Contact us via email or the chat if you have a question not currently part of this list, we will answer it as soon as we can.
And if your question covers an important topic or point not on this list, we will add your question and our response to it here.
How will a Monarchy be established?
Forming a monarchy in the United States is simple, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy, however.
It would require three key steps: education, election, and convention.
First, we need to educate and inform the voters about monarchy. What it is, what it does, the history of monarchies, the justifications for it, the philosophy and politics of it, all that exciting stuff! Because right now all the voters have in their minds when it comes to a monarchy is either the British monarchy or a “caricature monarchy”, an evil and arbitrary tyrant that takes all your money and does anything they please. That image needs to crack and break away!
Next, we need to start running candidates and do our best to win elections. We haven’t done so yet as we’d like to gain far more traction and public visibility first. But once we start public events and really explaining monarchy and monarchism on a vast scale, informing masses of people about it, we’ll also start running candidates as well!
Finally, would be the convention bit, and that’s in reference to a constitutional convention. We’d get the Congress to call a new constitutional convention, the second this country would ever have, and draft amendments, corrections, and clarifications to the present constitution. Probably also drafting an entirely new document, a second constitution, that would contain all of the clauses and phrases from the amendments to the first one, and have any future amendments start from the beginning again. We wouldn’t get rid of the original constitution at all, it would simply be easier to streamline the document and draft a second copy to be referenced moving forward than sift through it and 30+ amendments.
Who will be the Monarch?
That has not yet been decided for two important reasons.
Firstly, It’s too early. Our movement needs to gain more public traction and more political clout before we can decide this. We could name someone, but they could easily pass away before the change to the constitution is made.
Secondly, whoever is chosen will automatically become the “face” of the party by definition. They will be the ones proposed and so will be liable to political and personal attacks from opposition groups and ideologies. So, calling them too early, especially when we’re not ready to do so, would be needlessly stressful for them, their families, and us.
Whoever it will be however must meet two basic requirements: be a US citizen and be identifiably different or distinct from the masses of citizens.
It can’t just be anyone. What legitimacy would one average person have over hundreds of millions of other average people? Well, they don’t, so the list must be specific. The only people omitted from the list and from being chosen would be admins of this party, and any past, present, and future politicians of the United States.
However, the list does include descendants of the more prominent founding fathers, as well as members of reigning and deposed monarchies. Royals have been living in the United States for a long while, in some case for 3 generations or more, many have been born here, have citizenship not only by birth, but they’ve lived in the United States most of their lives if not still, they were educated here, went to university here, had their children here etc.
So, with the “citizen royals”, many in the movement feel we get the best of both worlds, royal legitimacy, i.e., centuries of family history of rule and governance (with some having grandparents who are Kings and Queens), as well as US citizenship all in one.
But many are still split on the issue and it is by no means settled at the current moment.
Will the Monarchy be a Constitutional Monarchy?
Yes. The Monarchy will be a Constitutional Monarchy, full stop. It will be a Constitutional Monarchy where the Monarch has actual prerogatives under the constitution, so more or less what many would describe as a “Semi-Constitutional Monarchy”, but really all that means is that the Monarch is not a figurehead. It by no means encourages or implies arbitrary governance, despotism, or tyranny.
Will the Monarchy be a separate and new branch of government?
No. The Monarchy will be a reorganization of the Executive Branch and Presidency. The Monarch will hold all of the current constitutionally granted powers of the Presidency; formal and informal, enumerated and implied.
Why would the number of Members to the House of Representatives increase?
The membership of the House of Representative needs to increase because as the chamber currently stands, it has been capped at 435 members since the 1920’s when the United States population was roughly 1/3 of what it is now. As such each member of the chamber more or less has on average close to 760,000 citizens in their constituencies. The members are spread too thin and as the population grew the members became further removed from the people by the shear amount they directly speak for. Larger constituent populations dilute the voices of the individual citizens across the administration of the districts and points of view or concerns which might otherwise be quite loud become easily drowned out or overlooked.
By increasing the number of representatives to 820 – 830 members it would provide each constituency a size of around 400,000, and if we were to increase the number to 1,000 members we could further pull that number down to 331,000 as of the 2020 census.
But here we also recognize a more complicated problem. As the population grows and the members of the House grow in proportion with it, soon the size of the chamber become far too cumbersome to be efficient or operate well. So, there might come a time when regional Congresses need to be established across the Continental United States who in turn nominate a proportion of their own membership to serve in the National Congress so as to not overwhelm the limits of one body alone.
What is the Senate being restored to and why?
The Senate as conceived of in Philadelphia in 1787, was meant to be a body separate from the House in the Congress, hence us having a bicameral legislature.
The role of the Senate was to check the popular passions of the House, providing a tamer and more experienced perspective as many senior officials would find their way to the Senate, to amend and vote on legislation, and to have the sovereignty of the States themselves established and recognized in the Congress. The Senators were nominated by the State legislatures themselves and so represented the will of the States in the federal government, a natural check against centralizing overreach via the States.
After the First World War the 17th amendment to the constitution was passed which made the Senate a popularly elected chamber. The problem with this action was that it removed the Senates ability to act as a distinct body in the Congress. Sure, the Senate has a different role still and holds different responsibilities, but its atmosphere and conduct is very much like that of the House; overemotional, centered on popularity and personality, electoral expectations rather than rational debates, and on it goes. The Senators are now just as much dependent on likability and popularity as the House is and their purpose is corrupted by the need to win elections to gain a position or retain it, because the only way you can act in government or make the government act is by having a position within it. It is much harder to convince the Mob of hundreds of thousands that you’re doing a good job than it is to convince a chamber of 400 well informed individuals back home.
By removing the nomination process of the Senators by the States the whole point of a bicameral legislature became redundant. Restoring the process can defuse the tensions in the Senate by having less fiery members ever hold those position, a greater focus on the States themselves rather than only what the people in those States want them to do, a greater focus on quality rather than who will be the loudest, or most passionate, or the most passionately against something or someone. The House is where the population at large has their voice, the Senate was never meant to be that way.
How will a Monarchy be useful in the 21st century?
Well, that presupposes that Monarchy would naturally become irrelevant by and in 21st century and the third millennium. Monarchies, Republics, and Democracies are all ancient forms of government, so believing that any one of them is more archaic or more modern over the others on its own makes no sense. Also, it presupposes that Monarchy full stop, a “one person” government, is what is meant, but Monarchy is more of a byword these days and describes a spectrum.
First, the question is, what do you want government to do? How would you prefer it to behave?
Nowadays we want government to respect our freedoms, defend us, provide economic growth and opportunities, be efficient and not wasteful, etc. we have high expectations. At the same time populism, and majority will, which is the order of the day, seem to be more of a risk than a benefit. As we have become more tribal and more divided the risk we pose to each other and to our institutions is very great. This is in front of our eyes every day.
So how do we solve this problem? We have covered all that on our other pages, An American Monarchy and Americas Founding Fathers, but briefly we see this as a structural issue.
All our institutions are enmeshed in populism and tribal politics, the solution is simple and that is to remove the populism and tribalism from the equation as much as possible. The people themselves won’t magically about-face so the institutions themselves need to change to accommodate the situation. The House membership being increased so the members aren’t spread as thin, and the constituencies made smaller. The Senate being restored to its nominative process so they are connected more to the States as a body and can focus more on governing than elections. The Presidency (Future Monarchy) becoming a hereditary institution so as to redesign the office as an impartial umpire and natural arbiter rather than the coach of the largest team.
Voting alone doesn’t make any choice more fair or rational, and voting is the easiest way to tyrannize minority groups in a country because the majority has the numbers on their side. Neutral persons are the fairest arbiters of anything, and the best equipped to defend the rights of those in the minority. They don’t have any horse in the race and their position is uncontested, they owe no one any special favors and prefer no group to any other; their only aim is to look at the facts of the case and go from there. Simple yet very effective and more favorable to liberty and justice than any majority vote.
What is "Farm Surplus Trading"?
Farm surplus trading is the idea that farm subsidies should be reorganized so farmers are paid for the production they can’t sell or have too much of and that excess will be provided to foodbanks and food deserts across the country. Farmers are currently granted subsidies to make US production more competitive or cheaper than foreign options, but also to offset apparent farm risk or inability to cover all their expenses and waste. Even if there is a debate surrounding that it would be beneficial to all those areas of our country suffering from lack of food and lack of access to nutritious food that farmers produce as much as they can and as a variety. That would not only provide much needed food to many but also limit the spread of agricultural diseases as the monoculture would be broken up and plant resistance would increase as different varieties of similar crops would enhance the genetic diversity as well.
Various other methods and initiatives could be beneficial to the agricultural sector at large, but those are more in line with an environmental question than the economics and community orientation of a surplus trading question.
What is your purpose in attempting to reorganize urbanism in the United States?
The built environment is for the use, comfort, and needs of people. However, in the United States we have designed our urbanism largely around the car, and so the ability for people to easily navigate our cities and towns is greatly eroded. It wasn’t inevitable that our cities would develop as they had, we had the space and the car gave us the ability, but we didn’t need too. A look at the old urbanism of Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas demonstrates a different sort of urbanism than what we create today. It is a human centered urbanism, built on the human and community scale out of necessity, with no way to travel easily or quickly over land or water, as much as could be made, sold, or processed nearby or in town had to be so. And with no powerplants to create gargantuan amounts of energy their buildings needed to be designed in an awareness of the environment and climate it was being built in, plenty of shading for hot humid environments, thick insular walls and thermal vents for cold wet environments. Passive buildings inspired from nature, or biomimicry, are some of the most efficient to be designed.
Obviously, we have different abilities now, but a denser more human oriented urbanism would likely:
- Improve community cohesion as mixed-income neighborhoods are built to quality standards for people of various economic backgrounds to live near or next to each other rather than being segregated
- Relieve unnecessary stresses on the environment outside a town or city boundary
- Decrease the number of cars in use
- Increase quality of life and ease of access to various amenities, goods, and services
- Encourage the mixing of residential and business locations
- Encourage a better architectural environment as multiuse and multigenerational buildings would become increasing desirable
Overall, designing better buildings, towns, and cities would have a net positive effect on us as citizens and individuals in general.
How do you plan to re-industrialize the United States? Is it even Possible?
Yes, we believe it is possible to re-industrialize the United States. How is a little more tricky as a web of factors prevent or inhibit it.
The cost of education, the cost of US labor, the cost of insurance, and the cost of medical care are several of many factors at play. US labor costs so much because we are a highly specialize work force, much of our 331 million population goes to further education after high school, roughly 42%, and so they expect more benefits and quality from their employers. That in and of itself isn’t a problem, but it is also coupled with other factors, insurance and medical on top of even being able to attend or afford college. Insurance costs are high because medicine in large part cost a great deal. Medical costs in large part are artificially inflated because the same service in the same city can cost very different amounts between hospitals. If medical costs are deflated, then insurance costs coupled with them could be pressured to decrease as well. As such companies and employment opportunities that provide medical and insurance can be made more competitive.
In large part it is all the protections and benefits that our workers receive that make our labor so costly, but the solution is not to take those away, but to make each step more efficient, negotiate as much as possible, and cut unnecessary waste and expenditure at every turn.
However, still many families and individuals are unable to afford higher education. Roughly 50% of Americans say they cannot afford college tuitions and college tuitions have been skyrocketing in recent years with figures placing it at 4x as expensive than in 1963, or a 2700% increase over 60 years, with an annual increase in costs at 8%. Low income families can ill-afford such an expense and so often times go without. Dropout rates for colleges average at about 40% of undergraduates, with about 40% of college students graduating in four years or less, and about 44% graduating within six years. Meanwhile high school has a graduation rate of 85%. With many families and individuals of low incomes, going through college is not just expensive, but also time consuming, and the standards to which we hold such institutions and the faculty on staff there also add extra expense. If one does make it through college there is another obstacle in your way, not enough available positions for the number of college graduates. 46% of graduates say they work in their field, 29% say they work in a different field (possibly totally un-related), and 16% say they are currently un-employed. So simply encouraging more people to go to college to have access to better positions is not only not always feasible or possible, but also not always true or profitable, with many unable to pay off loans as well. With projections of a near 60% default rate on those loans, college debt may yet develop into the next economic bubble to burst.
We in large part focus on people, the workers that fill these positions, and need to eat and sleep. And speaking of which, another large obstacle to re-industrialization that brings with it a large work force is AI and automation. There is no way to escape automation and AI, at least none that we see, but machines do not sleep and do not eat, they take no breaks or vacations, they don't get tired and never get sick, and have no other ambition than the monotonous tasks they're assigned. They take economic opportunities away from people that actually need them and in doing so the company monopolizes that position and salary or wage and in that respect is no longer a “job creator”. If the benefits of industrialization, manufacturing, and the economy of the United States are to be had by all citizens, then those wages kept from the potential workers by the companies can no longer be kept by them. The wages they would’ve paid if all positions were held by people must be paid as if they were all still held by people, even if they are currently operated automatically. Perhaps the companies as a result will opt for a hybrid system of combined automation and human labor at 100% its capacity to do so, but otherwise the companies will be charged anyway.
Someone said that eventually there will be a product that no one will be able to buy. How? Because the company that makes it employs no workers and so pays no workers, and all other companies also employ no workers and pays no workers. But an economy like that is not sustainable. People mostly need and want about the same, and an advanced economy cannot sustain itself only on the purchases of 1,000,000 individuals.
The engine analogy is useful here, the movement and work of that engine is the economy, and the buying and selling is like the fuel for that engine. If not enough people have disposable income to buy and sell and invest than that engine runs out of fuel and it stops moving. An economy built on and around the lower and middle classes, the work they do and the money they spend, is a healthy and vibrant economy. Economists should focus on the middle out, not the top down.
Are there any books or videos you recommend to anyone interested in Monarchy or wanting to understand your mission more?
Some books we recommend are:
- The Royalist Revolution; by Eric Nelson
- The White King; by Leanda de Lisle
- Leviathan; by Thomas Hobbes
- Liberty or Equality; by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
- The Farmer Refuted; by Alexander Hamilton
- A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States Vol I-III; by John Adams
- Remarks on the controversy between Great Britain and her colonies; by Edward Bancroft
As for any videos we recommend, an extensive list can be found on our Blog page on this website.
What gives future decedents of monarchs the right to reign?
What gives them that right is simple, their bloodline, being related to the monarch, that is their source of legitimacy. Monarchies are governed by dynasty and family relations.
While it would of course be possible to find a person of high distinction to become King/Queen, their children may however be utter buffoons, how would you address that?
This notion is very ‘black and white’, good kings vs bad princes, it’s too simplistic and things are never so simple.
Monarchs don’t rise in vacuums; it is not just a choice between good vs bad. Monarchs are and have often been educated in many relevant disciplines (ex. languages, law, diplomacy, philosophy, history, rhetoric, ethics, etc.), much political thought and intellectual formulation had been devoted to the education and council of princes. They also shadow their forbears, monarchy being an apprenticeship of sorts, they perform martial services and duties, etc. Monarchs don’t need to be sages, they don’t need to be geniuses, they don’t need to be saints; they at the bear minimum just need to be good communicators and good managers/leaders.
But monarchs have often risen to higher heights, many monarchs have become saints, many have been heroic warriors and leaders, many have been great builders and visionaries. Monarchs often rise above, and that’s because their position is very personal, they are constantly being compared to their great ancestors, they have the weight of those past achievements to live up to, the weight of legacy that they also must pass on, they have that pressure on them to be better than just average, better than just themselves. Monarchs aren’t just individuals like you or I, they are the summit of their families; living, dead, and yet to come. It’s about dynasty, not just one person, they live and act for more than themselves. The whole country/empire and its peoples are their responsibility, they are obliged to manage it well as those who came before had done.
They have the tools, they have the education, they have the advice and counsel of others, all at their disposal; all they need to do is apply it.
Yet still, despite reassurances and knowledge of history, people often still bring forward the ‘what if’. No matter how convinced people become they still have that nagging theoretical in the back of their minds, ‘what if we get a bad/buffoonish prince?’
Well, these days we have psychologists and psychoanalysis, something our ancestors didn’t have. We have a better understanding of medicine and illness. Illnesses that were fatal only 100 years ago we can now easily diagnose and treat.
We can screen for any underlying factors in the heirs, they can be ‘tested’ before they assume the throne, both physically and mentally.
A similar idea had been put forward by Crown Prince Otto von Habsburg, and I imagine it was an idea of formalizing what the Habsburg’s themselves had done throughout the history of the dynasty. Family members had been passed over, or removed from authority, as the wider family saw fit to do, Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II and Austrian Emperor Ferdinand I are two that come to mind.
“While there is thus much to be said for a hereditary transmission of the supreme position of the State, there is also one serious drawback, which has already been mentioned. If the succession occurs automatically, there is the possibility that the throne will be occupied by an incompetent. This is the greatest danger of the monarchial system. On the other hand, this danger only dates from the period when the inflexible legitimism of Versailles came into being, and the safeguards present in one form or another in most classical monarchies disappeared. Such safeguards would therefore have to be built into any future monarchical constitution. It would be wrong to hand this task over to political bodies, as that would open the door to private interests. The decision should be left to a judicial tribunal. The king, as the highest constitutional judge of the State, cannot exercise his function in a vacuum. He will have to be assisted by a body representing the highest judicial authority, of which he forms the head. It is this body which should pronounce on whether a law or a regulation is constitutional, that is, in accordance with the purpose of the State. When the ruler dies, the other judges will continue in office. It should be their duty to pronounce on the suitability of the heir presumptive, and, if necessary, to replace him by the next in succession.”
~ Austro-Hungarian Crown Prince, Otto von Habsburg
So, in short there are many reasons to believe that this notion of bad princes is blown way out of proportion, but also much cause for reassurance because our knowledge of underlying causes and how to address them is much better understood today than our ancestors, and the options and resources at our disposal are much more numerous as well.