The International Monarchist League

  • Thread starter Thread starter BernadetteM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BernadetteM

Guest
I am not sure where this post should go, so I put it here. If this is incorrect please feel free to move it.

Is anyone familiar with an organization called The International Monarchist League.

If so, would you be so kind to explain what it is in laymen terms.

What I read about it, it seems that instead of the government of the U.S.A., those who belong to it would rather have a monarchy form of government. As is in England. Also are they elitist and feel that the white race is superior to others. I really couldn’t figure out exactly what this society stood for.

Thanks for any information.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette
 
I wonder who their candidate is for first monarch of the United Kingdom of America. Not, I suppose, King Barack I, if they’re serious about the white supremacy thing. Queen Hillary I, maybe?
 
BartholomewB said:
I wonder who their candidate is for first monarch of the United Kingdom of America. Not, I suppose, King Barack I, if they’re serious about the white supremacy thing. Queen Hillary I, maybe?
Click to expand...
Surely the obvious solution would be that Queen Elizabeth or her successors would take their rightful place Monarch once the ridiculous experiment with republicanism was abandoned? 😉
 
BartholomewB said:
I wonder who their candidate is for first monarch of the United Kingdom of America. Not, I suppose, King Barack I, if they’re serious about the white supremacy thing. Queen Hillary I, maybe?
Click to expand...
Surely you mean the SECOND monarch, given the last 7 years . . . . . .
 
Does the IML advocate for an American monarch? Their own site and the wikipedia entry doesn’t suggest so. Anyway, it’s an interesting idea. If not very plausible.

I forget who first pointed this out - but it has been said that while Britain is really a “crowned republic”, the US is actually a monarchy already, but one where the monarch goes off after at most 8 years. The powers of the President of the United States far exceeded those of George III even when Washington first took the oath of office, and naturally the office of the president has continued to accumulate power since, while that of the British Parliament accrued much from the Crown (while much business is conducted under the ‘Royal Prerogative’, this is essentially a legal fiction because the Prime Minister and Cabinet advise (ie tell) the monarch how to exercise it.

So for all those worried about the ‘monarchical’ activities of Obama, or Bush previously, or are concerned about a Hillary (or whoever the GOP finally decides to put up), coming…perhaps having an actual monarch would be better after all…
 
Thanks so far for the replies. I guess one of my concerns is what type of a person would join this society and do they feel that they are elite or above others.

I just found out that someone I know belongs and he appears to feel his main goal in life is to become an important individual in certain communities he belongs to. Also I would say he is a little arrogant. That is why I wondered if the society draws from a specific type of personality or just people who want to return to government by a monarch.

God Bless

Bernadette
 
Well, if a person belongs to a racial supremacist group, there’s not much more one needs to know about him
 
Monarchism and fascism often go hand in hand. It’s traditionalism taken to its absurd extreme.
 
I’m sure they’d have to get their own monarch together, Her Majesty wouldn’t touch a white supremacist organisation with a ten foot pole, and I doubt many of her living relatives would be all that keen. I doubt even the Duke of Edinburgh would go for it.

I’ve never known being fond of your monarch (or arguing in favour of the concept of monarchy) to go hand in hand with being some kind of racist nutbag, I’m quite surprised to see this.
Murmurs said:
Does the IML advocate for an American monarch? Their own site and the wikipedia entry doesn’t suggest so. Anyway, it’s an interesting idea. If not very plausible.

I forget who first pointed this out - but it has been said that while Britain is really a “crowned republic”, the US is actually a monarchy already, but one where the monarch goes off after at most 8 years. The powers of the President of the United States far exceeded those of George III even when Washington first took the oath of office, and naturally the office of the president has continued to accumulate power since, while that of the British Parliament accrued much from the Crown (while much business is conducted under the ‘Royal Prerogative’, this is essentially a legal fiction because the Prime Minister and Cabinet advise (ie tell) the monarch how to exercise it…
Click to expand...
I was just about to post something like this. The President is more like a king than a modern monarch of the United Kingdom in reality, even though it is (unsurprisingly for the US) slightly more akin to how the Anglo-Saxons did kingship.
 
Some people have reported through visions that Christ will establish a 12 kingdom monarchy system after his second coming.
 
ephesians4 said:
I was just about to post something like this. The President is more like a king than a modern monarch of the United Kingdom in reality, even though it is (unsurprisingly for the US) slightly more akin to how the Anglo-Saxons did kingship.
Click to expand...
To derail the thread (my particular vice 😉 ) - there are records of interesting discussions during the constitutional convention, and in the Federalist Papers, which show that the framers of the Constitution had actually little idea of what “executive power” meant in Great Britain at the time. Tthe monarch never de facto appointed the cabinet for instance (which the President basically does, subject to approval), except following his/her Prime Minister’s advice, and even though he could (and the current Queen still could) choose anyone whatsoever to be Prime Minister (if they’re not in Parliament a quick peerage would sort that tiny issue out), even in the 18th century while it sometimes wrankled the monarch, the PM had to have the support of Parliament to be effective. Anyway, point being the monarch had (has) immense power but couldn’t use it, so actually in fighting for liberty from a tyrannical executive (pace Thomas Jefferson), the US ended up with an even stronger one. If it wasn’t so important the irony would be delicious…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top