Not so much for you sophisticates who follow my blog, but I imagine most would have difficulty imagining post-Breakup monarchy. It would be very personal, a throw-back to the Early Middle Ages. No “constitutional” form and even more direct that the Absolutism of the 18th century. Empress Faustina shot a man through his head, a man who was legally a POW. Rhun has killed with his own hands, as you will read in an installment or two. That makes Gil’s “back talk” surprising to the point of foolhardiness.
Teresa’s candor makes more sense: if caught in a lie her head would be on a pike, too. Thankfully, she comes from a political family.
A short introduction as to why so many countries in the future are monarchal in nature. Is it that I hate democracy or republicanism? No. I am just honest enough to understand that those forms of government do not scale up past the level of a city or county.
And that it is best for a government to look to its children and grandchildren, not the next election.
Taking to Americans, especially White Americans, about any form of government different than what we have now is a huge exercise in futility. Europeans at least have a couple of thousand years playing about with nations and states. Northeast Asia has had some clever mixes of despotism. But here, it’s always “1776!” and “muh Constitution!”
It’s not just because I know history so well. There are plenty of folks who know history better than I do but flinch as if shot when I suggest that our federal republic has outlived its usefulness. I really think it has to do with family: that fact that mine is so old and predates the Republic helps, but is not the only factor. Still, having ancestors is a tremendous psychological cushion, as it were, when looking at our day to day crises.