Long live the king?

On Jan. 23, thousands gathered for the annual March for Life on an abnormally sunny and warm winter day in Washington, D.C. Among the crowd marched an earnest group of young men carrying a banner that read “Monarchists for life.” It featured the logo of an American bald eagle with a crown, holding a sword and a scepter in its talons.

The young men are members of Monarchists of America (MOA). As they marched, they took photos and videos for their social media platforms. Others participating in the march frequently approached to ask about the banner. The young men were ready with brochures that explained their mission: “We believe that replacing the office of president with a nonpartisan monarch will do much to restore faith in the government and will act as a stabilizing force for the entire nation.”

In other parts of Washington, officials were busy organizing celebrations for the 250th anniversary of American democracy. In 1776, our country declared independence from King George III. But in 2026, some younger Americans want to turn back the clock.

Polls show that our faith in government has faltered for decades and hit new lows after the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, only about 17% of Americans trust the federal government to do what is right “always or most of the time.” Younger Americans are increasingly open to radical solutions. In New York, they recently helped elect a self-proclaimed socialist as mayor. Monarchists of America is at the other end of the spectrum. Its members believe that elections, rather than being a critical part of American identity, are destroying us.

The day before the March for Life, I met four members of the group—Skyler Thompson, Eric Zurlippe, Ian Hoover, and Richard Knight—at a coffee shop in Washington.

They all dressed up for the interview because, as Knight noted, “This is a professional setting.” Hoover stood out as the most formal in a gray three-piece suit. His lapel featured a large pin of an eagle with two heads. He picked it because of its similarity to the emblem of the Habsburg family, a European dynasty that ruled for centuries over an empire that sprawled the globe. He also held on to a metal rosary throughout the interview. He’s Roman Catholic, but this is an ecumenical group. The others are Baptist, Anglican, and Methodist.

The four young men have an easy rapport, as if they’re longtime friends. They joke around and even finish each other’s sentences. But they only met in recent years. They hail from Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Ohio and rarely see each other in person. They connected online over their shared dissatisfaction with the 2020 presidential election. Thompson explained it wasn’t so much about Biden or Trump, “but just how violent, how uncivil, and basically just how tragically and disorderly that entire election cycle went.” They love America but concluded elections “would eventually come to destroy our country.”

THOMPSON IS JUST 25, but he’s the oldest member of the group. America has a stark generational divide in attitudes toward monarchy. Less than 1% of Americans over the age of 65 think having a monarchy in our country would be a good thing, and 84% say it would be a bad thing. By contrast, 27% of Americans ages 18 to 29 think a monarchy would be a good thing, and only 40% think it would be a bad thing, according to a 2023 poll by The Economist/YouGov.

Social and economic circumstances play a big role in that divide.

“We grew up immediately during and after the 2008 financial crash. We didn’t see the golden age everyone else had,” Zurlippe said. He’s hardly alone. Poll after poll shows younger Americans are more pessimistic and disillusioned about the future of our country than their older counterparts. Zurlippe argues it’s natural for young people to question our system of government because “it’s not really giving us what was promised.”

But why is something as radical as monarchy the solution? Well, for one thing, according to Zurlippe, it’s better than some of the proffered alternatives: “We’re seeing young people saying, ‘I’m a Socialist or a Communist.’” New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, captured 78% of voters under 30. “Or they’re following people like Nick Fuentes,” Zurlippe added, referring to the far-right provocateur who has a popular online show.

Compared to figures like Mamdani and Fuentes, “we are the moderate option,” Zurlippe said.

Hoover believes a monarch will serve as “the middle ground, the golden medium … between the few different classes, parties, etc. to unite them under a common banner.” And, he says, that’s exactly what America needs.

Thompson cites a quote attributed to French monarchist Charles Maurras: “For monarchy to work, one man must be wise. For democracy to work, a majority of the people must be wise. Which is more likely?” Several members of MOA canvassed for political campaigns before their conversion to monarchism. They noticed that voters’ questions usually center around “What’s in it for me?”

“A lot of the problems in our country can be chalked up to the poor moral character of the electorate,” Thompson says. “It’s easier to ensure that the monarch is of good moral standing.”

But what happens when he’s not? The bad kings and queens of history are a strong argument against monarchy. Hoover notes that since monarchy has been around for thousands of years, it’s natural to find plenty of bad examples, yet in fewer than 250 years of presidents, he says we’ve already produced many bad ones. He adds that people’s fears are based on the idea of an absolute monarch, which isn’t accurate. “For most of history, monarchies have had a division of power,” Hoover says. That’s what he wants for America, too.

HOOVER AND HIS FRIENDS want to establish an American monarchy by amending the Constitution at a constitutional convention. That’s an uphill battle on several fronts. Our Constitution is one of the hardest in the world to change. Moreover, our country was born out of throwing off monarchy.

The Declaration of Independence, signed 250 years ago, directs 27 specific grievances toward George III. It accuses him of “repeated injuries and usurpations” with the goal of establishing “absolute Tyranny.”

“The modern American understanding of monarchy is shaped by our national myth surrounding George III,” acknowledges Thompson. But there’s more to the story.

Kevin Slack, a professor of politics at Hillsdale College, said monarchs played a “crucial” role in setting up our country early on by issuing royal charters. But soon afterward, civil war upended the British form of government. A king was beheaded, and there were several changes in government culminating in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that ushered in “parliamentary supremacy.” According to Slack that means, “Parliament believes it is sovereign over the colonies, even though most of the rule was through, depending on the type of charter, a royal governor, or proprietary governments.” The Declaration of Independence wasn’t directed at Parliament “because they were arguing Parliament wasn’t sovereign over them by that time.”

Slack said the Founders were not as hostile to monarchy as we assume today: “John Adams famously recognizes monarchy as a viable form of government. But what he means is a limited monarchy.” Alexander Hamilton gave a lengthy speech during the Constitutional Convention in which he advocated for something like an elected monarch. “Hamilton believed an energetic executive is a central element in the definition of good government. And Madison shared that view,” Slack said.

But the Founders never seriously considered the idea of an unelected, hereditary monarch, according to Slack. Adams wrote in a letter that the idea of monarchy was being “whispered about in Coffee Houses,” by which he meant it was a ruse to divide the colonies against each other.

The young men of MOA realize it may take decades or longer to change American beliefs about monarchy. That’s part of why they don’t have an official answer to the obvious question: “Who should be the monarch?” Any candidate currently living is likely to be dead before he could ascend the throne.

But several of the young men confess to having preferred candidates. One name they mention is Eduard Habsburg, a member of the illustrious Habsburg family.

AFTER LEAVING THE WHITE HOUSE in 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt traveled abroad. One of the many dignitaries he met was Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary, a Habsburg. At the time, Franz Joseph had ruled for 62 years. During their conversation, Roosevelt asked Franz Joseph about his role. The aged emperor replied, “My job is to protect my people from their politicians.”

Some historians dispute whether this exchange actually happened, but Eduard Habsburg, a distant relation of Franz Joseph, believes it did. And he likes to tell this story when addressing American audiences. “People usually smile and laugh. And then they usually get a more serious expression because they ask themselves, ‘So who protects us from our politicians?’” he said.

I reached Habsburg by phone in Europe, but he often travels to America. He serves as a distinguished visiting fellow at the Danube Institute, a Hungarian conservative think tank, promoting transatlantic relations. Before that, he spent a decade as Hungary’s ambassador to the Vatican.

Habsburg has also carved out an unusual niche for himself in America’s conservative political movement. He published a 2023 book titled The Habsburg Way that features endorsements from Daily Wire podcaster Michael Knowles and Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Habsburg owes some of his influence in America to his large following on X. He thinks his famous last name gives him a “certain immunity” when posting. “When I say something that is slightly conservative or outrageous, people will say, ‘Oh, he’s a Habsburg. He probably doesn’t understand the modern world.’” Like his ancestors, Habsburg is a devout Roman Catholic. He uses X to share his faith. “I’m very happy that over the last nearly 15 years on X, so many conversations began visibly or even via direct message with people, where they asked me to pray for them, where we became friends, and then got to know each other and prayed together.”

When I told Habsburg some Americans would like him to be their king, he paused and then replied in a manner that reflected his years as a diplomat. “I think the United States are absolutely fantastic the way they are. I don’t have a feeling that they will seriously ever consider introducing monarchy in the United States, because there is no tradition.”

When he addresses American audiences, Habsburg observes their interest is less in monarchy than in the Habsburg family itself. They were “a very clean, wholesome family with high ethical and faith values, and they really tried to serve their subjects,” he says. He acknowledges not all his ancestors lived up to those values, but it was their ideal. “Every Habsburg emperor knew they had to render accountability when they met God. “

He thinks Americans yearn for political leaders who are “trustworthy, upright, and good people,” he said. “I believe this trust in leaders has been shaken a bit in the last decades or years, and the Habsburgs are a very attractive counter model to that.”

For Eduard Habsburg and the young men of MOA, monarchy is inseparable from Christian faith, so it’s surprising that the most famous American advocate for monarchy is a self-professed atheist.

CURTIS YARVIN gets up from his wooden chair and greets the studio audience before him. He’s a guest on the PBS show Open to Debate. The moderator begins the night by noting the venue in New York City is near the tavern where in 1783 George Washington said farewell to his troops after their victory in the American Revolution.

In his opening statement, Yarvin balances awkwardly from foot to foot. “So I have a proposal here which many people would find instinctively horrifying, anathema, strange, exotic, weird.” The proposal he means is also the title of the episode: “Should the U.S. Be Ruled by a CEO Dictator?” Yarvin believes it should. Ironically, Open to Debate describes its mission as “to strengthen our democracy through real debate.” But Yarvin called for ending democracy. He uses the terms monarch and CEO dictator interchangeably. He argued that nearly anything we can think of—from a restaurant to a company—operates best when run by one person, and government is no exception.

“The idea that monarchy is the norm is completely accepted up until 250 years ago,” Yarvin said. But his support for monarchy is based on efficiency rather than religion or tradition. He argued modern governments have done a “poor job” compared to premodern governments, despite having vastly superior technology and substantially more employees.

Yarvin has a following in Silicon Valley, and Vice President JD Vance has expressed admiration. Since Trump’s reelection, nearly every major American media outlet has interviewed him.

When I asked MOA about Yarvin, they groaned simultaneously and called him a “liability.” But Hoover interjected that Yarvin has been helpful because he “put the idea of monarchy out there.”

Jonathan Keeperman runs Passage Press, Yarvin’s publisher. He thinks Yarvin’s popularity in Silicon Valley is due to his unusual gift for writing about culture and political power “in the way an engineer would.” People in Silicon Valley are also “constitutionally attracted to transgressive or outside-the-box thinking.” And Yarvin’s provocative style appeals to that.

In January 2025, Keeperman organized one of the hottest tickets of the Trump inaugural festivities, a party called “Coronation Ball,” which Yarvin attended. But Keeperman says his own reading of Yarvin doesn’t lead him to the conclusion we need a king or CEO-dictator. He notes Yarvin often holds up Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a role model. Conservatives have many critiques of FDR, but to Keeperman the salient point is that FDR “didn’t require a wholesale exchange of our government. It could all be done within the apparatus that preexisted.” An elected president who served as a “countervailing conservative version” of FDR could act forcefully to solve America’s problems, he said.

Keeperman doesn’t have much patience with the idea of an American monarchy. “It would require a kind of complete rearticulation of what it means to be American,” he said, noting younger generations often flirt with extreme ideas. “When you’re 20, maybe you’ve got the poster of Che Guevara on your dorm room wall, and maybe the guy next to you has the poster of a Habsburg.”

Hillsdale’s Kevin Slack believes a republican form of government is “the best means of preserving our natural rights.” He thinks young people’s increased openness to alternate forms of government is a sign that “we have really failed in our education of history.” Schools should be teaching “a kind of common history that everybody can identify with.” The challenge facing America is massive. “The real crisis that faces us is how we can become a people, despite our various interests, the way that the Founders had intended,” he adds.

Before they left the café, the young monarchists solemnly shook my hand and offered to pray for me. They planned to drive back to their various states as soon as the March for Life wrapped up the next day. At this moment, they can’t imagine their belief in monarchy is only a youthful ideal. They intend to stay the course, even if they don’t live to see the fruits of their labors.

“We’re concerned about doing it right, and that is worth taking as much time as it needs,” Thompson said.