elect of the middle-class to the throne." - Friedrich Engels, 1844

But the better question is, "Why should anyone obey their government?"

There are only three main forms of government authority...
1) Government by god(IE monarchies, Divine Right of Kings).
2) Government by force(IE slave-states, conquered/oppressed people).
3) Government by consent(IE democracy).

Government by force isn't very stable or productive. The most-productive governments are those where people support it voluntarily. Government by god works pretty well, but it requires everyone to believe in god, and to have the same beliefs(and for the church to support the government).

Government by consent is the most-productive form of government. And democracy gives the appearance of consent, which makes it impossible to resist. It is always why governments can rack up so much debt, draft people into the military en masse, and to pass so many laws with such little resistance. While everyone believes it is their duty to work, obey the laws, and pay their taxes.

Under democracy, you aren't obeying a "master", you are merely obeying yourself.

The concept is called "Jeffersonian Monarchism" in universe, and it's sort of a weird Federal Republic/Feudal Monarchy fusion, incorporating most of Jefferson's political beliefs EXCEPT for his extreme disdain for monarchism. After Washington dies without an heir, Jefferson is made king, which he accepts mostly because he doesn't trust anyone else with the position.

I haven't developped the concept a whole lot further, but there is some stuff like keeping a pseudo-militia system for the military, with local nobility being responsible for the training and arming of military units.

If America was to have a monarchical system, the states should definitely have their own nobility (in the alternate history thing I've worked on, they're princes), but there should also be a king of the whole country.

you mean hillary the lieing whore daemon?

>Why have ALL monarchies failed.
They haven't, it's one of the most basic & adaptable forms of government. The Eastern Roman Empire was a monarchy and lasted longer than any state in history. Suck start a shotgun you democratic shill

Attached: IMG_1816.jpg (208x326, 10K)

>Asks about monarchies and how they work
>"Democratic shill"
Is this the notorious Australian shitposter?