I doubt that the typical American citizen, steeped in hostility to the idea of monarchism, could put up with the idea of a king- especially a Catholic king.The supposed superiority of the American system creates a sort-of arrogance in the minds of many here- as if US "democracy" (a form of government that the nation's founders disliked as much as monarchy). A secular government based on republicanism was set up here and, while it lasted, it worked very well since the first couple of generation of US leaders were men of high character of mixed Christian belief. The only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence was Charles Carroll:
Charles Carroll of Carrollton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The influence of Catholicism in Colonial America and the early US isn't well-known.
The Jacobite Rebellions seem to be a complex topic; they were (and are) a mixture of Catholic and Protestant and it seems that not all of them recognize the currently-accepted heir, Franz, Duke of Bavaria:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria
Any monarchist in America would have to, say, choose between the House of Windsor or some other alternative (i.e. the House of Stuart and its heirs). Monarchism is opposed to democracy and republicanism; democracy more or less destroys itself with factionalism and a republic can only function when there are persons of morality in power and the idea of checks and balances in government are respected. I think that the American experiment has proven how incompatible democracy and republicanism are with the traditional notions of Christian kingship.
The idea of a Christian king ruling in absolutism like Louis XIV isn't a given- Theodoric as King of Italy kept the Senate in operation as an advisory body and the Byzantine Emperors were also advised by a Senate in the old form. In both cases it was still clear who the monarch was however.![]()
Marcadores