Eleanor Finch
In the context of the creation of the U.S. Constitution, there were concerns from the public that the drafters would create a monarchy. A delegate was quoted in a Philadelphia newspaper stating that they were not creating a monarchy. The U.S. Constitution outlined a separation of powers to prevent tyrannical rule. However, Alexander Hamilton, an ardent spokesman for the new Constitution, proposed a model similar to the British government, which some interpreted as a suggestion for a monarchical system. This proposal faced opposition due to the prevalent enmity towards royalty during the revolutionary period. The U.S. Constitution ultimately led to a democratic form of government, moving away from the absolute monarchy characteristic of the modern state from the 11th century to the middle of the 18th century.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Criticism of Trump's royal assertion | Trump posted on Truth Social: "CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!" |
| "We are a nation of laws, not ruled by a king," said Democratic New York Governor Kathy Hochul. | |
| "We don't have kings in the USA," said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). | |
| "My oath is to the Constitution of our state and our nation. We don't have kings in America, and I won't bend the knee to one," said Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat. | |
| Alexander Hamilton's proposal | Alexander Hamilton called the British government "the best in the world" and proposed a model with a strong executive, a senate with members serving during good behavior, and a legislature with the power to pass "all laws whatsoever." |
| Hamilton later wrote to Washington that the people were now willing to accept "something not very remote from that which they have lately quitted," referring to monarchy. | |
| Most delegates were aware that there were too many Royall Tylers in the country, with too many memories of British rule and ties to a recent war, to accept a king. | |
| Hamilton figured that the majority of the people in New York actually opposed the Constitution, and it is probable that a majority of people in the entire country opposed it. | |
| History of constitutional monarchy | During the 19th century, many absolute monarchies became constitutional monarchies before further transforming into republics. |
| Constitutional monarchies appeared during the 18th century and replaced most absolute monarchies in the 20th century. | |
| In constitutional monarchies, the monarch is the head of state but does not have sovereignty because they do not have the exclusive power to make laws. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The US Constitution aimed to prevent tyrannical rule
The US Constitution was created to prevent tyrannical rule and to ensure a balance of power in governance. The Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison, were familiar with past tyrannical regimes and their failures and sought to establish a secure and stable system that protected individual liberties and rights. They aimed to create a republic, not a monarchy, and included safeguards in the Constitution to prevent any tyrant from gaining absolute power.
This consensus against monarchy was due to the prevalent enmity towards royalty and the privileged classes during the revolutionary period. Many state constitutions even prohibited titles of nobility. The delegates at the Philadelphia convention, where the Constitution was drafted, were aware that the country had recently broken free from British rule and that there was widespread opposition to the idea of a king. Thomas Paine, in his 1776 work "Common Sense," wrote, "For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries, the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
Alexander Hamilton, however, proposed a model of government similar to the British system, which caused concern that the Constitution would create a monarchy. In response, a delegate at the convention assured the public that "we never once thought of a king." The Constitution that resulted outlined a separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, serving as a system of checks and balances to prevent tyrannical rule.
The US Constitution has served as a bulwark against tyranny, with America's enduring constitutional republic creating a nation that has been looked up to and tried to be copied by others. The document has helped facilitate a stable system of governance within a framework of laws, protecting individual rights and liberties.
Understanding Constitutional Monarchy and its Synonyms
You may want to see also
The Founding Fathers' consensus was against a king
The Founding Fathers of the United States were clear in their opposition to the idea of being ruled by a king. This sentiment was foundational to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which was hammered out during a contentious convention in 1787.
The Founding Fathers had just broken free from the rule of the British monarchy and were wary of any concentration of power that could lead to tyranny. They established a system of checks and balances, separating powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Thomas Paine, in his 1776 work "Common Sense," wrote, "For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." This sentiment was echoed by a delegate at the Philadelphia convention, who said, "Tho' we cannot, affirmatively, tell you what we are doing, we can, negatively, tell you what we are not doing—we never once thought of a king."
Some Founding Fathers, such as Alexander Hamilton, argued in favor of a strong single executive rather than a group of people to avoid the "danger of difference of opinion." However, others saw this as a potential "fetus of monarchy." Benjamin Franklin famously responded to concerns about the creation of a monarchy, saying, "a republic, if you can keep it."
The Founding Fathers also included provisions in the Constitution to guard against presidential corruption and foreign influence, such as the emoluments clause and the power to impeach a president. They recognized the dangers of gift-giving, the bestowing of titles, and intermarriage between royal families as ways to bind nations together and sought to protect their young democracy from such influences.
The consensus among the Founding Fathers was clear: they did not want their newly formed nation to be ruled by a king. They established a system of government that aimed to prevent the concentration of power and protect the freedoms they had fought for during the revolution.
Legislature's Role in Constitutional Monarchy Explained
You may want to see also
Monarchy was not an option for the US
During the revolution, a significant portion of the population of the Thirteen Colonies remained loyal to the British Crown, known as "Loyalists". However, since then, there has not been any serious movement supporting monarchy in the United States, although a few prominent individuals have occasionally advocated for it. One such individual was Alexander Hamilton, who, in a speech before the Constitutional Convention of 1787, argued that the President of the United States should be an elective monarch, ruling for "good behaviour" (i.e., for life, unless impeached) and with extensive powers. Hamilton's proposal was resoundingly voted down in favour of a four-year term with the possibility of re-election.
The Founding Fathers were also strongly against the idea of monarchy. Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense in 1776, "For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." General George Washington, who was unanimously elected president of the Philadelphia convention, also turned down a proposal for him to become the King of the United States, favouring a republican government instead.
Public opinion polls over the years have consistently shown a lack of support for monarchy in the United States. While a small percentage of Americans have expressed some openness to the idea, the majority have consistently opposed it. For example, a 2013 CNN poll found that 13% of Americans would be open to the United States possessing a royal family, while 69% thought it would be bad. Similarly, a 2021 poll by YouGov found that only 5% of Americans would consider monarchy a good thing, with 69% answering that it would be bad.
Despite a few individuals and small groups advocating for monarchy in the United States, it has never been a serious option. The country's history, values, and political system are firmly rooted in the principles of democracy and republicanism, with a clear separation of powers and a system of checks and balances to prevent tyrannical rule.
Parliamentary and Constitutional Monarchies: Similarities and Shared Traits
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Founding Fathers [DVD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71f9-HsS5nL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
Trump's royal assertion drew criticism
In February 2025, former US President Donald Trump bestowed upon himself the title of "'king'" in a post on Truth Social, a social media platform. The post came after New York approved a new car-traffic toll plan for Manhattan, which Trump opposed. In the post, he proclaimed: "CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!".
Trump's self-proclaimed title of "king" is particularly notable given the historical context in which the United States Constitution was formed. The crafters of the Constitution aimed to create a system of checks and balances to prevent tyrannical rule, specifically avoiding a monarchy. Thomas Paine, for instance, wrote in Common Sense in 1776: "For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
Trump's reference to himself as "king" is not an isolated incident. He has a history of associating himself with royalty and has expressed his admiration for the British monarchy. In an interview with Fox News in February 2018, for example, Trump stated that he loved the concept of the royal family. Additionally, in 2024, footage was released of Trump referring to King Charles III as a "really good person." The former president's affinity for royalty has been interpreted by some as a desire for prestige and status, with critics characterising him as a narcissist and an egomaniac.
Understanding Constitutional Monarchy and its Allies
You may want to see also
Constitutional monarchies share power with a government
The concept of a constitutional monarchy was developed in the United Kingdom, where the monarch is the Head of State, but the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament. The monarch has a ceremonial role and is considered the "servant of the people". The British Parliament and the Government exercise their powers under "royal (or Crown) prerogative", on behalf of the monarch and through powers still formally possessed by the monarch.
Constitutional monarchies can be classified into two types: executive and ceremonial. In executive monarchies, the monarch wields significant power and is a powerful political and social institution. In contrast, in ceremonial monarchies, the monarch holds little to no actual power or direct political influence but may still have social and cultural influence. For example, the monarch of the United Kingdom has substantial, if limited, legislative and executive powers.
There are at least 43 monarchies worldwide, including Liechtenstein, Monaco, Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Bhutan, where the constitution grants substantial discretionary powers to the sovereign. On the other hand, in countries like the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, and Japan, the monarch has significantly less personal discretion in exercising authority.
The United States Constitution was created to prevent tyrannical rule and separate powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. During the negotiations, a delegate was quoted as saying, "We never once thought of a king", indicating that the founders did not intend to create a monarchy. Instead, they sought to establish a system of checks and balances to ensure a free country where the law, not an individual, is sovereign.
In conclusion, constitutional monarchies share power with a government, with the monarch acting as a ceremonial head of state or a figurehead. The constitution allocates the government's power to the legislature and judiciary, ensuring a balance of power and preventing the concentration of authority in a single individual or entity.
Constitutional Monarchy: Limitations and Drawbacks Explored
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No one said that the Constitution was making a new monarchy. In fact, it's quite the opposite. There were concerns from the public that the crafters of the Constitution would create a monarchy, to which a delegate responded: "Tho’ we cannot, affirmatively, tell you what we are doing, we can, negatively, tell you what we are not doing—we never once thought of a king."
Alexander Hamilton did propose a model of government similar to that of Britain, which some interpreted as a desire to move towards a monarchy. However, he later became one of the most ardent spokesmen for the new Constitution.
No. As Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker said, "We don't have kings in America, and I won't bend the knee to one."
