Were Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson wrong? Would we be better off today if King George III had continued his rule over the 13 colonies and the American War of Independence had never been fought?

No, I'm not raising the question out of envy for the pageantry surrounding the recent coronation of King George's descendant Charles III. However, the celebration did spur me to do a little research. It turns out that constitutional monarchies fare pretty well in side-by-side comparisons with the U.S.-style government headed by a president. Is that heresy? Maybe, but facts are facts.

In the mind of most any American, having a monarch inherit a throne seems anti-democratic. However, a minute or two of web browsing took me to The Economist's democracy index, which ranks countries based on free elections, voter security, independence from foreign interference, and the ability of government officials to implement policies. Eight of the top 15 countries are monarchies. The former British colonies of New Zealand (2nd), Canada (12th) and Australia (15th) — now all independent monarchies where Charles reigns as king — finish well ahead of the United States down in 30th place.

Of course, that can't be much of a wonder. After the election of 2020, the American president schemed to remain in power even after suffering a defeat at the polls. In contrast, there's been no recent threat to the transfer of power in those three former British colonies. How would insurrectionists in New Zealand overthrow their king anyway? He lives in London some 11,000 miles away.

U.S. voters support Roe v. Wade by 59% to 40%. How democratic is it to have had a right to abortion first found and then retracted by an unelected Supreme Court? Abortion is legal in New Zealand under the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 passed by its legislature. Abortion is legal under Australian and Canadian parliamentary laws as well.

So maybe, even while living in a more democratic country, the subjects of constitutional monarchies are oppressed and miserable? No, darn it! Their inhabitants are happier. The United States comes in 15th place in a happiness poll published in March by the U.N., but of the 14 nations ahead, eight are monarchies, again including the former British colonies of Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

OK, OK, but what about the American Dream, which holds that even the least-privileged can rise to the top through hard work and moxie? By definition, a monarchy has built-in barriers to social mobility: a king or queen, who claims the throne by birth, not effort, tops the social pyramid. How come then the U.S. sits in 27th place in the Global Social Mobility Index? Eleven of the countries ranking ahead of us are constitutional monarchies, again including Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

I'm a guy who believes in measurements. If constitutional monarchies are more democratic with happier people and more social mobility, what do they have that we don't? For one thing, there can be no question of succession. Charles was fated to inherit the throne from his mum and become king of Great Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand from the day he was born. No violent insurrection was about to take that away. Of course, no matter how legitimate Charles may be, he's not politically or constitutionally powerful. The last British king who believed in his divine right to rule, the first King Charles, lost his head in 1649. For the last century, it's been pretty clear that Parliament rules and the monarch reigns.

Charles' sister Princess Anne recently said, "I would just underline that the monarchy provides, with the constitution, a degree of long-term stability that is actually quite hard to come by any other way."

Is she right? Would the United States be in better shape today if we'd evolved from the original 13 colonies into a constitutional monarchy?

My own answer is no. I've lived in the U.K. and have two Canadian grandparents. From what I've seen, the dynamism and diversity of this country is missing where Charles reigns. Still, keeping up with Australia, Canada and New Zealand is something we should aspire to. Competing with China is not all that's important. Just parroting that the United States is the greatest country in the world does nothing to make us more democratic, happier or more socially mobile.

And finally, here's a postscript addressed to the pluralities in Australia and Canada and substantial minority in New Zealand who want their nations to replace King Charles with elected presidents. The United States evolved differently than you did after the end of British colonial rule, but there's lots to value in your form of government. Be careful what you wish for.

In Keith Raffel's checkered past, he has served as the senior counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, started an award-winning internet software company and written five novels, which you can check out at keithraffel.com. He currently spends the academic year as a resident scholar at Harvard. To find out more about Keith and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at creators.com.

Photo credit: COFFEEMEPLEASE at Pixabay