Hello Mr. Alvarez-Galloso,
Sorry for the delay in responding. Part of the reason for the delay, though, is that while I will try to answer your questions, it may be difficult for me to answer them in a helpful way as some of them imply assumptions about what it means to be an American monarchist that are not quite accurate in my case. Let me try to explain in a general way before moving on to the individual questions.
While I do believe that monarchy is the best form of government in the abstract, it does not necessarily follow from this belief that each and every country in the world must become a monarchy, or that monarchy is in practice equally suitable for all countries. The most successful monarchies in history were all organic in the sense that their precise origins were shrouded in myths and legends, with the institution gradually evolving over centuries. Even when new monarchies were created in Europe in the 19th century, they were established in lands accustomed to monarchical rule.
Monarchy depends on a certain respect for tradition, and for better or for worse the tradition of the United States for 230+ years has been republicanism. One could even argue that it would be contrary to authentic monarchist principles to demand (even theoretically) that a country established as a republic for more than two centuries (i.e. the US, Switzerland, and San Marino) should become a monarchy. This is one of the fundamental differences between monarchists and republicans. Republicans [anti-royalists] believe that the entire world must conform to their agenda. They want there to be ZERO monarchies left in the world. But most monarchists are not like that; we do not say that there should be ZERO republics left in the world. I think most monarchists would be quite overjoyed and satisfied if monarchies were restored only in countries with substantial traditions of monarchical rule as independent nations (e.g. France, Brazil, Greece, Russia, Iran, Ethiopia, etc.), while other countries, with no claimants to their «thrones,» continued to be republics.
Now, there is the possibility that the US as we know it might not last forever and that new, smaller, successor states might emerge. In this case, monarchy might be worth considering. In particular, I would support the secession of Hawaii, which DID have its own monarchy until 1893, and the restoration of the monarchy there. But part of the problem on the mainland is that it is impossible to say who the king(s) would be. If it were up to me, I would prefer a division based on colonial history modeled on the [British] Commonwealth Realms (Canada, Australia, etc.) in which, roughly, the British monarch would be sovereign of the eastern US, a restored French monarch of the central US, and the Spanish monarch of the western and southwestern US. But I must recognize that this is profoundly unlikely, especially as the US moves further and further away from its European colonial roots, and that the results of any break-up of the USA would in reality probably not be as attractive, with the possible exception of Hawaii.
What all this means in practice is that I am not so much an «American Monarchist» as a Monarchist who happens to live in America (I would move to the UK or Canada if I had a professional reason to do so) and therefore often feels more passionately about other countries than my own. For me, my top priority as a monarchist is the support of existing monarchies throughout the world and of restorationist efforts in countries where there is at least a substantial native tradition of monarchy and a widely acknowledged claimant (or, in a few difficult cases, two rival claimants) to the throne.
«People naively expect that problems which genuinely existed under the monarchy will be solved with its removal, and when that does not happen, turn to more extreme «solutions» than democracy can provide.» Theodore’s Royalty and Monarchy Site
http://www.royaltymonarchy.com
El Noticiero de Alvarez Galloso 