Even when he’s not visiting the United States, King Charles III might occasionally daydream about what his reign would be like today if things had worked out differently 250 years ago. The King is not, of course, the head of government anywhere nowadays, and were Charles the king of America, he wouldn’t necessarily wield any more power here than he does in modern Britain. Yet there’s reason to think he possibly could – for the truth is, Americans love monarchy at least as much as they fear it, and they love the royal family, too.

Ironically for the “No Kings” protesters who despise Donald Trump, the only reason we have Trump is because we don’t have a king: the office of president is what the Constitution’s framers came up with as a republican alternative to a hereditary monarchy. If the “No Kings” crowd had the slightest historical understanding, they’d be demanding the return of monarchs instead. 

Americans in 1776 were not, in fact, fighting a revolution against monarchy. They’d spent years beseeching George III to protect them against what they saw as an alien legislature, a parliament in which they had no representation. The imperial constitution was supposed to be a mixed monarchy, where the king and legislature ruled in tandem, and if one acted contrary to the public good, the other could check the abuse. The king was not supposed to be aligned with any legislative faction or interest – he was above party, the sole, grand representative of the common good for all the peoples of his empire, including the Americans.

​Bitterly anti-monarchical feelings were a product not of the American Revolution but the French

​Bitterly anti-monarchical feelings were a product not of the American Revolution but the French

The Declaration........

© The Spectator