-2
$\begingroup$

This is purely hypothetical, of course, but here's my quick scenario:

Assume the people of the United States voted to install a royal family, one that had no power, and was purely ceremonial. But, according to true American sensibilities, this family cannot use the titles "king," "queen," or "emperor."

What suite of titles could be appended to such a family? Something inoffensive, yet still evincing a sense of wonder. ("power" is not the right word). Something unrelated to English titles, is what I'm thinking. And titles that avoid sycophantic-type treatment. Any thoughts?

Added clarity: The current government structure of the US remains the same. There is no transfer of power to this new royal family. They are created within the US Constitution (by amendment), but exist within the current political ecosystem.

$\endgroup$

closed as primarily opinion-based by L.Dutch - Reinstate Monica Feb 24 at 18:37

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ What is the name of X is always opinion based. $\endgroup$ – L.Dutch - Reinstate Monica Feb 24 at 18:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry, here we prefer questions which can be answered in a measurable way. Opinions are not such. If possible rework your question to fit our standards. $\endgroup$ – L.Dutch - Reinstate Monica Feb 24 at 18:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @papelr, we apologize, but Stack Exchange is a Q&A site, not a discussion forum. Seeking opinions is exactly what they don't want anybody doing. This is why one of the reasons to close a question is because it's primarily opinion-based. Read though this specific Help Center page to better understand the limitations Stack Exchange has asked everyone to live with. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – JBH Feb 24 at 19:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not entirely opinion based. Sure, we còuld call him the Grand Poobah. America has already had kings (HM George III being the last royal king), and Washington's coronation at Philadelphia must have been quite the spectacle. (Don't worry, it was a crown of laurels!) Otherwise, google Norton I, Emperor of the United States. Tradition is very important, even in the USA. And no, those titles really would not be that offensive at all. $\endgroup$ – elemtilas Feb 24 at 19:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ They called him Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico, Norton I. Yep, there was one ! $\endgroup$ – StephenG Feb 24 at 21:50
1
$\begingroup$

Introducing royalty without giving them powers makes little sense. There are plenty of royalty who retained their title and lost all power, but doing it the other way around sounds strange.

Generally there is a distinction between the head of state and the head of government. Some democracies have unified both jobs in one person, others have traditional royalty as head of state and a democratically elected head of government, or both head of state and head of government democratically elected. Unfortunately, president is the traditional title for a head of state, with prime minister or chancellor for the head of government.

So you are left with not-quite-fitting names. What you make it will depend on how and why the head of state was introduced into the system.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is the kind of thing I'm looking for. "Not-quite-fitting" names - exactly the point $\endgroup$ – papelr Feb 24 at 18:32

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.