He can undo it any time, because THEY put that in the deal. They can also put him back as absolute monarch without his doing or consent. That's also in the deal.
She's probably having it as a last resort shall the country come in the hands of alt-right (or any kind of totalitarian) party and they bring a law so vile it would ruin it's minorities or something along the line. Other than that, there's no need to ever implement it. However, everything I know about Denmark tells me that's never going to happen, so everyone can be happy.
This is a power most constitutional monarchs have, including the monarchs of Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain. They are very rarely used, and are considered “reserve powers”. The king of Malaysia, who is usually a purely symbolic figure like his European counterparts, in a very rare event used his veto earlier this year to block a law that would have given the government massive and arbitrary extrajudicial powers under the pretext of “fighting the coronavirus”
I think it's really interesting that in Bulgaria, the last King was a very young boy when he was deposed by the communists, and he was elected Prime Minister when he was in his 60s. Some crazy shit.
Fun fact: Finland had the shortest lived monarchy government. They only had a king for a little over two months named Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse. He never actually set foot in the country either. In light of the fact he was born in what is now Germany and Wilhelm II's abdication, the Finns weren't in favor of him so he renounced his throne.
Technically the queen of the UK does have executive power She must sign off every single law and can choose whether to suspend parliament. However in practice there would be a scandal if she did without co-operation of the government 😂
Same in Belgium. We actually had such a scandal in 1990 when our king Boudewijn didn't want to sign a bill legalizing abortion. Our government declared him unfit for rule for one day, signed the bill themselves and declared him fit to rule again the day after.
@@Lttlemoi Actually, abortion was still illegal and punishable after this The law Boudewijn didn't want to sign (though he did ask the government Martens at the time to find a solution to pass the law without him signing it), just provided a few exceptions where abortion would no longer be punishable
Same in the Netherlands. The king can most likely use that executive power once. It's very unlikely that the Netherlands will be a monarchy for long after that.
@@Lttlemoi I remember reading about that when the abortion debate was going in my country (Portugal). It made you Belgians sound quite badass. "Just dismiss the king for 24h, then we take him back."
The shortest reigning undisputed monarch was Emperor Xiaoming’s daughter. Lasted less than five hours because they thought she was actually a he. Because of that, Yuan Zhao became emperor
@@thombrawlstars8345 Yes it is in fact the kings ruled the republic as Statholdiers so although it was a republic the Dutch kings and nobles still ruled the republic. So basically it was a monarchy in disguise
I believe the current Heiress to the Crown of Romania is reasonably popular, perhaps much more so than King Michael was, so I think a lot of the increase, and it seems to be still increasing, is her touch.
@@mihailupu5107 Michael wasn't very popular with everyone, Margareta seems to appeal to more than just Monarchists, so the Heiress Apparent, though not sure if she inherited the "Keeper of the Crown" title of her Father, seems to be a popular woman with Monarchists, and even many who certainly weren't when Michael was alive. She's got no children however, iirc, and her sisters oldest, and former third in line after his mother, and Aunt doesn't seem to be everyone's cup of tea, and was removed from succession for his playboy antics and fathering an illegitimate child on a visit to Romania from studying abroad. So I suspect unless any action happens to make Margareta more recognised as the Queen of Romania, it possibly won't happen even with the popularity of the monarchy now. Her sister Elena, her Heir to the crown, isn't as popular, nor are her younger sisters Sophie and Marie. So any momentum to towards even a partial reinstatement of some recognition for the Romanian royals will probably need to be on the basis of Margareta's popularity.
In Monaco the Monarchy is literally the state, if the Royal Family suddenly disappeared Monacon wouldn't be a city state any longer and would have to become part of France.
yes, and there was a disposition regarding succession over there. If the prince never had sons it would become part of France. It came close to happen because Albert II got married later in life
George Bush Sr. : I do not like broccoli. And I haven't liked it since I was a little kid and my mother made me eat it. And I'm President of the United States and I'm not going to eat any more broccoli. King of Eswatini: I'm king and my mother stills makes me eat it.
There are more monarchies in africa, it's just since colonial borders were drawn up without respect to pre existing kingdoms, the monarchies aren't really relevant to the entire country, but the are sometimes relevant to states or provinces within the country in which their kingdoms have jurisdiction. But the federal and state governments almost always have more power than the monarchs.
@@abdulrahmanabdulaziz8742 Yes Nigeria is, but they have multiple emirs and Emirates in the north and multiple kings(or what they call their kings) in the rest of the country, with different kingdoms in different states.
Something between elective parliamentary monarchy and crowned republic. Only for a few years before it's final partition the May 3rd 1791 Constitution changed it to a hereditary monarchy.
@@morocco_020fc7 technically no the stadholder was a gouvrement official that was limited while the main executive and legeslative power was still in the hands of the provinces but the stadholder would pull more power usually. The Orange family was originally chosen to give willem I a position in the gouvrement but ended up going in a inheritance way and he was supposed to be chosen by the estates-general only from 1741 was it declared that it would be inherited but the last chosen stadholde didn't inherit it from the original family after willem III died without an heir the Frisian stadholder was given the position and got renamed to Willem IV and after that we got attacked by revolutionary france so it looked and almost functioned as a monarchy but it wasn't so it's a yes but actually no case
It all depends on the culture. If something works in one country one can't assume it should apply for most others as that will likely go wrong. Every case is different.
They just added useless ceremonial things to already extant position of Stadholder. Which is not progress at all. Focus on ceremonies and symbols is a sign of primitive understanding of the world. The Dutch would never devolve into that themselves, it was Napoleon and later reactionary European trends after Napoleonic wars which transformed Netherlands into a monarchy
11:12 there is at least one big restoration movement, in Georgia. Their public is split around 50% pro and against a constitutioal monarcy. Even the newly electet Prime Minister leans towards the pro side.
It all depends on the culture. If something works in one country one can't assume it should apply for most others as that will likely go wrong. Every case is different.
Liberado Por Patriotas Currently the claim to the Georgian throne is split between two men, George Bagrationi and Nuzgar Bagrationi. However, their claims are united in George’s son (also named George), as he is also the son of Nuzgar’s eldest daughter
I myself am from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and am extremely grateful and thankful to the fact that we are an absolute monarchy. The royal family members, especially those closer to the line of the throne, are brought up since day one to be rulers. As such, they are educated in ways that build a strong political foundation and equipped with the information they need to lead someday. Sure, we were not the best country and we had our pretty big share of problems, but as of now, I’m pretty happy. We have had it relatively good during the pandemic, we have a strong economy, we get fairly good support from the government(paid scholarships, allowances for new families, etc.) and most human-rights issues (major ones) that we faced were solved. Not to mention, the only reason we have a royal family is because all tribe leaders, and natives of the land lent their support to the Alsaud family (over a century ago), be it in soldiers, food, or money. So our ancestors chose to support their claim, they didn’t use some weird excuse that God chose them, or that they are born of a different cloth from humanity, none of that weird holier than thou stuff. So I would hope people keep an open mind to absolute monarchies, despite the bad examples (and there are many) that we have seen in the past, there were/are/will always be good ones. So it doesn’t have to be a weird or backwards thing to be practiced, just different.
As long as y'all have oil, the kingdom is set (I'd like to say set in stone, but it's oil, so... #badjokes). Their main issue for me is totalitarism (either against criticism or due to islamic law) and maybe money laundry through Aramco and Newcastle United. But those things happen in other parts too
Agree even my beloved country oman doesn't have ksa economy but people are relatively happy with there monarchs and do trust them and our monarchs do deliver promises to assure the countries peace and prosperity In Arabia (GCC) tribes still exist in and to understand the structure of modern tribal community people will understand the connection between the crowds and there ruler's and how this connection do effect the government transparency in very effective way
Recently discovered your channel and I very much enjoy it because of my love of geography. Just one note though, for Malaysia in the map, you only highlighted East Malaysia, which is the western part of Borneo, and you didnt highlight Peninsula Malaysia, which is south of Thailand. I am a Malaysian from the Peninsula and a majority of Malaysian are from the Peninsula.
Ahhh cromwell the so called lord protector or most likely a douche 😆but its charles 1 too that's so ambitious and hungry for power since the scots took over the throne after the great Tudors the monarchy was messed up
That is why English people still have an irrational fear of monarchy ending, as if that would automatically turn them into a dictatorship or something (many Scots and Welsh really don't share this opinion, if you ask some number of them, you'll see). Someone should tell them 4 centuries have passed 😆
@@KateeAngel No we don't lol, many of us just like the idea that our monarchy is incredibly old and still around, and see the monarchy as something that represents our history and traditions, though if the monarch decided to try and interfere with how the country is run I assure you we all be very quick too turn on her and decide to become a republic.
"Despite this being the 21st Century" As if there's some natural progression from monarchy to republic. There have been republics around for as long as there have been monarchies, and they have historically tended to be less successful, hence the historical prevalence of Kingdoms. The various "Monarchies" of the world tend to be relatively successful even today. Constitutional Monarchies are de facto republics with political competition for the top job absent, all elected leaders are expected to pay lip service to a nominal superior, which helps to keep their megalomania in check to some degree. Why is Kazakhstan shown in "Presidential Republic" blue while the PRC is in "One Party State" brown? Does Kazakhstan have a competitive multi-party system? The reason we have so many republics today is because of the success of the United States. Sadly many of them are fakes, calling the leader of your country "president" does not make your country a republic. Many countries seem to be run by political cargo cults, superficially copying the titles and decorations of the US establishment in the hopes that it will bring similar success. Syria's president inherited the position from his father, it calls itself a republic, but it runs like an absolute monarchy.
"how do you define success. Just because a country has lot's of land and wealth doesn't mean the people are happy. How would you feel as a peasant in Britain(by far the vast majority) when they controlled a lot of the world but were under absolute control of the monarchy. You were legally and socially below the noblemen and royals just because of who your parents were. And even by your definition of successful you are still wrong. All those places you mentioned as being ultra successful aren't around today in the same form. In fact, the most successful countries ever are republics. USA, China, Japan. 2 of which lost their monarchies and immediately became more successful. Japan specifically skyrocketed into form as an economic powerhouse right after their country had been destroyed in WW2. I agree that if someone extremely intelligent and kindhearted were to be born into full power over a country they could do wonders, but for every one of those monarchs their are 10x worse ones that are 10x more common. Stop this ancient concept of being born into absolute power. There's a reason they never last. They harm the majority of people and the many will eventually always win against the few. Stop spreading false fucking information that ropes people into having an ancient mindset." is what i wrote when i glimpsed at your comment but upon closer inspection you never praised monarchies at all and i'm just stupid lmao. my bad
@@golddmane I appreciate that you caught yourself there, kudos for posting it anyway then admitting the mistake. I will beg your indulgence in answering a few points though: "how do you define success" Historically by longevity, wealth, power, prevalence, any or all. In modern times 8 of the top ten countries in the Economist Intelligence Unit's "Where to be born rankings" are monarchies... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index#2013_rankings ... and they're not doing badly in terms of purchasing power parity per capita either... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita "How would you feel as a peasant in Britain(by far the vast majority) when they controlled a lot of the world but were under absolute control of the monarchy." Great Britain didn't have a large empire and an absolute monarch at the same time, England's monarchy has been limited since Magna Carta in 1215 and Great Britain's monarchy was further curtailed by the Glorious Revolution of 1688. There was no British Empire prior to the Scottish 1707 Union with England Act. Also I think if you took comparable monarchies and republics from history, say for instance the Novgorod Republic against Muscovy at the same period, I don't think you'll find vast differences in living standards, though I'm happy to be corrected on this. "In fact, the most successful countries ever are republics. USA, China, Japan." The USA I'll grant you, though I think the point is arguable. China has been the world's most advanced and powerful nation through much of it's history, but it was always a monarchy during it's times at the top. I don't consider China to be at the top currently, but even if you do, Xi Jinping maintains a stranglehold on the country that would embarrass most historical despots. Japan is not and has never been a republic. The Japanese monarchy is said to be the oldest continuous hereditary monarchy in the world, and since it traces it's lineage back to the sun goddess Amaterasu, who are we to argue? Between 1853 and 1895 Japan went from a feudal agricultural economy to an industrialised great power all by themselves, after WW2 they had a lot more help, they were a monarchy throughout. "There's a reason they never last." Just a few quick examples for comparison... Egyptian Monarchy 3250BC - 314 AD 3564 years Japanese Monarchy 660 BC - Present 2680 years Roman Monarchy 27 BC - 1453 AD 1480 years French Monarchy 843 AD - 1870 AD 1027 years Russian Monarchy 862 AD - 1917 AD 1155 years Norwegian Monarchy 885 AD - Present 1135 years English Monarchy 886 AD - Present 1134 years Danish Monarchy 935 AD - Present 1085 years Swedish Monarchy 970 AD - Present 1050 years Thai Monarchy 1238AD - Present 782 years Classical Athens 508 BC - 322 BC 186 years Roman Republic 509 BC - 27 BC 482 years Carthage 308 BC - 146 BC 166 years Republic of San Marino 301 AD - Present 1719 years Republic of Venice 697 AD - 1797AD 1100 years Republic of Ancona 1100AD - 1532AD 432 years Republic of Genoa 1100AD - 1797AD 697 years Republic of Noli 1192AD - 1797AD 605 years Republic of Ragusa 1358AD - 1808AD 450 years Icelandic Commonwealth 930 AD - 1262AD 332 years Republic Of Florence 1115AD - 1537AD 422 years Novgorod Republic 1136AD - 1478AD 342 years Dutch Republic 1581AD - 1795AD 214 years Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569AD - 1795AD 226 years French Republic 1792-1804, 1848-1852, 1871-1940, 1946-1958, 1958 - Present United States of America 1776 AD - Present 244 years Most current republics are less than a century old.
The last Bulgarian Tsar who was exiled to Spain as a child after WW2 has also held elected office in the country as a Prime Minister in the period 2001-2005
If you're also counting non-sovereign kingdoms like order of malta, then you can also count the Sultanate of Yogyakarta which officially is on the level of province in Indonesia, the sultan is on the level of governors below the president. Other sultanates in the country are non-official and ceremonial only.
Greetings from Malaysia. I love how you're able to explain in a simple way on how Malaysian monarchy works. Although you might have left out the Peninsula Malaysia in the map, where all the kings are located 😅
Neighbouring Singapore might be said to have originated from a monarchy I guess? Since the island nation was originally a peripheral part of the _Johor_ kingdom (now a state in Malaysia, with the monarchy retained) until it was rented out to the British under colonialism, who saw the island's potential as a maritime trade port due to its strategic location, & expanded the island's human settlement significantly into a city-state
Well it was still a monarchy before it only didn't have it's own monarch. The Swedish King was also King of Norway. They decided to split so Norway chose a Danish prince as the new King. He however wanted the people to take a vote wether they wanted him or a republic. So basically they voted to retain the monarchy with their own King.
@@nathanaelsadgrove really? I never found who was this royal that became president. I know in Bulgaria SImeon II, their last Tsar, was prime minister between 2001-05
7:52 I just wanted to state that; in theory, a non-citizen of thw Vatican City can be pope, as a cardinal can literally vote ANY person in the entire world, but that is incredibly rare. Most of the time the cardinals elect one of their own kind (another cardinal), and cardinals (every single one of them) are ALL citizens of the vatican city, as all people who have jobs or work within it are legally citizens of the state.
Because they had noble monarchy in which nobility democraticly elected a king and cooperated with him to rule commonwealth and after king died they elected another king
I was in London in summer of 1977 at Harrods purchasing something to wear to a function relating to the Queen's Silver Jubilee, when I rounded a corner and came face to face with the King of the Hellenes. I bowed my head and said, "Your Majesty." He was at first taken a back trying to remember if I was someone he knew (I suppose). He immediately smiled his characteristic grin and asked my name. I told him and after a few pleasantries we departed. That evening at the function at Claridges given by the late Duke of Westminster, I was again reintroduced to the King and his beautiful wife, Queen Anne Marie. He explained we had met briefly earlier at Harrods. She, too, was very nice and down- to- Earth., I was always hoping he would be able to return to his throne.
@@compatriot852 Constantine was very weak and gutless when confronted by the generals of the Junta. If he was brave and stood up to them he would've survived as king or been asked back afterwards when they were removed.
The fact is that by us keeping the institution of the monarchy, we are forced to live in a constant constitutional crisis, that makes our realm vulnerable to fascist and/or undemocratic movements. The Greeks understood that the key to any strong democracy was a firm and undebatable constitution. So when the constitution tells us that we live in a monarchy, and the Monarch chooses the government, we are forced to ignore that constitution, to live in a democracy. And when the constitution tells us that we are an Evangelical Lutheran nation, we are forced to ignore the constitution in order to remain a secular society. And when the constitution says that all diplomacy is to be carried out by the king, we are once more forced to ignore it in order to remain a functional modern nation-state. This makes our constitution weak, as it is constantly and openly ignored. What then else may be ignored? The right to habeas corpus? The right to remain silent? The right to assemble? Indeed, none of these are truly protected as long as the constitution cannot and does not reflect reality, and therefore the royal family and the institution of monarchy is a real, measurable and imminent danger to a free democratic society. So what side are you on, friend? Will you stand with king or country?
GormTheElder The power of the crown in Denmark hasn’t absolute power, just look at the Easter Crisis (1920). The role of Danish monarch is two folded. One) ceremonial duties, open museums, school etc. and on a personal note, it would say the monarchy is as most a part of Denmarks culture, then anything else. Second) ratifying laws. Though any king or queen doesn’t want a full on revolution. So there don’t reject any laws. (Weird that you talk against the danish monarchy, since you use the “Earl of Jelling” and the first recognize “king of Denmark” as your name. [danish: Gorm den Gamle. English: Gorm the Elder]
@@Thediscountanimator Indeed, this is what I stated; they don't have absolute power, because we are forced to ignore our constitution, the very form of which formed the basis for the easter crisis. It is of little consequence how much of a cultural institution the monarchy has become, when it forces us to live in a fundementally weaker and more unstable state; would slavery being a cultural institution be a reason to keep it around? To barbarians, perhaps! I say we take inspriration from the most civilized societies of Western History such as the Athenians, who understood that law, not custom ought rule a people, and adjust our constitution accordingly - Either to strip the monarch of all formal power, embrace actual monarchy or to abolish the house of knaves who robbed and raped your ancestors to achieve their wealth. Whichever you prefer, something ought be done, for the current order is inherently weak.
The Netherlands used to be a republic, but became a kingdom only in 1815. Likewise, after independence Belgium wanted to be a republic, but was forced to choose a king in order to get diplomatic recognition for its independence.
Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy largely by inertia. There is occasional discussion of becoming a Republic, but most people just say 'why?' If it ever became an imperative, consensus is that we could do the switch in about 48 hours.
@@welcometotheinternet574 The "Legitimate" heir to the French throne, is the Duke of Paris, who lives, you guessed it, in Paris. The Bonapartes rescinded any claims to the French Crown, and whilst the Bourbon monarchy of Spain, press their claim, they gave it up, in writing, in multiple copies, almost four hundred years ago. So NO, the Heir Apparent to the Crown of France, lives in FRANCE.
@@charlesschap3735 Emir rules only some tribes in small peice of land unlike the king that rules many tribes and a large place ; the sultan rules people from different ethnicities and races in a very large portion of land ; a caliph is the political head of the religion his job is to keep the law of the religion but he doesn't have the land on his name and like the last three.
Peninsular Malaysia..😢😢😢 this is the second time I see educational channels forgot that Malaysia consist of two parts and not just on Borneo.😢😢😢 and ironically, all the rotational kings are only on the peninsula.
@@aaronpenaperalta he was exaggerating a bit when he said succeeded, the monarchist movement is much more powerful in the Balkans than anywhere else, but it wasn't enough to get a proper restoration
Malaysia have 9 Sultans for their states, some states don't have. Every 5 years one of them will become the "Emperor" which we call "Agung". They have a specific order on who will be the next emperor. Agung have real power that includes full military control, they're not just some ceremonial monarchy haha. But it's only during emergency times. Other than that, they have a duty to maintain order, exercise islamic values and aid those in need. That's why Malaysian's monarchy-federal government rule is unique as compared to other countries.
Fico muito contente por ver um canal Portugues ter tanto sucesso. Sou seguidor recente mas estou a adorar o conteúdo do canal. Continua o excelente trabalho.
Sou brasileiro, e olha: só tenho certeza que ele é português quando ele fala o nome das cidades portuguesas, porque aí o sotaque aparece. Quem é novato acha que ele é de algum país anglófono
Fun fact : there are still recognized kings in France ! More precisely in Wallis and Futuna, a French overseas territory made up of 3 customary kingdoms recognized by the French State and Government. The 3 kings are called the "Lavelua"
@@towaritch Fun fact: The president is also the only Canon of the Lateran Archibasilica in Rome. Each year, on December 13, a prayer is celebrated in honor of France.
@@oce2u only in their states. AGONG does not have executive power. YDP does not have the power to appeal to any laws, policies, governance, etc... He just merely the figurehead of Malaysia.
Constitutional monarchies are the best form of government imo. They are national figureheads who inspire continuity and remind us of our traditions without the ability to become tyrannical. I hope Australia never forsakes our amazing system. God save the Queen!
It's generally a feature of modern constitutional monarchies that the head of state exercises much less power than they theoretically have, whereas the reverse is usually true for elected presidents. Public perception of legitimacy has much more impact on how much power people can wield than what might be written in a constitution.
I'm not sure with the terrible elected officials we have now, I'm sure some people would be quite refreshed by royal intervention rather than the endless chain of ineffective demagogues we've had for the last 30 years. The only 'uprising' I could see resulting would be more like a top-down resistance by the parliament who would do anything to retain the scheme that they've grown used to running, afterall what is democracy but five wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch?
In the map at 3:10 The mainland part of Malaysia that has 9 monarchs isnt highlighted but the part that has currently has no kings is. Brunei the only monarchy on Borneo also looks like it fell into the sea. Is this map from the future?
Used to be a republican, but seeing how a republic usually ends up a monarchy is actually better. A monarch, being politically independent, will have mostly the full support of the people. A president will usually just have around half. So during times of crisis the monarch will be unifying where as the president will be a dividing one
Not so interesting since the monarchy got shut off by the Spanish republicans , so when Franco took control he wanted to repair spain from the civil war , and his death just caused a power vacuum. I mean france after Napoleon got exiled . its monarchy restored for a while,
@@deandre2680 Well, yes, but its different I guess. Spain had no monarchy for about 42 years I think, haven't counted them, and then we voted for it to get back.
@@deandre2680 he stayed for more than 3 decades. He had more than enough time to restore the country twice. He likely embezzeled money to set his family off during that period. That's a guy that if ressurection was actually possible, I would have him ressurected just to kill again
Connor Swindells No they weren‘t. When the king still ruled the 13 colonies there wasn‘t a country called the USA yet. When the USA were formed they were no longer ruled by a king. Therefore the USA weren‘t a former monarchy but the predecessors (the 13 colonies) were.
@@scootergrant8683 Hawaii wasn't under British rule. Various island rulers, united Hawaiian kingdom, Hawaiian republic, Hawaiian territory (US), State of Hawaii (US). The Paulet Affair, a brief British occupation, was disavowed.
While Africa only has 3 sovereign monarchs, they have many subnational monarchies: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_constituent_African_monarchs
5:24 the queen of the Uk has executive powers (juridical powers too) but by traditions she delegated them to the Crown officials like the prime ministers and Lord Judges. *She does not use them, that does not mean that she doesn’t have them* Example : ( viceroys/Governor Generals/ vice-kings/vice-queens) are the representatives of the monarch on the land when she is abroad, in 1975 the viceroy Kerr fired the prime minister, the government and called a general election on a federal level to replace the parliament because they were going to through the Commonwealth of Australia into a political and financial stagnation. so yeah those powers (royal prerogatives) exist.
There should be a companion video which details the nominally representative or non-monarchical governments which are actually ruled by a sovereign dictator or oligarchy. The list of countries where elections are meaningless is pretty large I think.
Basically all the countries with parliamentary monarchies are way more democratic than a lot of formal republics around the world. And not becouse moarchies have a long history we can consider them to be something devoid of an important role in the present. It's defintely more complex thath it seems to be...
Well, sure, but that's more of an issue with those lesser republics (even when you exclude ones like North Korea that are only republics in name) than anything praiseworthy about the monarchies. There are also plenty of republics that are a lot more democratic than those other republics, as well.
@@Compucles So imo the point is not about the form of state..... it's further about the form of government....Again: almost all most democratic countries in the world are parliamentary monarchies, even if it can seem counter-intuitive, such as Netherland, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, of course UK etc.etc....Is that just a mere case?
Canada and Australia. Two countries that are so different have 2 things in common They both have 3 "a"s in their names. And swear allegiance to the queen.
I am unsure why you are surprised at the UK retaining a monarchy. Republics have not shown themselves to be more peaceful and many have endured coups and violent uprisings. The USA says it is democratic, but heads of government departments are appointees/friends of the president, who wields too much power. The Queen simply withholds powers from potential despots and so has ensured peace in the UK for centuries. While monarchies can be bad, so can republics, especially if members of the same party occupy all elected tiers.
All forms of government have their trade-offs but one nice thing about hereditary monarchies is they have a national symbol that no-one ever voted against.
Hammody Ahmed true, but some do. Brazil had a monarchy for almost 400 years, as a colony or an empire, and after 130 years of republic we all know what political system does not work around here...
The Queen Elizabeth is not just a figure head She has the power to dissolve parliament,get rid of the PM, and the Military swear loyalty to her because she's the head of the armed forces She had the power to become a dictator if she ever wanted to but she's never done it.
Interesting to see that, I mean in some republics the president is usually the head of chief, so having the monarch be the head of the military is an interesting balance when I think about it -- probably better than a president using the power of the military for their advantage (higher pays for instance), to gain loyalty and to block revolts and coups.
The Commonwealth realms each have their own separate crowns and the 16 or so separate monarchies are joined together in a personal union under the House of Windsor. The crowns started being separated in 1931 (Canada) and the process continued as the realms gained independence. The term "British Commonwealth" used in your video was dropped in 1949 and replaced with the "Commonwealth of Nations" as it's members were recognized as free and equal nations. The very term is an outdated relic of colonialism implying that the UK has some actual authority or control over the Commonwealth (which is a post-colonial organization of voluntary member states). The various realms coordinate as a group to decide on succession and such, keeping coordinated out of tradition. Still, the main take away is that Elizabeth II isn't Queen of "the Commonwealth" or simply of the UK. Each and every separate realm is its own constitutional monarchy with a distinct title of Queen of (country name). The UK could abolish their monarchy and it would have no impact on Elizabeth II's titles as Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. It might encourage republicanism in those countries but each country would have to abolish their own monarchy (likely requiring a constitutional amendment in some cases). Elizabeth II has over a dozen separate titles as Queen. It's not one Crown for 16 realms. It's 16 Crowns for 16 realms who coordinate to keep the succession synchronized out of tradition. They could all turn around and decide to change their local succession tomorrow and we'd have 16 different kings and queens upon her death. As to why we keep the old lady on the throne outside of the UK - because she's a harmless figurehead completely disconnected from our local politics, it has no impact on people's lives, tradition (Brits are huge into tradition and former British colonies often are too) and possibly most importantly it would require major legislative/constitutional changes over an issue no one cares about. Even those who dislike the monarchy generally think the government has more important things to do. While she resides in the UK and retains some residual powers there, those powers are exercised by a viceroy in the other realms (i.e. she's a figurehead there). Still, if she visits Canada, Australia or another realm, she's welcomed as the local monarch and her UK titles are listed afterwards because they are foreign titles.
@@TheLocalLt I have to disagree regarding the legal separation of the Crowns. The Statute of Westminster 1931 clearly established the Crown in the Right of Canada (the legal term for the Canadian Crown) as a distinct co-equal Crown from the UK. It defined Canada as a co-equal realm to the UK (albeit within the now nebulous British Commonwealth until 1949's London Declaration - after that the Commonwealth is reorganized into the current toothless Commonwealth of Nations). www.lawnow.org/the-statute-of-westminster-a-stepping-stone-towards-canadian-independence/#:~:text=The%20final%20result%20was%20the,Parliament%20on%2011%20December%201931.&text=The%20Statute%20also%20enabled%20the,of%20the%20other%20Commonwealth%20states. Canada cannot be reasonably described as a "possession" after 1931 since it began functioning as a de facto sovereign state and the notion of a "possession" playing Canada's role in the Suez Crisis is absurd. A possession would have had no say in British policy, not opposed it alongside the US and not then acted as a peacemaker and their foreign minister earning a Nobel Peace Prize in the process. Was there a lingering colonial era mess on the legal side, particularly regarding the peculiar legal evolution of the constitutions of the old Dominions? Absolutely! That said, Canada (and Australia and New Zealand) weren't British possessions. Possessions are not fully autonomous states with independent foreign and defense policy. There was some lingering ambiguity due to the wording of 1931 statute and the 1949 London Declaration regarding the theoretical ability of the UK Parliament to legislate on Canada's behalf (this was not attempted) particularly with regards to amending the Canadian constitution because it had evolved out of British statute. With the end of judicial appeals to the UK Privy Council in 1949, Canada had been a de facto sovereign state for three decades but 1982 addressed the fundamental lingering issue left over from having been a colony and a dominion, namely that the constitution was an artefact of what was now effectively a foreign government and the Canadian federal and provincial governments were disagreeing over how to amend the now messy constitution. 1982 made the Canadian constitution a Canadian legal document, including retroactively making the earlier constitutional documents local law instead of British law, amended it, and peacefully severed the UK's lingering unused legislative power by simultaneous acts in both parliaments. 1982 was indeed the end of Canada's colonial ties to the UK and is arguably the best de jure independence year. There was a strange colonial legacy in constitutional law even if the old Dominions were de facto sovereign states by the second half of the 20th century and 1982/1986 resolved that. The Canadian Crown, on the other hand, was calved off earlier in the slow divorce, back in 1931, and Canadian legal documents after that date reflect this (Australia and New Zealand soon followed). Canada's independence was a slow and messy process, albeit fairly peaceful after 1837-38. I believe Australia and New Zealand had a similar progression along these steps, usually a couple of years after Canada (e.g. 1986 rather than 1982).
@@hazeshi6779 I am absolutely not a monarchist. I just happen to live in a country where amending the constitution to abolish the monarchy is somewhat less likely than an alien invasion so I know the system and have ideas on how to subvert it into something new.
@@TheLocalLt wasn't the crown seperated before itself as the royal styles and titles act was passed in Canada in 1953 itself giving the Queen a seperate Canadian title . Even when Queen was crowned she was declared queen of different countries which included Canada , Australia etc while the countries which were under the British control were not mentioned (as they were considered as part of the UK) .
Interesting. I still see how Monarchy is still well needed. Monarchy exists as a power balance where the people forms a government under the monarch. The monarch have also the power to dissolve the cabinet and the parliament if it is seen needed, especially when there is political turbulence, government is in chaos that is impacting the country. Dissolving the cabinet and the parliament will mean wide nation vote for the people to choose a new government, new cabinet and new parliament that will take over to lead the country. A wise, true and responsible monarch will know when and how not to exercise this power. Example, Just how Margaret Thatcher was stabbed in the back by everyone in her cabinet and she insist to not step down as prime minister. The queen instead of giving into Thatcher's request to dissolve the parliament, she instead advised Thatcher to resign instead and let the existing government continue to run its course. Another example is Malaysia. Back in 2019 there was a power struggle in the government where the opposition toppled the government especially when the power struggle is from a greedy power hungry man. This led to a number of political individuals who are corrupt, greedy and power hungry to fight for the position as the Prime Minister of Malaysia. The power struggle impacted the country and its effects onto the economy was severe. The then current prime minister had a discussion with the current monarch of Malaysia and advised him to dissolve the government as the power struggle cannot continue any longer. True enough the Monarch granted the permission and the parliament dissolved. A new government and a new prime minister then takes place. This move was seen as necessary by the people of Malaysia. The economy cannot be supported if the political turbulence continues. Monarch have the power. But if you look closely they choose not to exercise that power as the country already have its own mature constitution and government, where these two will run the country under the Monarch's name. Some people say monarchy should be abolished. Well I say, Monarchy should stay as a power balance. That is why it is important that the head of monarchy is not a dictator. The same goes to any republic country. 1 government to rule the country for hundreds of years, all for the sake of 1 man (president's) interest and power. This is the same and no different from how ancient monarchy rule previously. Through power, fear, and greed. Then again, different country has their own ways on how a government should be formed. Some prefers the monarch as head of state, some don't need a monarch as head of state and some only need a president as head of state.
Malaysia monarchy systems is one of the unique systems in the world which represent 9 kings within its 9 kingdom on 13 states in Malaysia. All the 9 kings were rotate to become head of the country
Technically it's not a monarchy at the top (federal) level, as there is a President of the UAE, but this function is normally occupied the Emir of Abu Dhabi.
Alexandru Ianu The UAE is most certainly an absolute monarchy, its monarch simply happens to have the title “President”. The President of the UAE, whilst technically elected by the 7 state monarchs every 5 years (like the Yang-di-Pertuan-Agong of Malaysia) is always the Emir of Abu Dhabi. Nowhere is the UAE even technically described as a republic
A MAJOR OMISSION - You should have included Brazil (the Empire of Brazil) among the republics with an heir to the throne, along with a noticible pro-monarchy group, of which I am a proud member. Please note that even before Brazil became independent from Portugal, from 1808 through 1822, my country was part of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves. Then, the country became a monarchy immediately after its independence in 1822. It had 2 emperors Dom Pedro I, and Dom Pedro II. The Empire of Brazil, after the second emperor got the throne, it was nearly a developped country (much better off than all the mess brought about by the so-called Republic, which brought about various crisis, several coup-d'etas, and decay of living standards. It was a Constitutional Parliamentary monarchy, which, during the 19th century many statesmen in Europe complained that the Brazilian parliament was too powerful, along with free speach and a free press. Although I have been living in New York City for many decades, I hope to live to see the day when the constutional monarchy is restaured. Long Live the Empire of Brazil. By the way, the link to the first video below is mine, but it appears with the name of my original (and most important) TH-cam channeL, with the name AUGUSTUS AURELIANUS. th-cam.com/video/JI9t1rY_i_E/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/p4jQn6TeKbs/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/UEINtCfR-Wc/w-d-xo.html
Why NYC? Why not London? If you live in NYC and appreciate your lifestyle, it's probably because you admire the current American system, which is and has always been the Republic. Why not fight for the establishment of a Republic of the same style in Brazil? Why the monarchy? The difficulties are the same. It would only be childish and ignorant to think that the mere establishment of the monarchy would solve the country's problems as much as any other change in the status quo. The Brazilian problem goes much further than the current political system, and the current world is completely different, in every way, from the world of the 19th century.
@@sapihrcristal The USA was ruled by the English monarchy for 284 years, from 1492 to 1776. They have been a Republic for 244 years. So generally speaking, the USA was ruled by a monarchy for 50% of its existence to this day. And yet, no monarchist movement has had a real influence there, until today. And you seem to have a very fanciful sense of Brazilian history. Brazil never had a solid base. Our independence was more a formality between friends than a breakup. So much so that the "leader of independence", Dom Pedro I, became King of Portugal later. If it had been a real battle for independence, Dom Pedro I would never have been accepted as King of Portugal, he would have been forever branded a traitor and executed if he set foot in Portugal again. The Brazilian people were totally miserable during the time of the Colony, and during the time of the Empire it was almost nothing different. Only those who were part of the nobility and bourgeoisie had quality of life. The people themselves were totally miserable. Much more than in the 20th century. And it was not Princess Isabel who achieved the abolition of slavery. It was the abolitionist movement that achieved abolition, made up of black heroes and great white supporters. The only reason why the royal family chose to ignore its main supporters, who were slaveholders, and to support the abolitionist movement was due to pressure from the British crown, which demanded the abolition of slavery in Brazil, under penalty of serious consequences if it did not occur. Brazil will forever bear the shame of having been the LAST country in the West to abolish slavery. THE LAST. To be the last, it is clear the total lack of interest of the public power in the matter in comparison to the public powers of the other countries.
@@sapihrcristal And about your P.S. - If a person is able to leave Brazil, go to live in the USA and achieve an economically positive life there, they are fully able to move wherever they want.
It would be a far shorter list to do countries that started the 20th century as a republic. I only KNOW of 4, but suspect that there were many more in central and southern america. The 4 I KNOW are: The US, Mexico, France, and Switzerland.
3.03 Malaysia have two part, one is malaysia borneo, and one is below thailand which is uncolored. Fun fact: Malaysia have 9 Sultan(leader of the state), and one preson will rotate as the head leader (Yang di pertuan Agong) every 5 years.
1:45 western sahara is a part of morocco saying going in a city in the so called "western sahara" there are no borders and people say they are moroccans
Should I make a video about specific Kings/Queens? *Who would you suggest?* (Such as the longest reigns, etc.)
Pp
The countries with the same type of government for the longest time
I like your videos specially war videos
The Pope :D
Slowly on all of them, or maybe a video on each country, with focus on the monarch.
Bhutan is really interesting because the king willingly introduced democracy, but the people rejected it and wanted to keep the absolute monarchy
He can undo it any time, because THEY put that in the deal. They can also put him back as absolute monarch without his doing or consent. That's also in the deal.
@@ageloshatzioanidis4553 based and empire-pilled
Because the king. Is too generous
Aye I like it because it's buddhiat
@George Nathanael ehm the leaders in athens were elected from the citizens and it didnt matter how much elite they were, but the emphasis is CITIZENS
I can't believe you completely forgot the Nigerian monarchy. I even once received an e-mail from the prince of Nigeria!
You too! I wanted to get the gold he was going to send me, but the service on Coruscant went down.
@@thesenate7948 same
@@thesenate7948 I am the Senate
Prince Charles used to be the prince of Nigeria
I’m ready to wooosh
The Queen of Denmark theoretically also have the power to veto any law. She has never used it and likely never will, but she has the power
She's a clever lady, so she's well aware that exercising that right would probably mean the end of the Danish monarchy.
She's probably having it as a last resort shall the country come in the hands of alt-right (or any kind of totalitarian) party and they bring a law so vile it would ruin it's minorities or something along the line. Other than that, there's no need to ever implement it. However, everything I know about Denmark tells me that's never going to happen, so everyone can be happy.
That is the same in the U.K. and the veto has never been used as she is the Queen by the Consent of the People only
Out of all the royal families I like the danish royal family the most
This is a power most constitutional monarchs have, including the monarchs of Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain. They are very rarely used, and are considered “reserve powers”. The king of Malaysia, who is usually a purely symbolic figure like his European counterparts, in a very rare event used his veto earlier this year to block a law that would have given the government massive and arbitrary extrajudicial powers under the pretext of “fighting the coronavirus”
I think it's really interesting that in Bulgaria, the last King was a very young boy when he was deposed by the communists, and he was elected Prime Minister when he was in his 60s. Some crazy shit.
.
@@cmds5604 and a '.' to you too, sir
@@Oscar-vv6dn .
@@jmithab2190 .
@@fiem .
50 years later...
Wikipedia: Queen Elizabeth II IS the current monarch of the UK.
Edit: whelp, this aged like milk
Millennium later queen Elizabeth II is
Viper TheLegend fr she is like 92 or something years older than queen victoria
no not actually she has about 10 years left max.
when we were kids we thought her mother would never die either but she has
@@mysteriousDSF She's planning on living until after Prince Charles passes away. She REALLY doesn't want him to be king.
Malaysia: *our country has 9 Monarchs*
UK: *that’s cute, our monarch has 15 countries*
Yeah, we've had a few cut backs recently. Cost of living and all that....
God Save The King 🤴
Fun fact: Finland had the shortest lived monarchy government. They only had a king for a little over two months named Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse. He never actually set foot in the country either. In light of the fact he was born in what is now Germany and Wilhelm II's abdication, the Finns weren't in favor of him so he renounced his throne.
Avery the Cuban-American I see you everywhere lmao
We finns need desperately food so thats why odd decissions.
I see you everywhere
At this point, you're Justin Y of Geography videos now.
Majority of western people has lot of mongol bloodlines in them so that is true.
Fun fact: there are still a lot of ceremonial kings in Indonesia, and one constitutional king which acts as a governor on that province.
🤯🤯🤯🤯
SUNDA EMPIRE
KERATON AGUNG SEJAGAT
KING OF THE KING
KESULTANAN SELACO
xD
(Only Indonesian Know this)
@@ArtzSlebew omg I almost forgot about them what with all other things that's been going on right now
As an Indonesian I can confirm it's true. (I mean the uppermost post.)
All kings in Indonesia had been killed by its own leader such a pathetic
🇯🇵 Japan "sunrise" 🌞 the oldest monarchy
🇲🇦 Morocco "sunset" 🌕 2nd oldest monarchy
Interesting so Sun Rise in Monarch and set in Monarch between everything is First Lady Waking up her Husband 🥴 lol
Malaysia have the longest living sultanate in the world call Kedah Sultanate or Old Kedah Sultanate
Technically the queen of the UK does have executive power
She must sign off every single law and can choose whether to suspend parliament.
However in practice there would be a scandal if she did without co-operation of the government 😂
Same in Belgium. We actually had such a scandal in 1990 when our king Boudewijn didn't want to sign a bill legalizing abortion. Our government declared him unfit for rule for one day, signed the bill themselves and declared him fit to rule again the day after.
@@Lttlemoi Actually, abortion was still illegal and punishable after this
The law Boudewijn didn't want to sign (though he did ask the government Martens at the time to find a solution to pass the law without him signing it), just provided a few exceptions where abortion would no longer be punishable
Same in the Netherlands. The king can most likely use that executive power once. It's very unlikely that the Netherlands will be a monarchy for long after that.
MattyJ 1168 but in reality they can pass a law without her signing
@@Lttlemoi I remember reading about that when the abortion debate was going in my country (Portugal). It made you Belgians sound quite badass. "Just dismiss the king for 24h, then we take him back."
Fun Fact: Morocco has the second oldest and still ruling monarchy after japan
The Scandinavian monarchies are older than monaco's monarchy
@@Rasmusnilsenbie who said monaco!?
@@Rasmusnilsenbie hahaha he meant Morocco a country located in the maghreb region not Monaco hun
@@moroccanatlaslioness66 i read wrong
@@Rasmusnilsenbie You read right. He just misspelt and wrote Monaco instead of Morocco.
How long do you want to be queen?
Queen Elizabeth: Yes
Normie shit
Queen Elizabeth - chill out! I'm not gonna leave ur chase as much as soon.
I mean some people can reach 120 years of old tho
She is dead now LMAO
@@aliddetectivemc36 she’s not lol
The shortest reigning undisputed monarch was Emperor Xiaoming’s daughter. Lasted less than five hours because they thought she was actually a he. Because of that, Yuan Zhao became emperor
Are you monarchist?
The Kingdom Of North Korea
How would you know that? you only know where to get a good cheeseburger
Thanks for the fact, dear leader.
Best Korea(Totaly not a monarchy)
Romania also has a monarch family, tho we have a weird situation as our king died recently and they don't quite know whom to pass the crown
Dracula
@@Yenlag please shut up
Is it Alan Walker in your profile
but Romania is a republic
Didn't the king have any... Kids, and of them, an eldest one?
I love that you named every country even the small Islands, showing that they matter!
The dutch went the reverse route, they went from being a republic to being a monarchy.
@George Nathanael no it isnt
The dutch « republic » was more like a duchy in all but in name. It was a crowned republic, same for Venice and other Italian « republics »
George Nathanael no the royal family has zero power
Sadly, yes.
-a Dutchman
@@thombrawlstars8345 Yes it is in fact the kings ruled the republic as Statholdiers so although it was a republic the Dutch kings and nobles still ruled the republic. So basically it was a monarchy in disguise
the japanese republican movement is small
and monarchists make 20% of the romanian population
I believe the current Heiress to the Crown of Romania is reasonably popular, perhaps much more so than King Michael was, so I think a lot of the increase, and it seems to be still increasing, is her touch.
that is bad news for sure
@@Apis4 idt Michael's daughters are more popular than he was.
Let Romania get its king Back!
@@mihailupu5107 Michael wasn't very popular with everyone, Margareta seems to appeal to more than just Monarchists, so the Heiress Apparent, though not sure if she inherited the "Keeper of the Crown" title of her Father, seems to be a popular woman with Monarchists, and even many who certainly weren't when Michael was alive.
She's got no children however, iirc, and her sisters oldest, and former third in line after his mother, and Aunt doesn't seem to be everyone's cup of tea, and was removed from succession for his playboy antics and fathering an illegitimate child on a visit to Romania from studying abroad.
So I suspect unless any action happens to make Margareta more recognised as the Queen of Romania, it possibly won't happen even with the popularity of the monarchy now.
Her sister Elena, her Heir to the crown, isn't as popular, nor are her younger sisters Sophie and Marie. So any momentum to towards even a partial reinstatement of some recognition for the Romanian royals will probably need to be on the basis of Margareta's popularity.
In Monaco the Monarchy is literally the state, if the Royal Family suddenly disappeared Monacon wouldn't be a city state any longer and would have to become part of France.
yes, and there was a disposition regarding succession over there. If the prince never had sons it would become part of France. It came close to happen because Albert II got married later in life
Also, the Prince doesn’t just rule a country, he’s also running a business.
imagine ruling a country with your mom
MOMarchy
Imagine the mom was a karen?
Sorry general, my mom said we cant launch the nukes on a school night
George Bush Sr. : I do not like broccoli. And I haven't liked it since I was a little kid and my mother made me eat it. And I'm President of the United States and I'm not going to eat any more broccoli.
King of Eswatini: I'm king and my mother stills makes me eat it.
Rather that, than ruling it with my mother in law. :oD
There are more monarchies in africa, it's just since colonial borders were drawn up without respect to pre existing kingdoms, the monarchies aren't really relevant to the entire country, but the are sometimes relevant to states or provinces within the country in which their kingdoms have jurisdiction. But the federal and state governments almost always have more power than the monarchs.
Yes.. I think Nigeria is one of those states.. I understand they have an Emir and a Sultan in the north and a king/chief in the south.
@@abdulrahmanabdulaziz8742 south africa also has a zulu king.
@@abdulrahmanabdulaziz8742 There is a king in the Ashanti region of Ghana too
@@abdulrahmanabdulaziz8742 Yes Nigeria is, but they have multiple emirs and Emirates in the north and multiple kings(or what they call their kings) in the rest of the country, with different kingdoms in different states.
@@user-uf4lf2bp8t must Africa chief king call themself a king
Fun Fact: Bhutan's king stepped down to create a democracy, but he was so good that people protested that the king come back.
Also, Malaysia Yang Dipertuan Agong (Sultan) is the Head of religious and commander in chief of Royal Malaysian Army
DAULAT TUANKU
10:13 types of governemnt:
-Monarchy
-Republic
-POLAND-LITHUANIA
-Jamahiriya
How does a country that uses the system of POLAND-LITHUANIA work? Simple. Their only goal is into space.
@@osgamer4811 and finding an black hole.
Something between elective parliamentary monarchy and crowned republic. Only for a few years before it's final partition the May 3rd 1791 Constitution changed it to a hereditary monarchy.
Ironically, Poland has had a king since 2016; none other than Jesus Christ!
Updated: Thai monarchy are now having more and more executive powers, and on its way to become absolute monarchy if not reform.
Yikes, the fate of all constitutional monarchies
In practice, yes. Just not on paper.
It’s funny how the netherlands was one of the earlier republics but now is one of the last monarchies
They where always like a monarchy but it was called a stadholder which made a decision with the dukes of the other parts of the the Benelux
@Antoine Shelby In fact, in the 1600s the dutch Stadholder family was the most powerfull in the world.
@@morocco_020fc7 technically no the stadholder was a gouvrement official that was limited while the main executive and legeslative power was still in the hands of the provinces but the stadholder would pull more power usually. The Orange family was originally chosen to give willem I a position in the gouvrement but ended up going in a inheritance way and he was supposed to be chosen by the estates-general only from 1741 was it declared that it would be inherited but the last chosen stadholde didn't inherit it from the original family after willem III died without an heir the Frisian stadholder was given the position and got renamed to Willem IV and after that we got attacked by revolutionary france so it looked and almost functioned as a monarchy but it wasn't so it's a yes but actually no case
It all depends on the culture. If something works in one country one can't assume it should apply for most others as that will likely go wrong. Every case is different.
They just added useless ceremonial things to already extant position of Stadholder. Which is not progress at all. Focus on ceremonies and symbols is a sign of primitive understanding of the world. The Dutch would never devolve into that themselves, it was Napoleon and later reactionary European trends after Napoleonic wars which transformed Netherlands into a monarchy
11:12 there is at least one big
restoration movement, in Georgia. Their public is split around 50% pro and against a constitutioal monarcy. Even the newly electet Prime Minister leans towards the pro side.
Who would be crowned?
It all depends on the culture. If something works in one country one can't assume it should apply for most others as that will likely go wrong. Every case is different.
Josef Jugashvili the First, Last Tsar of Georgia.
Liberado Por Patriotas Currently the claim to the Georgian throne is split between two men, George Bagrationi and Nuzgar Bagrationi. However, their claims are united in George’s son (also named George), as he is also the son of Nuzgar’s eldest daughter
@@LordDim1 Why do they have claims?
I myself am from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and am extremely grateful and thankful to the fact that we are an absolute monarchy.
The royal family members, especially those closer to the line of the throne, are brought up since day one to be rulers. As such, they are educated in ways that build a strong political foundation and equipped with the information they need to lead someday.
Sure, we were not the best country and we had our pretty big share of problems, but as of now, I’m pretty happy. We have had it relatively good during the pandemic, we have a strong economy, we get fairly good support from the government(paid scholarships, allowances for new families, etc.) and most human-rights issues (major ones) that we faced were solved.
Not to mention, the only reason we have a royal family is because all tribe leaders, and natives of the land lent their support to the Alsaud family (over a century ago), be it in soldiers, food, or money. So our ancestors chose to support their claim, they didn’t use some weird excuse that God chose them, or that they are born of a different cloth from humanity, none of that weird holier than thou stuff.
So I would hope people keep an open mind to absolute monarchies, despite the bad examples (and there are many) that we have seen in the past, there were/are/will always be good ones. So it doesn’t have to be a weird or backwards thing to be practiced, just different.
As long as y'all have oil, the kingdom is set (I'd like to say set in stone, but it's oil, so... #badjokes). Their main issue for me is totalitarism (either against criticism or due to islamic law) and maybe money laundry through Aramco and Newcastle United.
But those things happen in other parts too
Agree even my beloved country oman doesn't have ksa economy but people are relatively happy with there monarchs and do trust them and our monarchs do deliver promises to assure the countries peace and prosperity
In Arabia (GCC) tribes still exist in and to understand the structure of modern tribal community people will understand the connection between the crowds and there ruler's and how this connection do effect the government transparency in very effective way
@@otaviofrnazario >Their main issue for me is totalitarism
totalitarism is the only form of rule when it comes to the middle east
Malaysians:
*Laughs in 9 monarchs*
Bruh moment.
Britain:
*Laughs in 9 day queen*
Normie
Eyyy 9 Kings boiii
and rotating monarchs too.. only Malaysia practiced this system
Recently discovered your channel and I very much enjoy it because of my love of geography. Just one note though, for Malaysia in the map, you only highlighted East Malaysia, which is the western part of Borneo, and you didnt highlight Peninsula Malaysia, which is south of Thailand. I am a Malaysian from the Peninsula and a majority of Malaysian are from the Peninsula.
I love geography as well.
Fun fact: the English monarchy was abolished for a bit, but the alternative was so bad that it was reinstated shortly after.
Ahhh cromwell the so called lord protector or most likely a douche 😆but its charles 1 too that's so ambitious and hungry for power since the scots took over the throne after the great Tudors the monarchy was messed up
That is why English people still have an irrational fear of monarchy ending, as if that would automatically turn them into a dictatorship or something (many Scots and Welsh really don't share this opinion, if you ask some number of them, you'll see). Someone should tell them 4 centuries have passed 😆
@@KateeAngel No we don't lol, many of us just like the idea that our monarchy is incredibly old and still around, and see the monarchy as something that represents our history and traditions, though if the monarch decided to try and interfere with how the country is run I assure you we all be very quick too turn on her and decide to become a republic.
@@pipercharms7374 Honestly if boris does something crazy then I am very supportive of the queen taking actions
@@KateeAngel it is the same in NI.
when Malaysia only controls the eastern half how we suppose to land in the seas now 7:18 map
Hahahaha
Singapore may have invaded the western half
Malaysia have been Invaded by Indonesia
Republic of West Malaysia
Just joking 😂
@@danieloktovian9523 lol invaded by indon?? trololo.. cannot even control their own haze
"Despite this being the 21st Century" As if there's some natural progression from monarchy to republic. There have been republics around for as long as there have been monarchies, and they have historically tended to be less successful, hence the historical prevalence of Kingdoms. The various "Monarchies" of the world tend to be relatively successful even today. Constitutional Monarchies are de facto republics with political competition for the top job absent, all elected leaders are expected to pay lip service to a nominal superior, which helps to keep their megalomania in check to some degree.
Why is Kazakhstan shown in "Presidential Republic" blue while the PRC is in "One Party State" brown? Does Kazakhstan have a competitive multi-party system?
The reason we have so many republics today is because of the success of the United States. Sadly many of them are fakes, calling the leader of your country "president" does not make your country a republic. Many countries seem to be run by political cargo cults, superficially copying the titles and decorations of the US establishment in the hopes that it will bring similar success. Syria's president inherited the position from his father, it calls itself a republic, but it runs like an absolute monarchy.
"how do you define success. Just because a country has lot's of land and wealth doesn't mean the people are happy. How would you feel as a peasant in Britain(by far the vast majority) when they controlled a lot of the world but were under absolute control of the monarchy. You were legally and socially below the noblemen and royals just because of who your parents were. And even by your definition of successful you are still wrong. All those places you mentioned as being ultra successful aren't around today in the same form. In fact, the most successful countries ever are republics. USA, China, Japan. 2 of which lost their monarchies and immediately became more successful. Japan specifically skyrocketed into form as an economic powerhouse right after their country had been destroyed in WW2. I agree that if someone extremely intelligent and kindhearted were to be born into full power over a country they could do wonders, but for every one of those monarchs their are 10x worse ones that are 10x more common. Stop this ancient concept of being born into absolute power. There's a reason they never last. They harm the majority of people and the many will eventually always win against the few. Stop spreading false fucking information that ropes people into having an ancient mindset."
is what i wrote when i glimpsed at your comment but upon closer inspection you never praised monarchies at all and i'm just stupid lmao. my bad
@@golddmane
I appreciate that you caught yourself there, kudos for posting it anyway then admitting the mistake.
I will beg your indulgence in answering a few points though:
"how do you define success" Historically by longevity, wealth, power, prevalence, any or all.
In modern times 8 of the top ten countries in the Economist Intelligence Unit's "Where to be born rankings" are monarchies...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index#2013_rankings
... and they're not doing badly in terms of purchasing power parity per capita either...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
"How would you feel as a peasant in Britain(by far the vast majority) when they controlled a lot of the world but were under absolute control of the monarchy."
Great Britain didn't have a large empire and an absolute monarch at the same time, England's monarchy has been limited since Magna Carta in 1215 and Great Britain's monarchy was further curtailed by the Glorious Revolution of 1688. There was no British Empire prior to the Scottish 1707 Union with England Act.
Also I think if you took comparable monarchies and republics from history, say for instance the Novgorod Republic against Muscovy at the same period, I don't think you'll find vast differences in living standards, though I'm happy to be corrected on this.
"In fact, the most successful countries ever are republics. USA, China, Japan."
The USA I'll grant you, though I think the point is arguable.
China has been the world's most advanced and powerful nation through much of it's history, but it was always a monarchy during it's times at the top. I don't consider China to be at the top currently, but even if you do, Xi Jinping maintains a stranglehold on the country that would embarrass most historical despots.
Japan is not and has never been a republic. The Japanese monarchy is said to be the oldest continuous hereditary monarchy in the world, and since it traces it's lineage back to the sun goddess Amaterasu, who are we to argue?
Between 1853 and 1895 Japan went from a feudal agricultural economy to an industrialised great power all by themselves, after WW2 they had a lot more help, they were a monarchy throughout.
"There's a reason they never last." Just a few quick examples for comparison...
Egyptian Monarchy 3250BC - 314 AD 3564 years
Japanese Monarchy 660 BC - Present 2680 years
Roman Monarchy 27 BC - 1453 AD 1480 years
French Monarchy 843 AD - 1870 AD 1027 years
Russian Monarchy 862 AD - 1917 AD 1155 years
Norwegian Monarchy 885 AD - Present 1135 years
English Monarchy 886 AD - Present 1134 years
Danish Monarchy 935 AD - Present 1085 years
Swedish Monarchy 970 AD - Present 1050 years
Thai Monarchy 1238AD - Present 782 years
Classical Athens 508 BC - 322 BC 186 years
Roman Republic 509 BC - 27 BC 482 years
Carthage 308 BC - 146 BC 166 years
Republic of San Marino 301 AD - Present 1719 years
Republic of Venice 697 AD - 1797AD 1100 years
Republic of Ancona 1100AD - 1532AD 432 years
Republic of Genoa 1100AD - 1797AD 697 years
Republic of Noli 1192AD - 1797AD 605 years
Republic of Ragusa 1358AD - 1808AD 450 years
Icelandic Commonwealth 930 AD - 1262AD 332 years
Republic Of Florence 1115AD - 1537AD 422 years
Novgorod Republic 1136AD - 1478AD 342 years
Dutch Republic 1581AD - 1795AD 214 years
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569AD - 1795AD 226 years
French Republic 1792-1804, 1848-1852, 1871-1940, 1946-1958, 1958 - Present
United States of America 1776 AD - Present 244 years
Most current republics are less than a century old.
@@golddmane China wasn't a republic
@@golddmane England got a constitutional monarchy long ago
sorry for the bad english
In Gabon too it's the same family, the Bongos, who is at the head of the country since independence, one can call that hereditary Presidency
Video suggestion: Countries that are almost landlocked.
U can suggest that in the Discord server also
ya
@CharlyTDM07 Gambia isn't almost landlocked
@CharlyTDM07 israel is at the mediterranean??!!
@@trollinape2697 Not even Israel, it's size itself is small
I am from the country where the only emperor is in the world.🇯🇵
And the dynasty of my country is the oldest existing dynasty in the world！
Mate, do you know some good Japanese history/geography channels? I'm into learning the language but I can't seem to find them!
@@darklibertario5001 search "Geography now Japan"
Long live the Emperor!
天皇陛下万歳!!!
Konnichiwa Anmi San
I searched for this type of video about two weeks ago! Now its here. Thanks man great video
Fun fact: The Thai’s absolute monarchy was ended in 1932 after a revolution, which transforms the nation into a constitutional monarchy and its name.
And now it’s a military dictatorship under the monarchy
The last Bulgarian Tsar who was exiled to Spain as a child after WW2 has also held elected office in the country as a Prime Minister in the period 2001-2005
He's also one of the two currently living country leader reigning during WW2, the other being the 14th Dalai Lama.
If he was popular enough to get a majority to become prime minister, why did he not become Tsar again?
Raven Knight Vincent
The Romanian king had a big role too but he died in 2017
@@samwilkinson2534 I don't think his term was that popular by the end. That seemed to end his chances of being a Tsar ever again
Well he was just a boy when he became King/Tsar.
If you're also counting non-sovereign kingdoms like order of malta, then you can also count the Sultanate of Yogyakarta which officially is on the level of province in Indonesia, the sultan is on the level of governors below the president. Other sultanates in the country are non-official and ceremonial only.
Greetings from Malaysia. I love how you're able to explain in a simple way on how Malaysian monarchy works. Although you might have left out the Peninsula Malaysia in the map, where all the kings are located 😅
Greetings to Malaysia from Saudi Arabia 🇲🇾 ❤️ 🇸🇦
@@fab8490 yup....europe destroyed many things....history,culture and many more....that why some history is missing.😔
@@fab8490 yup all around the world culture is missing due to colonial era👍🏼....alhamdulillah jumpa org malaysia yg tak sembah org putih😂
@@the_struggler963 🇬🇧
Neighbouring Singapore might be said to have originated from a monarchy I guess? Since the island nation was originally a peripheral part of the _Johor_ kingdom (now a state in Malaysia, with the monarchy retained) until it was rented out to the British under colonialism, who saw the island's potential as a maritime trade port due to its strategic location, & expanded the island's human settlement significantly into a city-state
Norway is also unique in the way that it now is a hereditary monarchy, but the people voted for it becoming a monarchy in 1905
Well it was still a monarchy before it only didn't have it's own monarch. The Swedish King was also King of Norway. They decided to split so Norway chose a Danish prince as the new King. He however wanted the people to take a vote wether they wanted him or a republic. So basically they voted to retain the monarchy with their own King.
I think it funny and even more unique how (I think) Romania abolished their monarchy then later voted their old king as president.
@@nathanaelsadgrove really? I never found who was this royal that became president. I know in Bulgaria SImeon II, their last Tsar, was prime minister between 2001-05
@@otaviofrnazario Sorry, I can't seem to find it. Might have got confused with Bulgaria or read something that was inaccurate.
7:52 I just wanted to state that; in theory, a non-citizen of thw Vatican City can be pope, as a cardinal can literally vote ANY person in the entire world, but that is incredibly rare. Most of the time the cardinals elect one of their own kind (another cardinal), and cardinals (every single one of them) are ALL citizens of the vatican city, as all people who have jobs or work within it are legally citizens of the state.
I support the restauration of the Brazilian Monarchy! 💚💛
Brazil biggest mistake was becoming a republic
YES
Up
Me too!
Ave Império！
10:16 I like how Poland Lithuania is just its own category
Because they had noble monarchy in which nobility democraticly elected a king and cooperated with him to rule commonwealth and after king died they elected another king
@@ermin2248yeah I know, I just mean it's uniqe and it's the first time I see something like that
A szlachcic on the croft is the wojwod's equal!
Well you see rhere are 3 types of governments: monarchies, republics and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealths
It's was very special for it's time. An elective monarchy
7:23
Peninsular malayia: has kings (not coloured)
Sabah and sarawak, also part of malaysia but doesn't have any kings in that region: is coloured
This channel is a joke
Greece's last king still lives today, Constantine II. He is 80 years old right now unfortunately
Δεν ήξερα ότι ζούσε ακόμα
I was in London in summer of 1977 at Harrods purchasing something to wear to a function relating to the Queen's Silver Jubilee, when I rounded a corner and came face to face with the King of the Hellenes. I bowed my head and said, "Your Majesty." He was at first taken a back trying to remember if I was someone he knew (I suppose). He immediately smiled his characteristic grin and asked my name. I told him and after a few pleasantries we departed. That evening at the function at Claridges given by the late Duke of Westminster, I was again reintroduced to the King and his beautiful wife, Queen Anne Marie. He explained we had met briefly earlier at Harrods. She, too, was very nice and down- to- Earth., I was always hoping he would be able to return to his throne.
"Greek king" more like byzantine emperor
Why isn't he reinstated as a figurehead?
@@compatriot852 Constantine was very weak and gutless when confronted by the generals of the Junta. If he was brave and stood up to them he would've survived as king or been asked back afterwards when they were removed.
We love Our chill chain smoking queen of Denmark ☀️
No we do not. She should abdicate ASAP and disolve the institution.
Kevin Bosnjak oh get off your moralistic self-righteous. It would have to be done and would only be done by referendum, a referendum you would lose
The fact is that by us keeping the institution of the monarchy, we are forced to live in a constant constitutional crisis, that makes our realm vulnerable to fascist and/or undemocratic movements.
The Greeks understood that the key to any strong democracy was a firm and undebatable constitution. So when the constitution tells us that we live in a monarchy, and the Monarch chooses the government, we are forced to ignore that constitution, to live in a democracy. And when the constitution tells us that we are an Evangelical Lutheran nation, we are forced to ignore the constitution in order to remain a secular society. And when the constitution says that all diplomacy is to be carried out by the king, we are once more forced to ignore it in order to remain a functional modern nation-state.
This makes our constitution weak, as it is constantly and openly ignored. What then else may be ignored? The right to habeas corpus? The right to remain silent? The right to assemble? Indeed, none of these are truly protected as long as the constitution cannot and does not reflect reality, and therefore the royal family and the institution of monarchy is a real, measurable and imminent danger to a free democratic society.
So what side are you on, friend? Will you stand with king or country?
GormTheElder The power of the crown in Denmark hasn’t absolute power, just look at the Easter Crisis (1920). The role of Danish monarch is two folded. One) ceremonial duties, open museums, school etc. and on a personal note, it would say the monarchy is as most a part of Denmarks culture, then anything else. Second) ratifying laws. Though any king or queen doesn’t want a full on revolution. So there don’t reject any laws.
(Weird that you talk against the danish monarchy, since you use the “Earl of Jelling” and the first recognize “king of Denmark” as your name. [danish: Gorm den Gamle. English: Gorm the Elder]
@@Thediscountanimator
Indeed, this is what I stated; they don't have absolute power, because we are forced to ignore our constitution, the very form of which formed the basis for the easter crisis. It is of little consequence how much of a cultural institution the monarchy has become, when it forces us to live in a fundementally weaker and more unstable state; would slavery being a cultural institution be a reason to keep it around? To barbarians, perhaps!
I say we take inspriration from the most civilized societies of Western History such as the Athenians, who understood that law, not custom ought rule a people, and adjust our constitution accordingly - Either to strip the monarch of all formal power, embrace actual monarchy or to abolish the house of knaves who robbed and raped your ancestors to achieve their wealth. Whichever you prefer, something ought be done, for the current order is inherently weak.
The Netherlands used to be a republic, but became a kingdom only in 1815. Likewise, after independence Belgium wanted to be a republic, but was forced to choose a king in order to get diplomatic recognition for its independence.
Tonga is in the Commonwealth (but not a realm of Elizabeth II)
Afaik it habits own king.
That's the point
Not Cows of UK
So are rwanda and Mozambique
It’s Tonga time
Monarchy are a great way to unite the majority of a population as they are politically neutral (constitutional monarchys)
If only that were the case lol
Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy largely by inertia.
There is occasional discussion of becoming a Republic, but most people just say 'why?'
If it ever became an imperative, consensus is that we could do the switch in about 48 hours.
Correction: The UAE elects the monarch every 5 years. The election is made by the central council members of the 7 emirates (states)
Thats what he said? It isnt an election (by the people), but that second point of 7.
That moment when you realize that map doesn’t include South Sudan
Dud you mean Hunger Sudan?
God save our gracious Queen, long live our noble Queen, God save the Queen - No Surrender
To what? Charles?
Lol 😂
Already surrender and living on small island
@@bestclips4525 No Surrender🇬🇧
The heir of Bulgaria's previous tsar lives in Spain today
TheElectrixPunch BG The disputed heir to the russian throne does as well. Also, the legitimist heir to France does as well
@@welcometotheinternet574 The "Legitimate" heir to the French throne, is the Duke of Paris, who lives, you guessed it, in Paris. The Bonapartes rescinded any claims to the French Crown, and whilst the Bourbon monarchy of Spain, press their claim, they gave it up, in writing, in multiple copies, almost four hundred years ago.
So NO, the Heir Apparent to the Crown of France, lives in FRANCE.
Apis4 When did the Bonapartes rescind any claim to the French Crown? They have 2 claims over a succession dispute for Christ sake
King Simeon of Bulgaria and his Queen do live in Bulgaria and he was elected Prime Minister for awhile.
Surely he was a king not a tsar?
1:31 Emir is Prince in arabic
Exactomento
Exactly, Emir is a fancy way of saying Prince.
Wasn't the King of Bahrain an emir? Why don't they all just declare themselves Kings like the Emir of Bahrain?
@@charlesschap3735 Emir rules only some tribes in small peice of land unlike the king that rules many tribes and a large place ; the sultan rules people from different ethnicities and races in a very large portion of land ; a caliph is the political head of the religion his job is to keep the law of the religion but he doesn't have the land on his name and like the last three.
Simple explanation:
Emir-Prince
Sultan-Islamic King
Caliph-Islamic Leader
So how he said, Greece is not a monarchy but we still have royals. And our prince looks really handsome ngl haha
Hope the best for you
Peninsular Malaysia..😢😢😢 this is the second time I see educational channels forgot that Malaysia consist of two parts and not just on Borneo.😢😢😢 and ironically, all the rotational kings are only on the peninsula.
Sabah dan Sarawak tidak ada sultan yah?
@@rrrr-zz7xr tidak. Sabah dan Sarawak tiada sultan
@@rrrr-zz7xr Saabah Sarawak Melaka dan Penang xde sultan...hanya guna yg dipertua... Negeri2 ni agong yg pegang
Well it used to belong to Brunei so they did have a Sultan before being part of Malaysia, and Part Of Sabah used to belong to The sulu kingdom
@@aniqwazeef3724 yah. Brunei sold the land.
In Bulgaria's case the monarchist movement actually suceeded and Tsar Simeon II became the republic's Prime minister from 2001 to 2005.
But why didn't he become Tsar again (Restoration I mean)
@@aaronpenaperalta he was exaggerating a bit when he said succeeded, the monarchist movement is much more powerful in the Balkans than anywhere else, but it wasn't enough to get a proper restoration
Malaysia have 9 Sultans for their states, some states don't have. Every 5 years one of them will become the "Emperor" which we call "Agung". They have a specific order on who will be the next emperor.
Agung have real power that includes full military control, they're not just some ceremonial monarchy haha. But it's only during emergency times. Other than that, they have a duty to maintain order, exercise islamic values and aid those in need.
That's why Malaysian's monarchy-federal government rule is unique as compared to other countries.
Only nimalaysia di dunia n asiani umpama maharaja jepunni cume one. we kite maharaja mega,agong.
Prince Charles: mom said it’s my turn to rule
Queen Elizabeth II: no I didn’t
congrats you stole the top comment
@@supremeastro5300 I wouldn't say stole, more like borrowed, painted and said it was his
It’s the internet nothing is original
Hey he's lonely had to wait 50 years, no biggie!
Fico muito contente por ver um canal Portugues ter tanto sucesso. Sou seguidor recente mas estou a adorar o conteúdo do canal. Continua o excelente trabalho.
Sou brasileiro, e olha: só tenho certeza que ele é português quando ele fala o nome das cidades portuguesas, porque aí o sotaque aparece.
Quem é novato acha que ele é de algum país anglófono
Fun fact : there are still recognized kings in France ! More precisely in Wallis and Futuna, a French overseas territory made up of 3 customary kingdoms recognized by the French State and Government. The 3 kings are called the "Lavelua"
France's President is also Prince of Andorra but he loses the title once he is no more President.
These are tribal kingdoms under French protection, the same exist in Africa in the hinterlands of several former British colonies
@@towaritch Fun fact: The president is also the only Canon of the Lateran Archibasilica in Rome. Each year, on December 13, a prayer is celebrated in honor of France.
@@TheLocalLt But the lavelua have a real power on the island of Wallis and Futuna
@@nicopacabana6611 What an irony since the French Republic murdered its former Catholic king in 1793
You forgot to highlight West Malaysia on the peninsula, you only highlighted the East.
And also Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy with 9 sultans.
Im so triggered.
*triggered Malaysian voice*
*TRUE.*
And hold some executive power
@@oce2u only in their states. AGONG does not have executive power. YDP does not have the power to appeal to any laws, policies, governance, etc... He just merely the figurehead of Malaysia.
Egypt needs to revert to a Monarchy and bring back a King since the military dictatorship "republic" obviously isn't working.
Is There Monarchist Party In Egypt????
What if they had a military dictator king
agreed！
Mohammed Shaker jj
They need a Pharao xD Bring back a Ramses
Constitutional monarchies are the best form of government imo. They are national figureheads who inspire continuity and remind us of our traditions without the ability to become tyrannical. I hope Australia never forsakes our amazing system. God save the Queen!
That is 1 reason why I favour Cons.Mon.👌
Elizabeth II has a lots of theoretical power but if she where to use it there would be an uprising
Yeah but the people couldn't really do anything since she's immortal anyway
@@maximilianbeyer5642 true that
It's generally a feature of modern constitutional monarchies that the head of state exercises much less power than they theoretically have, whereas the reverse is usually true for elected presidents. Public perception of legitimacy has much more impact on how much power people can wield than what might be written in a constitution.
That's true of a lot of elected leaders too.
I'm not sure with the terrible elected officials we have now, I'm sure some people would be quite refreshed by royal intervention rather than the endless chain of ineffective demagogues we've had for the last 30 years. The only 'uprising' I could see resulting would be more like a top-down resistance by the parliament who would do anything to retain the scheme that they've grown used to running, afterall what is democracy but five wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch?
In the map at 3:10
The mainland part of Malaysia that has 9 monarchs isnt highlighted but the part that has currently has no kings is.
Brunei the only monarchy on Borneo also looks like it fell into the sea.
Is this map from the future?
Borneo is on there, It's dark green which makes it almost blend in with the sea
Ikr
Borneo part of Malaysia no longer have any King now, but Malaya part of Malaysia does have King/Sultan on almost every state...
Fun fact: The Borneo part (Sarawak) also used to have kings, Caucasian kings. The Brookes White Rajahs. Pretty good rulers too.
Used to be a republican, but seeing how a republic usually ends up a monarchy is actually better. A monarch, being politically independent, will have mostly the full support of the people. A president will usually just have around half. So during times of crisis the monarch will be unifying where as the president will be a dividing one
When I see what is happening to our poor Germany right now, i want the Kaiser back.
Spain is an interesting case where the monarchy was restored after the dictator died
Not so interesting since the monarchy got shut off by the Spanish republicans , so when Franco took control he wanted to repair spain from the civil war , and his death just caused a power vacuum.
I mean france after Napoleon got exiled . its monarchy restored for a while,
@@deandre2680 not exactly. He named himself as regent.
@@deandre2680 Well, yes, but its different I guess. Spain had no monarchy for about 42 years I think, haven't counted them, and then we voted for it to get back.
Glad they are back
@@deandre2680 he stayed for more than 3 decades. He had more than enough time to restore the country twice.
He likely embezzeled money to set his family off during that period.
That's a guy that if ressurection was actually possible, I would have him ressurected just to kill again
Also I'd say that through Hawaii, the USA is a former monarchy along with Mexico and Brazil and Central America
Connor Swindells No they weren‘t. When the king still ruled the 13 colonies there wasn‘t a country called the USA yet. When the USA were formed they were no longer ruled by a king. Therefore the USA weren‘t a former monarchy but the predecessors (the 13 colonies) were.
Don't forget about Haiti. They were a monarchy twice, but we're overthrown for autocratic republics.
I agree with Stefan on the U.S.A but Hawaii is a former monarchy both under British and their own rule.
@@scootergrant8683 Hawaii wasn't under British rule. Various island rulers, united Hawaiian kingdom, Hawaiian republic, Hawaiian territory (US), State of Hawaii (US).
The Paulet Affair, a brief British occupation, was disavowed.
The Netherlands used to be one off the only republics in Europe but eventually one of the only monarchies.
Time traveler: what are you reading about?
Me: About the British empire
Time traveler: which one?
?
??????
th-cam.com/video/Y3Ihmp0-cps/w-d-xo.html
So u mean the future British empire
@@rohitdua5033 why??
While Africa only has 3 sovereign monarchs, they have many subnational monarchies:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_constituent_African_monarchs
3:03 You've only indicated half of Malaysia on the map -- you shaded in part of Borneo, but not the peninsular bit.
Yes2....
1/4 of the world: Exists
British Monarchy: *Its free real estate*
Rule Britainnia I wish I was British
@janjan de vil The U.S.A got there first.
Din Djarin USA? But I love my British ancestors
5:24 the queen of the Uk has executive powers (juridical powers too) but by traditions she delegated them to the Crown officials like the prime ministers and Lord Judges. *She does not use them, that does not mean that she doesn’t have them*
Example :
( viceroys/Governor Generals/ vice-kings/vice-queens) are the representatives of the monarch on the land when she is abroad, in 1975 the viceroy Kerr fired the prime minister, the government and called a general election on a federal level to replace the parliament because they were going to through the Commonwealth of Australia into a political and financial stagnation. so yeah those powers (royal prerogatives) exist.
There should be a companion video which details the nominally representative or non-monarchical governments which are actually ruled by a sovereign dictator or oligarchy. The list of countries where elections are meaningless is pretty large I think.
That would be a big video
See, there are different types of territory.
1-Monarchy
2-Ecclesiastical lands
3-Republics
4- _Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth_
Glory to the Commonwealth!
I love republic in which Donald trump like of peoples cry for votes.
I just love how he says "countrys" with this cool accent
Basically all the countries with parliamentary monarchies are way more democratic than a lot of formal republics around the world. And not becouse moarchies have a long history we can consider them to be something devoid of an important role in the present. It's defintely more complex thath it seems to be...
Well, sure, but that's more of an issue with those lesser republics (even when you exclude ones like North Korea that are only republics in name) than anything praiseworthy about the monarchies. There are also plenty of republics that are a lot more democratic than those other republics, as well.
@@Compucles So imo the point is not about the form of state..... it's further about the form of government....Again: almost all most democratic countries in the world are parliamentary monarchies, even if it can seem counter-intuitive, such as Netherland, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, of course UK etc.etc....Is that just a mere case?
I am a Brit and I believe that monarchies should be kept as long as they are constitutional
Edit: am now a republican lol down with the king
Yes in case a muslim wants to make uk a islamic state
@@christiankeishamaniego5984 ?????
Arabs: jokes on u
Canada and Australia.
Two countries that are so different have 2 things in common
They both have 3 "a"s in their names.
And swear allegiance to the queen.
I am unsure why you are surprised at the UK retaining a monarchy. Republics have not shown themselves to be more peaceful and many have endured coups and violent uprisings. The USA says it is democratic, but heads of government departments are appointees/friends of the president, who wields too much power. The Queen simply withholds powers from potential despots and so has ensured peace in the UK for centuries. While monarchies can be bad, so can republics, especially if members of the same party occupy all elected tiers.
there have been several wars over the british monarchy. jacobite wars, glorious revolution, english CIVIL WAR, empress matilda vs king stephen etc.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 that happened centuries ago
What do you mean STILL monarchies? Is monarchy bad? Excuse me, but some monarchy countries are better administered than most republics.
Natural selection. The bad ones changed into republic.
Monarchies are much cheaper as well when compared to republics.
Republic is better.
@@ls200076 it isn't.
Yes, monarchy is bad.
Remember when almost every country was a monarch?
@@ageloshatzioanidis4553
What makes you think that a monarchy is superior to, let's say a republic?
@@tobib6885 I think it's because a king finds a country or reunion a country
Tobi B some countries just dont work as republics, specially those that have some monarchy tradition
All forms of government have their trade-offs but one nice thing about hereditary monarchies is they have a national symbol that no-one ever voted against.
Hammody Ahmed true, but some do. Brazil had a monarchy for almost 400 years, as a colony or an empire, and after 130 years of republic we all know what political system does not work around here...
As a Malaysian 🇲🇾 I admit it 👌
DAULAT TUANKU ❤
DAULAT TUANKU!
The Queen Elizabeth is not just a figure head
She has the power to dissolve parliament,get rid of the PM, and the Military swear loyalty to her because she's the head of the armed forces
She had the power to become a dictator if she ever wanted to but she's never done it.
How do you know she has that power if she hasn't done it?
@@Nathan-tz5fr She legally has the power. Practically she has no chance.
Interesting to see that, I mean in some republics the president is usually the head of chief, so having the monarch be the head of the military is an interesting balance when I think about it -- probably better than a president using the power of the military for their advantage (higher pays for instance), to gain loyalty and to block revolts and coups.
The Commonwealth realms each have their own separate crowns and the 16 or so separate monarchies are joined together in a personal union under the House of Windsor. The crowns started being separated in 1931 (Canada) and the process continued as the realms gained independence. The term "British Commonwealth" used in your video was dropped in 1949 and replaced with the "Commonwealth of Nations" as it's members were recognized as free and equal nations. The very term is an outdated relic of colonialism implying that the UK has some actual authority or control over the Commonwealth (which is a post-colonial organization of voluntary member states).
The various realms coordinate as a group to decide on succession and such, keeping coordinated out of tradition. Still, the main take away is that Elizabeth II isn't Queen of "the Commonwealth" or simply of the UK. Each and every separate realm is its own constitutional monarchy with a distinct title of Queen of (country name).
The UK could abolish their monarchy and it would have no impact on Elizabeth II's titles as Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. It might encourage republicanism in those countries but each country would have to abolish their own monarchy (likely requiring a constitutional amendment in some cases). Elizabeth II has over a dozen separate titles as Queen. It's not one Crown for 16 realms. It's 16 Crowns for 16 realms who coordinate to keep the succession synchronized out of tradition. They could all turn around and decide to change their local succession tomorrow and we'd have 16 different kings and queens upon her death. As to why we keep the old lady on the throne outside of the UK - because she's a harmless figurehead completely disconnected from our local politics, it has no impact on people's lives, tradition (Brits are huge into tradition and former British colonies often are too) and possibly most importantly it would require major legislative/constitutional changes over an issue no one cares about. Even those who dislike the monarchy generally think the government has more important things to do.
While she resides in the UK and retains some residual powers there, those powers are exercised by a viceroy in the other realms (i.e. she's a figurehead there). Still, if she visits Canada, Australia or another realm, she's welcomed as the local monarch and her UK titles are listed afterwards because they are foreign titles.
Thanks I've learnt something from both of you
@@TheLocalLt I have to disagree regarding the legal separation of the Crowns. The Statute of Westminster 1931 clearly established the Crown in the Right of Canada (the legal term for the Canadian Crown) as a distinct co-equal Crown from the UK. It defined Canada as a co-equal realm to the UK (albeit within the now nebulous British Commonwealth until 1949's London Declaration - after that the Commonwealth is reorganized into the current toothless Commonwealth of Nations).
www.lawnow.org/the-statute-of-westminster-a-stepping-stone-towards-canadian-independence/#:~:text=The%20final%20result%20was%20the,Parliament%20on%2011%20December%201931.&text=The%20Statute%20also%20enabled%20the,of%20the%20other%20Commonwealth%20states.
Canada cannot be reasonably described as a "possession" after 1931 since it began functioning as a de facto sovereign state and the notion of a "possession" playing Canada's role in the Suez Crisis is absurd. A possession would have had no say in British policy, not opposed it alongside the US and not then acted as a peacemaker and their foreign minister earning a Nobel Peace Prize in the process. Was there a lingering colonial era mess on the legal side, particularly regarding the peculiar legal evolution of the constitutions of the old Dominions? Absolutely! That said, Canada (and Australia and New Zealand) weren't British possessions. Possessions are not fully autonomous states with independent foreign and defense policy.
There was some lingering ambiguity due to the wording of 1931 statute and the 1949 London Declaration regarding the theoretical ability of the UK Parliament to legislate on Canada's behalf (this was not attempted) particularly with regards to amending the Canadian constitution because it had evolved out of British statute.
With the end of judicial appeals to the UK Privy Council in 1949, Canada had been a de facto sovereign state for three decades but 1982 addressed the fundamental lingering issue left over from having been a colony and a dominion, namely that the constitution was an artefact of what was now effectively a foreign government and the Canadian federal and provincial governments were disagreeing over how to amend the now messy constitution. 1982 made the Canadian constitution a Canadian legal document, including retroactively making the earlier constitutional documents local law instead of British law, amended it, and peacefully severed the UK's lingering unused legislative power by simultaneous acts in both parliaments.
1982 was indeed the end of Canada's colonial ties to the UK and is arguably the best de jure independence year. There was a strange colonial legacy in constitutional law even if the old Dominions were de facto sovereign states by the second half of the 20th century and 1982/1986 resolved that. The Canadian Crown, on the other hand, was calved off earlier in the slow divorce, back in 1931, and Canadian legal documents after that date reflect this (Australia and New Zealand soon followed). Canada's independence was a slow and messy process, albeit fairly peaceful after 1837-38.
I believe Australia and New Zealand had a similar progression along these steps, usually a couple of years after Canada (e.g. 1986 rather than 1982).
The hereditary principle is patently rediculous. The British empire is dead, you must accept it. America took it's place
@@hazeshi6779 I am absolutely not a monarchist. I just happen to live in a country where amending the constitution to abolish the monarchy is somewhat less likely than an alien invasion so I know the system and have ideas on how to subvert it into something new.
@@TheLocalLt wasn't the crown seperated before itself as the royal styles and titles act was passed in Canada in 1953 itself giving the Queen a seperate Canadian title .
Even when Queen was crowned she was declared queen of different countries which included Canada , Australia etc while the countries which were under the British control were not mentioned (as they were considered as part of the UK) .
Interesting. I still see how Monarchy is still well needed. Monarchy exists as a power balance where the people forms a government under the monarch. The monarch have also the power to dissolve the cabinet and the parliament if it is seen needed, especially when there is political turbulence, government is in chaos that is impacting the country. Dissolving the cabinet and the parliament will mean wide nation vote for the people to choose a new government, new cabinet and new parliament that will take over to lead the country. A wise, true and responsible monarch will know when and how not to exercise this power. Example, Just how Margaret Thatcher was stabbed in the back by everyone in her cabinet and she insist to not step down as prime minister. The queen instead of giving into Thatcher's request to dissolve the parliament, she instead advised Thatcher to resign instead and let the existing government continue to run its course.
Another example is Malaysia. Back in 2019 there was a power struggle in the government where the opposition toppled the government especially when the power struggle is from a greedy power hungry man. This led to a number of political individuals who are corrupt, greedy and power hungry to fight for the position as the Prime Minister of Malaysia. The power struggle impacted the country and its effects onto the economy was severe. The then current prime minister had a discussion with the current monarch of Malaysia and advised him to dissolve the government as the power struggle cannot continue any longer. True enough the Monarch granted the permission and the parliament dissolved. A new government and a new prime minister then takes place. This move was seen as necessary by the people of Malaysia. The economy cannot be supported if the political turbulence continues.
Monarch have the power. But if you look closely they choose not to exercise that power as the country already have its own mature constitution and government, where these two will run the country under the Monarch's name. Some people say monarchy should be abolished. Well I say, Monarchy should stay as a power balance. That is why it is important that the head of monarchy is not a dictator. The same goes to any republic country. 1 government to rule the country for hundreds of years, all for the sake of 1 man (president's) interest and power. This is the same and no different from how ancient monarchy rule previously. Through power, fear, and greed.
Then again, different country has their own ways on how a government should be formed. Some prefers the monarch as head of state, some don't need a monarch as head of state and some only need a president as head of state.
Malaysia monarchy systems is one of the unique systems in the world which represent 9 kings within its 9 kingdom on 13 states in Malaysia. All the 9 kings were rotate to become head of the country
Wan ni setuju sepakat sekali. The world&one asia. Hanya inmalay/only msia/malaysia. 9-raja/4 rulers/ 4 royal,kings-9.
I'm just being picky, but at 3:08 the UAE wasn't in any colour on the map though it was mentioned.
Sorry to just be noticing flaws xD
Technically it's not a monarchy at the top (federal) level, as there is a President of the UAE, but this function is normally occupied the Emir of Abu Dhabi.
@@alexandruianu8432 So basically the king is also the president
Alex Young yes but not quite. The monarch is elected every 5 years by the rulers of the 7 emirates (states)
Alexandru Ianu The UAE is most certainly an absolute monarchy, its monarch simply happens to have the title “President”. The President of the UAE, whilst technically elected by the 7 state monarchs every 5 years (like the Yang-di-Pertuan-Agong of Malaysia) is always the Emir of Abu Dhabi. Nowhere is the UAE even technically described as a republic
But also remember King Charles is king in each country separately. When he’s in Canada he’s the king of Canada not the king of the united kingdom
A MAJOR OMISSION - You should have included Brazil (the Empire of Brazil) among the republics with an heir to the throne, along with a noticible pro-monarchy group, of which I am a proud member. Please note that even before Brazil became independent from Portugal, from 1808 through 1822, my country was part of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves. Then, the country became a monarchy immediately after its independence in 1822. It had 2 emperors Dom Pedro I, and Dom Pedro II. The Empire of Brazil, after the second emperor got the throne, it was nearly a developped country (much better off than all the mess brought about by the so-called Republic, which brought about various crisis, several coup-d'etas, and decay of living standards. It was a Constitutional Parliamentary monarchy, which, during the 19th century many statesmen in Europe complained that the Brazilian parliament was too powerful, along with free speach and a free press.
Although I have been living in New York City for many decades, I hope to live to see the day when the constutional monarchy is restaured. Long Live the Empire of Brazil. By the way, the link to the first video below is mine, but it appears with the name of my original (and most important) TH-cam channeL, with the name AUGUSTUS AURELIANUS.
th-cam.com/video/JI9t1rY_i_E/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/p4jQn6TeKbs/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/UEINtCfR-Wc/w-d-xo.html
Long Live the Empire of Brazil!
Why NYC? Why not London?
If you live in NYC and appreciate your lifestyle, it's probably because you admire the current American system, which is and has always been the Republic. Why not fight for the establishment of a Republic of the same style in Brazil? Why the monarchy? The difficulties are the same. It would only be childish and ignorant to think that the mere establishment of the monarchy would solve the country's problems as much as any other change in the status quo. The Brazilian problem goes much further than the current political system, and the current world is completely different, in every way, from the world of the 19th century.
@@sapihrcristal The USA was ruled by the English monarchy for 284 years, from 1492 to 1776. They have been a Republic for 244 years. So generally speaking, the USA was ruled by a monarchy for 50% of its existence to this day. And yet, no monarchist movement has had a real influence there, until today. And you seem to have a very fanciful sense of Brazilian history. Brazil never had a solid base. Our independence was more a formality between friends than a breakup. So much so that the "leader of independence", Dom Pedro I, became King of Portugal later. If it had been a real battle for independence, Dom Pedro I would never have been accepted as King of Portugal, he would have been forever branded a traitor and executed if he set foot in Portugal again. The Brazilian people were totally miserable during the time of the Colony, and during the time of the Empire it was almost nothing different. Only those who were part of the nobility and bourgeoisie had quality of life. The people themselves were totally miserable. Much more than in the 20th century. And it was not Princess Isabel who achieved the abolition of slavery. It was the abolitionist movement that achieved abolition, made up of black heroes and great white supporters. The only reason why the royal family chose to ignore its main supporters, who were slaveholders, and to support the abolitionist movement was due to pressure from the British crown, which demanded the abolition of slavery in Brazil, under penalty of serious consequences if it did not occur. Brazil will forever bear the shame of having been the LAST country in the West to abolish slavery. THE LAST. To be the last, it is clear the total lack of interest of the public power in the matter in comparison to the public powers of the other countries.
@@sapihrcristal And about your P.S. - If a person is able to leave Brazil, go to live in the USA and achieve an economically positive life there, they are fully able to move wherever they want.
Now we just need an episode telling us which country has a good chance of bringing back it’s monarchy
Well, China and Russia seems quite close. Only they won't really CALL it monarchies.
Brazil or Romania.
@@Tjalve70 kick xing ping tanasha whoever is their prime minister a&& his country handed/gifted corona to all
@@pokemonhunter8418 Is this supposed to mean something?
And is it in any way relevant to this thread, or this video?
None really.
Love how you completely covered South America with the legend.
video suggestion : countries that used to be monarchies in 20 century but not now ( like nepal , Italy , ottoman empire , syria ...etc )
he cant really i mean, half of the world was a monarchy..
@@HellenicMapping yea but let's say " since WWI ... or WWII "
Join his discord and suggest these ideas there link in the description
thnx for that idea
It would be a far shorter list to do countries that started the 20th century as a republic. I only KNOW of 4, but suspect that there were many more in central and southern america. The 4 I KNOW are: The US, Mexico, France, and Switzerland.
Dear stranger scrolling down may your family and you be safe from Covid 19
Oh no I hope my family won't be infected from a crown (also it's by not from)
Sorry guys for the mistake
No you
3.03 Malaysia have two part, one is malaysia borneo, and one is below thailand which is uncolored.
Fun fact: Malaysia have 9 Sultan(leader of the state), and one preson will rotate as the head leader (Yang di pertuan Agong) every 5 years.
1:45 western sahara is a part of morocco saying going in a city in the so called "western sahara" there are no borders and people say they are moroccans
Western Sahara is occupied by Morocco.