jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (6 posts)

King and President are both head of state (and maybe head of government) why dif

  1. profile image61
    peter565posted 2 years ago

    King and President are both head of state (and maybe head of government) why different title?

    A King and a President are both the same thing, which is the head of state. But when United States was form, it decided change the title of the democratic elected United States, head of state to President rather then using the traditional title of King or Emperor. Many ancient head of state was also elected, but also call King or Emperor. Because US is the 1st successful modern democracy, all modern democratic nation, change the head of state's title to President. But why did US choose to use the title of "President" for head of state rather then "King" or "Emperor" to begin with?

  2. Doc Snow profile image96
    Doc Snowposted 2 years ago

    I don't know all the details which a full answer would entail, but an obvious difference is that kingships normally have a hereditary component.  In most cases, it's entirely heritable, as with the current British monarchy; but I think that even in cases where an election might be involved, eligibility was usually pretty restricted to candidates with the 'right' pedigree.  (The history of Polish monarchy would be a good example to check out, in this regard, I believe.)  The Founding Fathers wouldn't have objected to restricting leadership of the US to their class, race and gender--apparently they presumed just that, in fact.  But I'm sure they wouldn't have accepted a permanent restriction to just one of the Colonies (and States-to-be)--even if four of the first six Presidents turned out to be from Virginia, with the other two from Massachusetts.

    The other thing that I think plays in is term.  Even elected Kings are normally 'in' for life, barring revolution.  That wasn't a norm that the Founders were interested in.  Remember, the Constitution was carefully framed to *limit* power, and especially executive power.  That's one of the attractions of the idea of term limits for some folks today.

    1. profile image61
      peter565posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting point, ancient democratic elected leader, stay in office for life, not fix years.

  3. dashingscorpio profile image87
    dashingscorpioposted 2 years ago

    A president is (elected) and a king just happen to be born in a "royal family".
    A U.S. president has a 8 year term limit if he/she is re-elected after their first four years in office. A king remains a king until he dies.
    In many countries a king is essentially a dictator. Their word is law.
    Not all Kings and Queens are heads of state. The royal family in the U.K. is primarily symbolic and does not run the country, control the military, or negotiate with other heads of state.
    The U.K. has a parliamentary system.
    Neither Queen Elizabeth or a future King Charles or King William will ever have the same power of David Cameron the Prime Minster of England. In a free society the people decide on their government.

  4. Old-Empresario profile image83
    Old-Empresarioposted 2 years ago

    Monarchs are heads of state, but not the heads of government. That's usually reserved for a prime minister. In the US and a few Latin American countries the President is the head of state and the head of government. In the rest of the world with a republican government instead of a monarchy, there is a President as head of state and a prime minister as head of government. In short, republics are typically headed by presidents. Monarchies are headed by kings or queens.

    1. profile image61
      peter565posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I know but my point is except how they got into that position is different, they are practically the same thing.  So, why the different title?