Caesar or Windsor?
The Burning Question for American Monarchists
Introduction: A House Divided Over the Future Royal House
Among those who advocate for the restoration of monarchy in the United States, there is a fundamental and ongoing debate over what form such a monarchy should take and who should sit upon the American throne. While all American monarchists share the common goal of dismantling the republic, they are divided on the most viable path toward monarchy and the legitimacy of its ruler.
Based on my interactions with fellow monarchists, I have identified two primary factions: Caesarists, who argue for the rise of a native-born monarch, and Windsorists, who believe America’s best path forward is to reintegrate with an existing royal house, particularly the British monarchy. Though both groups reject republicanism, they differ in their historical inspirations, their strategies for restoring monarchy, and their views on what would be most acceptable to the American people.
The Caesarists take inspiration from Rome’s transformation from republic to empire, arguing that America’s monarchy must emerge from within, led by a strong, charismatic leader who consolidates power and founds a homegrown dynasty. This perspective aligns with America’s historical rejection of foreign rule, asserting that any serious monarchical effort must arise organically from the nation’s own political system.
The Windsorists, on the other hand, look to historical precedents in which nations have invited foreign royals to assume their thrones. They argue that America, rather than forging a new monarchy from scratch, should restore ties with the British Crown or another established royal house. They point to the historical pattern of nations electing foreign royals to challenge the notion that the U.S. was predestined to be a republic.
This essay does not seek to endorse one faction over the other but to fairly present and evaluate both perspectives. In doing so, I hope to encourage further discourse and debate within the American monarchist movement. If monarchy is to return to the United States, its supporters must first answer a crucial question: Caesar or Windsor?
The Caesarists: All Roads Lead to Rome
To understand the Caesarist perspective, one must turn to history’s most famous transition from republic to monarchy: Rome.
The Roman Republic, established in 509 BCE after the overthrow of its monarchy, was designed to prevent any single individual from wielding unchecked power. Political authority was divided among elected magistrates, the Senate, and popular assemblies. However, despite its sophisticated structure, the Republic was plagued by internal conflict. Socioeconomic disparities and factional rivalries between the populares (populists) and optimates (aristocrats) led to increasing instability. Ambitious military leaders such as Marius, Sulla, and Julius Caesar exploited these weaknesses, triggering a series of civil wars that ultimately doomed the republic.
Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon in 49 BCE marked the decisive moment of republican collapse. His rise to power and eventual appointment as dictator revealed the fundamental weaknesses of the Roman system. Though his assassination in 44 BCE was intended to restore the old order, it instead plunged Rome into further chaos. Out of this turmoil, Octavian—later Augustus—emerged victorious. In 27 BCE, he established the Principate, a regime that outwardly preserved the forms of republican governance while centralizing real power in the hands of the emperor. By adopting the title princeps (“first citizen”), Augustus carefully maintained the illusion of republican continuity, even as he controlled the military, finances, and key administrative functions.
By the third century CE, however, the façade of republicanism had become untenable. Internal crises, economic pressures, and external threats led to a transformation into the Dominate, where emperors openly ruled as absolute monarchs. The adoption of the title dominus (“lord” or “master”) symbolized this transition, marking the final death of republican pretense and the consolidation of imperial rule.
Caesarists draw a parallel between Rome’s evolution and the trajectory of American governance. The American Republic—like Rome’s—was built on an anti-monarchical foundation, yet it has steadily concentrated power in its executive branch over time. They believe that an organic transition—whether through crisis, strong leadership, or both—could ultimately pave the way for a native-born American dynasty.
Recent political developments lend credence to this view. Although he stated it was “too early” to make a final decision, Donald Trump has openly entertained the idea of running for a third term.1 Should he succeed in challenging term limits, it could set a precedent for extended, or even hereditary, presidencies—a modern-day Principate in the making.
Moreover, Caesarists emphasize that the American people, deeply attached to their national sovereignty, would be more resistant to a foreign monarch than to a domestic ruler who emerges from within their own system. They point to the recent backlash Donald Trump received from his MAGA base over his suggestion that America could join the Commonwealth as an associate member-state.2 If merely aligning with Britain provokes such opposition, the idea of reinstating a British monarch would be even more unpopular. In their view, only a homegrown monarchy—emerging from America’s own political traditions—would stand a realistic chance of acceptance.
The Windsorists: Back to Buckingham
To understand the Windsorist position, one must revisit an intriguing yet little-known chapter of early American history: the Prussian Scheme. In the chaotic aftermath of the American Revolution, when the fledgling nation grappled with uncertainty and instability, a group of political leaders explored the possibility of establishing a monarchy as a stabilizing force. Among the proposals was one to invite Prince Henry of Prussia—the brother of King Frederick the Great—to become the King of America.
The most compelling evidence for this plan comes from an unsent draft letter discovered in German archives. In this document, addressed to Baron von Steuben, Prince Henry expressed a measured response to the offer. Though clearly flattered by the prospect of ascending to an American throne, he ultimately declined the opportunity, suggesting instead that a French royal might better suit the needs of the new nation.3
This letter, though it represents a moment of diplomatic flirtation rather than concrete action, challenges the long-held assumption that America was irrevocably destined to remain a republic.
Windsorists bolster their argument by drawing parallels with other nations that have successfully imported foreign royalty to restore or stabilize their regimes. For example, both Belgium and Greece in the early 19th century opted for foreign monarchs, a decision that helped to solidify their national identities and secure political stability. Even England’s own Glorious Revolution set a precedent when Parliament invited William of Orange to take the throne, thus blending foreign influence with domestic legitimacy. These historical precedents prompt Windsorists to ask: if foreign monarchies have bolstered national legitimacy in other contexts, why should America be an exception?
Of course, the idea of restoring a foreign monarchy in the United States is not without its challenges. The American public’s deeply ingrained skepticism toward foreign rule cannot be ignored. Windsorists acknowledge that any proposal to reinstate a foreign sovereign would likely trigger an initial backlash. However, they argue that such a reaction would be temporary. Contemporary examples, such as the brief but intense reaction to Donald Trump’s Commonwealth remarks—where his political standing remained largely intact after an initial outcry—illustrate that public opinion can adapt over time. In this view, the short-term discomfort of backlash may be a worthwhile price to pay for the long-term benefits of a foreign monarch’s legitimacy.
From a Windsorist standpoint, a monarch from the House of Windsor would bring with him an immediate aura of historical continuity and global prestige. Unlike a native-born dynasty, which would require generations to build a recognizable legacy, a foreign royal offers instant recognition and the weight of centuries-old tradition. While the Caesarist approach might promise a smoother transition by avoiding international controversy, Windsorists contend that a well-chosen foreign monarch could expedite the transformation from republic to monarchy—from a process that might otherwise take centuries to one that could be realized in mere decades or even years.
In sum, while acknowledging the inherent risks and public resistance, Windsorists maintain that the strategic benefits of adopting a foreign royal—especially one from the storied House of Windsor—could ultimately outweigh the temporary turbulence. They propose that America’s future monarchy need not be an entirely homegrown enterprise; instead, it could harness the established legitimacy and historical gravitas of a foreign dynasty to usher in a new era of stability and continuity.
Conclusion: A Crossroads for American Monarchism
The debate between Caesarists and Windsorists represents more than just a theoretical divergence. It is a fundamental crossroads between two distinct visions, both equally bold and ambitious, that could shape the very future of American governance.
The Caesarists argue for an organic, internal transition to monarchy, akin to Rome’s transformation from republic to empire. They emphasize the American tradition of rejecting foreign rule and believe that only a homegrown ruler could secure legitimacy. The Windsorists, by contrast, take inspiration from historical precedents where nations imported foreign royalty to establish stability. They argue that America should reconnect with the British Crown or another royal house to ensure dynastic continuity and international recognition.
At the heart of this debate lies a deeper question: Should America’s return to monarchy be evolutionary or deliberate? Caesarists contend that a slow transformation is the natural course of history, while Windsorists argue that decisive action—even at the risk of backlash—is the most efficient path.
Neither vision is without challenges, and neither offers a perfect solution. But as the monarchist movement grows in the United States, it must answer a fundamental question: Will America’s king be a homegrown Caesar—or a return to House Windsor?
Me personally, I'm more of a caesarist
I personally am with the Caesarists. I think it’s the most practical, effective, and the most realistic way.