The American Monarchy - A Prussian Scheme for the ages

[Theodoric the Amal]

The year is 1786 and the American system of governance under the Articles of Confederation is on it's final legs. Within the next three years the Articles would be completely done away with in favor of the Constitution we have today.

Enter a man named Nathaniel Gorham, who allegedly corresponded with Prince Henry of Prussia, brother of Frederick the Great, in what is now known as the Prussian Scheme in hopes of inviting the German noble to take a hypothetical American throne.

Obviously this never amounted to much, likely due to a combination of factors, but it was not an outlandish sentiment for the time. Newly independent European principalities, such as Romania in 1866, would often invite nobility from more prestigious families to legitimize their sovereignty.

This was not even the first suggestion of an American monarchy, with the Newburgh Conspiracy several years earlier in 1783 aiming to enthrone Washington himself as the King of America.

Either of these proposed monarchies would definitely have been constitutional in nature, because we're fucking American hell yeah, but the specter of Prussian Absolutism hangs heavy over the house of Hohenzollern, so who knows what could've happened.

Thoughts on an American monarchy? Potential pro's, con's, complaints, suggestions? I think the very idea is worth discussing, just because of how out of left field it feels.

 

[A Useless Fish]

Given the circumstances surrounding the Revolution in the first place, if a Monarchy was created, then the chances are good it would have been a Constitutional Monarchy, similar to the one in Britain at the time, though with likely more restrictions on what the King or Queen could do, with taxes and most other important government functions being held by the Senate and Congress.

Now, if there was a line of Kings, how would that have affected the prospect of the Civil War? Would there still have been one, or would there still have been one, but would some of the reasons for it have changed? Would the Monarchy survive the Civil War, if the King at the time sided with the South, or at least kept quiet but had very obvious sympathies with them?

 

[ICametoLurk]

@Gym Leader Elesa, your thoughts?

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

@Gym Leader Elesa, your thoughts?

It could've happened. It didn't. Would have kicked ass if it did.

 

[Rolo_Tomassi]

I always thought that, despite every Founding Father's intention, America has become Rome. I think a monarchy would be preferable to what we have now: temporary emperors (i.e. the Executive Office); at least a monarchy would give a shit about legacy and the state of the country. Though we've become pretty efficient with the transfer of power: instead of waiting for Emperors to kill each other off, we just boot them out of power every four years.

 

[Theodoric the Amal]

Given the circumstances surrounding the Revolution in the first place, if a Monarchy was created, then the chances are good it would have been a Constitutional Monarchy, similar to the one in Britain at the time, though with likely more restrictions on what the King or Queen could do, with taxes and most other important government functions being held by the Senate and Congress.

Now, if there was a line of Kings, how would that have affected the prospect of the Civil War? Would there still have been one, or would there still have been one, but would some of the reasons for it have changed? Would the Monarchy survive the Civil War, if the King at the time sided with the South, or at least kept quiet but had very obvious sympathies with them?

The points about the civil war are really interesting, and I think it could be dependent on where the monarchy came from tbh. A line of Washington kings is a line of southern slaveowners, with a vested and powerful interest in the institution, while a line of Prussian kings has no inherent tie to the institution, barring being gifted slaves at some point.

I could totally see a Hohenzollern monarchy being shamed by their European cousins into taking a harder stance against America's "peculiar institution" as time went on. But at the same time, by the time the civil war rolls about, we would have a King or Queen who had been born on U.S. soil, so they may not take the opinions of their fellow monarchs too seriously.

 

[A Useless Fish]

The points about the civil war are really interesting, and I think it could be dependent on where the monarchy came from tbh. A line of Washington kings is a line of southern slaveowners, with a vested and powerful interest in the institution, while a line of Prussian kings has no inherent tie to the institution, barring being gifted slaves at some point.

I could totally see a Hohenzollern monarchy being shamed by their European cousins into taking a harder stance against America's "peculiar institution" as time went on. But at the same time, by the time the civil war rolls about, we would have a King or Queen who had been born on U.S. soil, so they may not take the opinions of their fellow monarchs too seriously.

This would also depend on who would be the monarch. I mean, let's face it, would an American monarch have married American citizens, or would they have had to look beyond the Atlantic to find suitable crowned heads? A spouse can have an awful lot of power, if they wind up being strong willed while the ruler himself is a pussy (see Nicholas II, the last Tsar of Russia here). Also, you can't just have people and a King. There would have to be an aristocracy of sorts. Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, the Lees of Virginia etc. become Lords, or Dukes? How would that change the US's direction? Would they have gotten first pick of the land being eaten up by Manifest Destiny? What if the American line died out, or had to harvest the Holy Roman Empire for prospective noble rulers like with how Frederick the Great did when he picked the future Catherine the Great to be sent off to marry into the line of the Tsars? Would a Queen have been allowed to rule alone, like Elizabewth the Grerat of England, or the already mentioned Catherine the Great of Russia? Wars have been fought over successiont to thrones before. Hell, that could have led to a Civil War before The Civil War we all know and love.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Due to the nature of the American Revolution and what it represented in the minds of the founders, I think the establishment of an American monarchy would have been extremely unlikely. It would be like if the French had replaced the monarchy they deposed during the French Revolution with another monarchy (perhaps they did in a way with Napoleon, but I guess that's another story).

Even as early as the 17th century, the idea of concentrating power into the hands of a hereditary monarch was starting to be seen as outdated, and increasingly from then on, the institution would persist out of tradition and historical inertia more than anything else, as it does in the UK to this day.

 

[Bassomatic]

I will post a second time when I have a few drinks in me and at a full keyboard but America's birth and staying the elected system it is was a lot of luck that all the right people fell in place at the right time .

We were hours away from ending like the lolcow french revolution that was pushed supported and thought by the same ideals and men.

in 500 years if America stands or not if we are on the moon or back to cave dwellers. George Washington will go down as a backwards Julis Caeser just as important and more respected.

 

[Slap47]

You would probably see a second American Revolution because many people at that time were sympathetic towards the French Revolution.

I also can't see these people electing a foreign Noble to be their monarch. If they had to I imagine the elites would probably pick one amongst themselves. Most of these people were anti-monarchy so they probably only have one for selfish reasons. However, the middle class had a lot of sway in American politics at the time.

The only person I can really see becoming an American Monarch would be George Washington. However he had no biological children so his monarchy wouldn't be a traditional one.

In Latin America, it usually became a conflict between reformers and a traditional religious side because religion was actually used as a force for oppression. The US religion was far more localized and less about privileges.

 

[Bassomatic]

Ok so I'm properly blasted and willing to expand on post before, Washington swore there would be no house. I want to restate he will go down in history as someone of most importance in humanity. While I love the period and all the founding fathers, G Wash is just a flawless man. His only "fault" were being a kind slave owner, in an era of slavery. Now in 400 years will you want to be called Hitler for having a cat? When we have more animal rights?

The house of Hohenzollern is amazing in history and deserves more respect than it gets for western culture.

Personally being how I see my self I have more attachments to Jefferson. This is my bias he's an incredible mind if not one of the most important in past 500 years easy. But Washington is just a shining example of a true hero.

Blood and name don't matter when you are a real hero. The house of Hohenzollern is amazing in it's history and events, from the birth peak and fall of Germany but I rather one man who had no kids be my nations name.

 

[Liquid Kent]

It could've happened. It didn't. Would have kicked ass if it did.

I'm pretty sure it did. And I fought that madman.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

. It would be like if the French had replaced the monarchy they deposed during the French Revolution with another monarchy (perhaps they did in a way with Napoleon, but I guess that's another story).

They did nearly half a dozen times. Including restoring the House of Bourbon and the cadet branch, Orléans. France would actually be a monarchy now if the Third Republic had abided by the referendums it held and said should be binding. Or when the directory did that same thing. Etc.

Tl;dr this is probably the only timeline when France didn't end up a monarchy.

 

[millais]

It would have been pretty cool if we took in the Bonapartist dynasty in exile after either Napoleon's first or second abdication. He could have set up in New Orleans as the capital of the new American monarchy and led the conquest of the entire American landmass both to the continental west and the Latin south.