1) We could adopt a stratagem akin the one the Greeks used when they gained independence from the Ottoman Empire. Find a member of a pre-existing royal family who is far enough down the line of succession so as to not be an heir to his native land (thus removing conflict of interest), and invite him to come to us and be our king. In return for the honour of becoming our king, he would be expected to adopt our culture, and to become a Southron. He would completely adopt our nation as his own. And from him would stem our royal line.

2) We could choose from one of the prominent Southron families whose heritage goes back to our leadership during our independence (A Davis, for example). Granted, this would involve creating a new royal line where none had existed before, but it would not be as though we arbitrarily raised any old commoner to the level of monarch. There would be an aristocratic heritage already present, as well as a heritage of leadership. And this is how most modern European dynasties began in the first place: aristocrats of a monarchless nation arising to the position (The French, Scottish, and Austrian monarchies are prime examples of this; the first two occurring in the dark age and the latter in the medieval age), so it would not be unheard of.

3) A sort of elective monarchy, similar to (though not identical) to the Anglosaxon monarchy. My own personal vision for this is thus: the heirarchy of government would flow in three tiers: King-level, Duke-level (governors), and Count-level (county leaders). The Count-level leaders would govern a small enough region that the populace would be largely homogeneous, and could elect for themselves a suitably representative leader. Thus our Counts (other titles may of course be used, I use the feudal ones for simplicity) would be elected by the people. The Dukes (or governors or whatever we choose to call them) would be appointed by the King from among the counts. So for example, of all the locally elected Counts in Georgia, the King would appoint one to function as the Duke of Georgia. The position of monarch would be a life-long one, but upon the King’s death (or abdication should he choose that path), the Dukes would convene amongst each other and elect from one from their number to be the new King. The advantage of this system is it limits the effects of democracy without eradicating representative government entirely. Because all Dukes are chosen from among the Counts, and all Kings are chosen from among the Dukes, the end result is that every leader is ultimately someone elected to the position. But the only time he was elected by the people was at the local, County level. This could help limit the effects of partisan politics.

Of course, these are all just ideas of mine. I am so arrogant as to assume any of my ideas would be adopted without alteration. But they are food for thought, and perhaps they will help us think of a system that is right for our country.

I just got finished reading about how the Cavaliers established themselves in Barbados and the course of the English Civil War there. Barbados, Virginia, Antigua, and Bermuda supported the Royalists.