Even if you are a monarchist by divine right the current line was invited by Parliament from the Netherlands to replace the unpopular catholic king James 2nd and later after that the Hanoverians took charge. Meaning it isn’t a selection from god it’s a quite loose selection of Parliament. That was what the Jacobite restoration attempt was about as back then the divine right of hereditary monarchy really did justify it then but now the monarchy means nothing but arbitrary ‘highness’ for the sake of a fairy tale that can and often does get its hand involved in politics. Just abolish it. It doesn’t even make sense by its own rules and it doesn’t make sense by our own today.
@@colinharbinson8284 I can’t speak for Cosmic Skeptic but the answer I would give is, no. The monarchy don’t add any real value. I also have an issue with people being “better” than me without there being good evidence to support that claim. King Charles is a tool. It’s that simple.
I think you're entirely wrong on this, and i'm an atheist. You clearly just don't understand the purpose outside of it's attachments to religion. Subject, subordinate, you throw out these words with such hatred as if we're shackled and beneath them when it is us that they serve. Being the King or queen isn't just a job, it's a way of life, a state of being in which one must represent us, radiate our values and culture, embody all of our values and goodness and none of our shortcomings. Elizabeth understood this possibly more than any other Queen, everything she did was done with thought and severity, concentration, and reflexion of her duty to uphold all this. I wouldn't want to be King, it's a big ask. people act like they live lives like any other rich person and can do whatever they want, when they want. Absolutely not. Our kings and queens and knights and more play a invaluable role in our nation's culture and society as a whole. The queen herself could date her lineage back to King John and beyond, the monarchy is interwoven in all of our myths, legends, heroes etc. In a country which its becoming ever more Angry at and self-hating towards their own bloody good old country - because it's trendy and a replacement for personality as you 'appear politically aware/active' - constitutional monarchy is keeps us connected to our past and traditions that are intrinsic to our nationality. It's not a coincidence that those who support this system are most often more patriotic and happy to be here.
I agree, but for most celebrities, they at least they provides some value in terms of entertainment for the mourners, as opposed to the monarchy, which merely exists.
He tried to blow up the houses of parliament not the palace. But you do you :) please do it on November 6th or 3rd please. We need a new nursery rhyme.
And Democracy has entire forests of skeletons out in the open. Or have you not been paying attention to what the yanks have been doing for the last seventy odd years?
Sadly most modern Americans have forgotten what the revolutionary war was really about. Crazy that the English monarchy is so accepted in the US. It goes to show how the American.oligarchy sees itself.😂
@@swoldetsadick No, we don't accept them. We would love nothing more than to not hear anything about this silly, antiquated institution that you still cling to for God knows what reason.
@@crixxxxxxxxx Well my people dealt with this type of institutions way back. As a republican in the true sense of the word, meaning someone against a monarchy, I have never visited Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Great Britain, Sweden or any other land with royal families. Not even for a conference friend.
@@elizanovember7697 No this is my opinion based on experience. The eagerness in people to experience the british monarchy when the Kate and her husband visited in the US was shameful. Now it might be that people in the US might see them as nothing but celebrities but still one has to know what institutions they represent and what that meant for the US
You don't need to respect the elected head of state, at least in most countries like the way you are supposed to respect the monarch. Monarchy claims recognition from God and demands respect from birth unlike democracy. You may not respect democracy but it is a superior institution to monarchy.
@@madscientist3134 You are supposed to respect them because they can make a law that more than half of the population wanted and now you are stuck because of a logical fallacy. Democracy is just as poisonous as Monarchy is.
Every nation that doesn’t already have a monarchy should create one by picking random citizens in a lottery and then dressing them up and parading them around in ridiculous ceremonies. For any diplomatic meetings we force the British royals to meet with our royals 😂
Unfortunately in the US, our eternal Emperor Norton is already dead, and it would be too disrespectful to simply hand his title away. Although could probably appoint an eagle or something if it’s just for meetings with the british
I mean, monarchs succesfully used religion as a justification for their positions for thousands of years. Across every culture you can find kings claiming divinity because it is simply the only way to convince a population that you and your offspring should have absolute power over them forever. The catholic church in particular colluded with hundreds of kings the gave them the moral authority to make millions of humans miserable and halted scientific progress for 1000 years.
@@stuartlittledrowning4965 Science flourished under the Catholic Church. You've been fed lies and propaganda your whole life. Don't underestimate how much protestants hate Catholics. You're also making a lot of baseless claims. They made millions of people miserable? In what ways? Who did and in what countries and what time periods? You're condensing thousands of years of history worldwide into one ignorant, arrogant, sweeping statement. Ah, but you are a man of reason! Obviously you must be much smarter than all the millions and billions of people who came before who were simply incapable of reason.
You can be Christian and still deny the monarchy. There is no biblical evidence that the monarchy is supported by God. Every European monarchy ever has said the same thing.
@@THEDrew-trekRomans 13:1-9 "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" So authority figuers have authority because of god, and to go against kings/rulers is resisting who god appointed. Kindove suspicious the roman governments translation helpfully told people to listen to their own authority.
Youre still just embalming a dead body which is a completely unnecessary job. All so you can get more money out of grieving family members of the deceased
There are multiple instances in history where people voted/choose someone into king status, where people bought their way into king status or simply just said "well I have nothing to prove but I own most stuff here so I'm king" and got king status. amen
@@Spectator777My country had elective monarchy for over 200 years. Only nobles were allowed to vote, who were approximately 10% of total population but still the king was chosen in elections.
@@jameshunter2025 "ill drink with who they are" meaning theyll respect them as humans, "fight what they are" reffering to wanting the monarchy abolished
As an enlightened centrist on this issue I have come up with an excellent compromise which absolutely has the potential to satisfy both sides on this issue. Listen up: We get rid of the present monarchs, put me as the king instead, and you won't have to call me "highness" or "majesty". Huh? Oh no, please, you don't have to applaud so loudly, come on guys. I know, I know.
Here are reasons as to why preserving a monarchy is beneficial to your nation as a whole (sorry this is a long reply, but I thought I should try and be detailed): 1). They represent an important part of the nations rich heritage - seeing as England has had a monarchy for 1,300 years - and uphold many of the countries centuries old traditions (e.g. Royal ceremonies, ancient customs, historic celebrations, religious events, unique medieval traditions and so forth). For me, tradition is VERY important to conserve, and without it, a nation loses its culture and identity. Remember, no other country has preserved so many of its ancient and grand traditions like you in this regard, and it is of utmost importance to preserve! 2). The huge benefit they bring directly to the people of the nation - the thousands upon thousands of charities and organisations they have helped and continue to help; including many charities they have started themselves (e.g. the Prince’s Trust - one of the most successful in the country), the championing of cherished members of communities (with events such as the King’s Garden Party), the beneficial revolutionary ideas they have promoted (protection of nature, wildlife and the environment, historical preservation and architectural restoration, clean organic food, championing buying local, the Duke of Edinburgh’s award etc etc etc), the dedication of the monarchs entire life to serving their country and people (the Queen was 96 and still working), the Royal Family visiting every corner of the land and actually greeting their people (whether that be through hospitals, schools, charities, local businesses etc)… and so much more. Can you think of a single non-Royal Head of State in any other country that does the same? The reigning monarch only has two days off a year from Royal duties, and the working royals have hundreds of royal engagements each and every year (for example Princess Anne has carried out over 11,000 engagements over the course of 2002-2022); and this will continue until their eventual passing. 3). The money is costs to actually run a working monarchy is minuscule, seeing as the vast majority of the money goes towards things that would have to be paid for regardless (Castle and palace maintenance, state visits, hosting foreign officials etc). If you abolished the monarchy, you would still need to pay for repairs and the upkeep of royal residences (millions upon millions every year); still pay for the protection and upkeep of millions of Royal possessions (from the Crown Jewels to priceless art); still pay for all the staff that work to keep these residences and wider estates running; still pay for state visits; still pay for foreign visits (and everything else associated with a head of state); still pay for security of the new Head of State and also continue paying for the security of the King as well (he would absolutely be entitled to it). You would save nothing, and would lose the huge amount of money they bring in, which is my next point. 4. They bring in a vast amount of money. You only have to look at the Coronation to see this. The event has been paid for many times over with the huge number of people from all over the world who have descended on London (practically every hotel was completely booked up), and spent money on anything from souvenirs to restaurants to public transport. They come because they are fascinated by the rich traditions, culture and heritage of Great Britain, and the Coronation is something that embodies this through actual living history. Same with the Queen’s funeral and other events such as the Jubilee, Commonwealth service, weddings etc. These events are watched by billions across the world - why else are they some of the most watched events in world history? We also cannot forget the vast amount of money they bring to charity and good causes (like I said above), and the non-event touristic value they serve through their castles and palaces (which yes would still be visited regardless, but the fact they are lived in only adds to the appeal and certainly does not take away - just like the thousands of stately homes and castles around the English countryside; it is no coincidence that the most visited are almost always still lived in by the original families that built them), and royal guards stationed throughout London and Windsor who certainly are an attraction within their own right. 5). Constitutional monarchies have historically proven to be more stable than republics, and having a neutral head of State is certainly a massive plus. But there are so many reasons why having the Royals representing the country as opposed to just another politician is superior. I mean what politician could possibly have compared to Queen Elizabeth II who had travelled to over 120 countries; met with, and had longstanding relationships with thousands of officials, dignitaries, world leaders and other royal houses (and importantly pass on these relationships to her son Charles who has done the same throughout his life, both by her side and on his own); through her life long role as monarch and Head of State gained wisdom and understanding that would be impossible for a person not in her position to do (which again, no other Head of State would have). You can see this when looking at her funeral. What politician/ president would have had the same world reaction? Every world leader was there to pay their respects (even Putin sent his respects to her and the new king and he wasn’t even invited). That speaks volumes as to their soft power. The monarch hosts state visits, official functions, military parades, parliamentary responsibilities, religious events and countless others ceremonies and ancient traditions - all watched by billions across the world (ever wonder why their weddings/ funerals are some of the most viewed events in television history)? Royalty transcends the modern age, and offers a glimpse of real magic in an otherwise rather mundane modern world. Remember, there’s no other nation that comes anywhere close to matching British Royal pageantry. And you think a random politician would be a more preferable emblem of the nation? 6). The monarch is also a unifying force for the nation and wider Commonwealth. Again if we look at the Coronation: the 60,000 coronation street parties over coronation weekend that brought thousands of communities together; the thousands of people that went to see the King on the palace balcony; the thousands of people that descended on London to be a part of history (from all over the world); the hundreds of millions of people that tuned in live to watch the Coronation. What other country has such a unifying head of state; for not only their own country but for millions all over the Commonwealth and world. And speaking of the Commonwealth, to understand the monarch’s unifying power, you only have to look at the number of members upon Queen Elizabeth’s coronation (14), with the number of nations that *asked* to join throughout her reign; and as a result there are now 56 countries part of the Commonwealth (1/3 of the worlds population). That says a lot. I could go on, but I think I’ve written enough. Hope this helps.
You listed 6 personal opinions that make sense to you. Unfortunately for you, I strongly disagree with all of them. I have to, though, respect your opinion because everyone is entitled to one.
@@TheDayBeforeWednesday They are backed up by fact: 1. Monarchy does indeed preserve 1000+ years of English tradition (in multiple different ways). 2. The Royals do indeed help hundreds upon hundreds of charities, good causes and beneficial organisations. 3. The money they cost as individuals is indeed tiny; seeing as the vast majority of said money would have to be paid regardless of keeping a monarchy or not. 4. They do indeed bring in billions. So you’re under the impression events such as the Coronation did not bring in any money when there were tens of thousands of tourists from outside the UK descending on England over that one weekend alone, so much so, that practically every London hotel was booked up (I know because I tried to stay there during Coronation weekend). Not to mention the sales of Coronation related merchandise found across most stores. 5. Having a head of state that is politically neutral, and set up in such a way that they can form life long relationships with other world leaders (quite literally from childhood), is of course a benefit to UK-foreign relations. Again, how many heads of state have every world leader attend their funeral, and billions across the world watch live on TV? 6. They are indeed a unifying force for millions. How many countries have a head only state that can generate 60,000 street parties held in their honor? You can choose to ignore these facts, and that’s totally up to you, but they certainly are fact. I chose to make it so detailed, and back up each point with real life data, for this exact reason. Plus you can easily look up this stuff yourself so that you can form a balanced and educated opinion; as opposed to most of the comments under this video, that are seriously misinformed as to how a modern day constitutional monarchy works. Again, you’re entitled to see things how you wish, and thankfully the majority understand the value of preserving such a historic and beneficial institution.
@@TheDayBeforeWednesday I don't know if you read his reply, but he listed facts. Was it his opinion when he said england has had the monarchy for over 1,000 years? When he said monarchs have kept certain traditions? If you really think those are opinion, you need to relearn those definitions of fact and opinion.
Bro got the filthy peasant starter pack. Monarchies are archaic and outdated. The monarchy isn’t representative of Britain anymore. The UK has changed over the last 200 years, but the monarchy has stayed stagnant. The average royal is more closely related to Hitler than the average Englishmen.
I agree they are more stable but wouldn’t it be better if we all just would continue too life in villages and clans without a particular leader ? Why did humans have too do this modernization what is it for ?
Dig a little deeper dude. Kim’s death day is a national holiday, he has been named the “eternal leader,” and they are erecting 100 foot statues in his name. Kim Jung-II is still leader of the country, his son is merely substituting till he gets back.
@@random6033 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_traditional_funeral I’m not so sure about that. A North Korean defector told the person interviewing her that a majority (~90%) of the people mourning in the well-known video were showing genuine emotion, herself included. Think about this, if you’re in a country cut off from the rest of the world and all you know about your country’s leader is all the amazing things you’ve heard about them, their death would probably upset you.
@@random6033 Plus, the women’s hysteria is part of a Korean funeral tradition. You don’t see it that often in South Korea because of its Westernization.
I have a deep patriotic love of the UK and I feel a great sense of pride that we are represented on the world stage by an institution that stands above the rest and has stood the test of time. My dad taught me proper respect from an early age and as I grew up my respect for the it has continued to grow...I am of course referring to the King and Queen of British excellence, the BS1363 standard 13 amp electric plug and socket. Let's hear it for the OG in safe electrical systems, the 'Type G'! There used to be a lot more to love but then Brexit happened...
Everyone is made in the image and likeness of God and the telos of man is to become deified and made to share in God's life, but we are not a part of the infinite transcendent Creator. We are His creations.
I'm not part of God. God is just something you choose to believe in, with no scientific evidence. God is one (of many) answers to the question: "How was humanity and the world created?" Scientific evidence have many different criteria, but for example "can be observed and agreed upon by most people who observe it, especially by people with expertise in that field" and "is following logic, doesn't contradict itself", as well as something like "create a certain result in the physical world that be connected to the source". That last one: let's say you pray, and then nothing happens, or if it happens it was not the exact same thing anyone ever prayed for. God can not in any way be shown create any effect on the world that can be traced back to God, because nobody knows what or where God is. This hasn't been shown in any reliable way in the past, and it is not shown today either, so there is no reason anything of that sort will happen in the future (although it is a possibility, it has not yet been proven in any way). The belief in God, what's written in the bible etc. is not fullfilling any scientific criteria. With the religious "logic", I can believe in... well let's say that the universe (and humans) were created by an alien species far superior to anything we can imagine, capable of creating the universe. "The Kenneths". Let's go with that. I believe in "The Kenneths". The Kenneths are a species who created the universe and then died, because that was their purpose. These "Gods" are no longer relevant, they died and have no longer any influence over the world. They specifically chose to create a world and humanity that have an undecided fate, a free will with no connection to the Kenneths, once their side of the job was done. That was their specific idea, to destroy all relationship between us and them. This theory is exactly as plausible as the differerent religious "Gods" out there. But I have a feeling you don't want to believe in "The Kenneths", a bunch of dead, powerless "Gods". But if I told you: "You are part of the Kenneths, you just haven't realized it yet", how would you feel? Stop telling me what to believe in. I don't believe in anything which there is no proof of. Live your life as you wish and let other people live theirs.
The power they have is inherited. Just like the power you have is inherited. You are lucky enough to be born in one of the richest and most privileged families on the planet. Anyone born in Britain or a select few other nations have this privilege. You are given this privilege because your parents want it for you. And because the nation they and you live in has made it possible.
Why dont you sell all your worldly goods and fly a poor person from africa to come and live in the UK and swap places with them. You were lucky enough to be born in the UK. Is that acceptable, do you really deserve your privilege. These games go both ways. The king and queen deserve their privilege because their ancestors took it by force, what have you done recently?
@@16m49x3 A selective monarchy is better than an hereditary one. Just because your parents chose this for you does not mean you are more important or less.
I agree that they were born lucky. But let's be honest none of us are going to be mourning prince Andrew. They are given a platform at birth to hopefully do good with. Queen Elizabeth has, doing her part in ww2 as an example. I agree that it is unfair but at the same time I see king Charles being watched by an entire country of people as he attends his own mothers funeral and I pity their situation as much as I envy it.
From Monty Python's "The Holy Grail": Arthur: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, king of the Britons. Whose castle is that? Woman: King of the 'oo? Arthur: King of the Britons. Woman: 'Oo are the Britons? Arthur: Well we all are! We are all Britons! And I am your king. Woman: I didn't know we 'ad a king! I thought we were autonomous collective. Man: (mad) You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes-- Woman: There you go, bringing class into it again... Man: That's what it's all about! If only people would-- Arthur: Please, *please*, good people, I am in haste! WHO lives in that castle? Woman: No one lives there. Arthur: Then who is your lord? Woman: We don't have a lord! Arthur: (spurised) What?? Man: I *told* you! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We're taking turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week-- Arthur: (uninterested) Yes... Man: But all the decisions *of* that officer 'ave to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting-- Arthur: (perturbed) Yes I see! Man: By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs-- Arthur: (mad) Be quiet! Man: But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major-- Arthur: (very angry) BE QUIET! I *order* you to be quiet! Woman: "Order", eh, 'oo does 'e think 'e is? Arthur: I am your king! Woman: Well I didn't vote for you! Arthur: You don't vote for kings! Woman: Well 'ow'd you become king then? (holy music up) Arthur: The Lady of the Lake-- her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king! Man: (laughingly) Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony! Arthur: (yelling) BE QUIET! Man: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!! Arthur: (coming forward and grabbing the man) Shut *UP*! Man: I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
@@ts4686 There's much about the human race that baffles me. You can't have dictators and Queens/Kings without some level of collusion amongst the subordinates. All primates organize themselves in some form of hierarchical manner. It's just nature's way. Our intellect might reject it but we still accept it to a good degree.
Yeah but look to where democracy has brought us now... & what a mess we have created. I just wish there was a real system that can replace everything that's been and gone.
@@tantalisinglabrat Until that system swallows you up along with your autonomy and relative freedoms... Be careful what you wish for, it may come true.
Listen, despite being in the Commonwealth (Australia, specifically), I spent all of 2022 mourning the loss of my mum in January and I honestly did not give a shit when Queen Lizzie II died because my mum is more important to me than some thing that somehow survived the middle ages.
the only sad thing i felt about the queen dying was the fact that all those "the queen is immortal" joke memes died with her. your mum was much more important then a living tourist attraction.
@lordredcrest1621Yeah, you can scratch that, the rest of europe did not give too shits about grandma dying. The british are already not very liked by the EU, so trust me, no one but england cared
@lordredcrest1621 no, not really. Sure I can say it's sad for them, but it is very much not my business. Again, it's not a dislike of britain, it is a genuine lack of care. Some years ago we still had to, but now with tye brexit there are no real reason for europe to care about that country beside tourism
This doesn't go away. Our politicians in the States also believe their lives are more valuable than ours, and we are somehow less human than they are and the rules don't apply to them.
@@out_of_orbit1968 it‘s a two way street. you can‘t only blame him for all the good in your life and then proceed to squeal free will to explain away all evil. what about the free will that brought about all the good in your life? god doesn‘t make any sense. you cannot divorce the creator of absolutely everything (including your brain and all environments and circumstances that shape your character) from your life and actions. it makes no sense. free will makes no sense.
@@ben7932 No just from appearances seems more noble then the average immoral politician. However they never think about the ancestors of those people who needless murdered across the land in the countless pointless wars like the War of Roses. They didn't think about the crimes against humanity committed out of because some royal assholes decided they needed a world war to test their fancy new tools. Absolute Power can not be hereditary and the second you look into history you see why.
The only people who can get rid of the royal family is the people of the UK. My country fought a war to throw off a British king. And frankly the British people are in a better position to do so then the American colonies were. Those "Royal" Celebrities still have the power to reclaim the full authority and power the monarchy once held. That means nothing for me because I'm American and I have my own government that's usurping its authority. But the UK is far from free.
Not gonna lie I stop caring after she passed, I only then started caring when her funeral took over the plans I had for my SO's birthday and closed everything!
What boggles my mind is that British citizens are okay with paying a family $100 million per year for no reason other than that they consider themselves to be higher than thou. It's insane.
@@Mythee Literally propaganda bought by the royal family paid for by England's tax payers. You're a good little sheep. Keep paying a wealthy family to continue being wealthy for their sake.
The claim that this monarchy's supremacy is somehow the divine will of the "Christian God" is in and of itself the madness, regardless of the truth of the existence of God, let alone it being worse in case he does exist in the fashion that they supposedly spiritually adhere to.
@@timball8429 Only for 4 years, 8 years max. No system is perfect. Overall a republic is still better than ANY monarchy. Better not to be a royal subject (i.e. a slave) but occasionally have to deal with total moron in charge.
@@TinsleyLaw not sure that I would ever regard a monarchy as abject slavery. They’re a constitutional head, rather than an executive. Thanks for replying.
@@Regular_Decorated_Emergency What? Nicotine isn't tobacco. Cigarettes contain carcinogens but nicotine itself is the chemical responsible for its addictiveness
Monarchy is an important part of European history and culture, and it’s a better system than most systems that exist today. Portugal was better off as a monarchy than a republic
@@stevenmcalister826 Of course, there’s several reasons why it’s a better system than most systems that exist today. As I mentioned in my original comment, monarchies are an important part of European culture and tradition. They uphold many of the nations centuries old traditions (Royal ceremonies, ancient customs, historic celebrations, religious events, unique medieval traditions, etc). For me, tradition is very important to conserve, and without it, a nation loses its culture and identity. It’s also a misconception that monarchies have unquestioned power, since many monarchies after the Age of Enlightenment were constitutional and had a democratic systems in place.
@@uptown_rider8078 Tradition can easily be preserved without handing the highest position in government to one person without election, term limits or really any rules whatsoever. Plus, making it hereditary rule, just to make sure there’s no contest as to who can be in power, wouldn’t want any peasants getting involved. Also this constitution argument is new to me. Can you pinpoint thr democratic system that was involved in appointing the monarch in the UK? I must’ve missed it when Charles was put on the throne.
@@uptown_rider8078monarchies are known to be unstable compared with, for example, democracies This one survived because Britain was wise enough to stop letting the monarchs rule
I understand this point even though i don't particularly mind having a monarchy. My issue is that some anti monarchists don't just want rid of the monarchy and that's it,they want it replacing woth something else and tgat worries me as to what sort of replacement they want and what agenda they require the replacement institution to have. This just stinks of another attempt by the far left extremists to cancel another part of British culture. If the monarchy was to go i would be a bit sad but not to a level that it affects my life but i definitely would not want it replacing by anything else
@@shaundempsy645 I'm thinking we should maybe democratically elect every single position in government so we get to decide who governs us. But maybe that's being far left, idk
As a foreigner, I didn't know British law...I find it utterly ridiculous that the monarchy pay no taxes and that they cannot be prosecuted by law. Why on earth do the British public put up with that???
they pay taxes even though they aren't required and they donate a lot and i mean A LOT of money to the country, added bonus just tourist attraction from royalty give hundreds of millions a year
@lordredcrest1621 Ughhh. You're really not helping your case there. I'd argue it's possible to love GB and still want the monarchy to be abolished. I'd argue in most countries where the monarchy was abolished, the people did it out of love for their countries to which they identified their monarchy as harmful to. You know, jsut like the people who want to abolish the British monarchy right now. Why would anyone who loves GB want it to be represented by that eotheric conspiracy nutcase? It's honestly a disgrace.
You should be able to call all of them cunts to their faces. Where does this idea that abolishing the monarchy will bring about other dictatorships come from? We don't have a monarchy in my country and we hate our politicians very openly if necessary.
You literally already do both. Why are you making it an either/or when it could be a neither/or. We could just as easily use your logic to justify abolishing the tory party in favour of the monarcy or labour.
Go bow down to an oil company or Apple if you want to get rid of your monarch because once the monarchy is gone all the people will have to look up to are corrupt politicians and corporate overlords.
They are actually elected from people, as people are Party. There has to be one party, one party system with strict rules of the game. Whoever disobeys rules is out of the game. And Party president is chosen by Party members. Monarchist just get power and wealth trough family inheritance and the got that "right" by being bloody murderers. @@eeroraute281
Oh come on... the queen is the UK’s mascot. Like Mickey Mouse for Disney.... she’s a brand ambassador.... if the UK doesn’t want the Royals, I’m sure they can have a home and show in Las Vegas... people will pay money to come and see them...
@@carsongrosche9410 Its a lot of money together my guy. why that familly and not another? why not put it into health care, infrastructure, education. it's money spent way better
There is no claim in the term 'subject' that you are inferior to another human being, the term refers to one being subject to the constitution which is the guardian of our rights and freedoms, we are subject to it because we expect from it... a perfectly reasonable provision. The job of the Monarch is (on behalf of all subjects) to defend our constitution from tyrannical government. The Monarch serves the people and in respect of that onerous duty we duly pay with our allegiance, to the person who performs this duty i.e. the reigning Monarch.
I'm Presbyterian and I agree with you. The monarchy is fine as a church of England thing and I understand the significance of the head of the church of England passing away, similar to the head of the Vatican/ Catholic Church passing away, I understand the importance and grief this brings but it's it's not my church and I'm not entirely comfortable with the " head of state " either.
If, as monarchy-lovers say, this system is more stable than democracies, and gives unity to a nation, why should such an important position be left up to chance, why should it be hereditary? Shouldn't we elect this person, through a rigorous process, so as to make sure that it's a good human being who represents the population's wishes? And what's the point of the rest of the royalty? Why give them such riches as if they deserved them? Why have them be above the law? Mind you, as a citizen in the Constitutional 'Democratic' (aka, elective aristocracy) Republic of Argentina, I don't understand why we also treat our Presidents and public officials as if they were royalty themselves. There's something very vertical, hierarchical in our systems of goverment, even in so-called democracies.
The whole point is that it isn't up to the whims of electors. The stability is in the constance of the family and the transition being seamless. They are apolitical and in being so, they are for all citizens, not just the people who voted for them. The family is the job, people born into it are trained to follow strict protocols to keep the institution running. Constitutional monarchies are the longest lasting democratic regimes around (i.e., no regime changes like France has had in its 3 Republics in a century).
@@natedinnerplate8796 How does having a royal family make a nation more stable? Are there no other factors up for consideration, like having been an empire that stole other nations' wealth, having a parliamentarian instead of a presidentialist system, etc? I noticed that the higher in the democracy index a nation is, the higher in the stability index they are. Could it be that it's democracy what makes a nation prosper, not the quite useless royal family? Only in the UK is the monarchy so public, but it's less so in other constitutional monarchies. You can't pretend that it unites people there (if it really does) as strong as in the UK, when people spend their whole day without even thinking of the monarchy. *"They are apolitical and in being so, they are for all citizens,"* Sounds more like, the real reason the British monarchy is still around, is because they are very good at making nobody angry. Do nothing, and say nothing, and you won't make anybody question your position. That's the whole job of monarchs in constitutional monarchies, to keep a positive public image so nobody questions why we still have them around.
@@marcocappelli2236 The monarchy is a constant in the ever changing landscape of democracy. While they aren't needed for any practical purpose in elections or getting laws passed, it serves an important symbolic purpose in being officially the one who calls for new elections (by dissolving parliament), approving the new Prime Minister, and giving royal assent to laws passed in the House of Commons. (edit: the King is never going to say "no", but his constant presence in every aspect of democracy is the constant needed to keep the machine going.) The purpose of the crown is mostly about upholding and maintaining the monarchy throughout any crisis the country may face (and there have been many). Such a symbol is not possible if elected based on the whims of the people at that point in history. Having a bloody history isn't the King's fault, and there's nothing he can do about it, that's up to the people and the politicians they vote for, the King is there to represent their choice, no matter who it is (the same way Her Majesty represented the UK under Thatcher and Wilson, two very different figures). The United States, a vehemently anti-monarchist nation has its own bloody and colonial past...
And? You mean that which every power has ever engaged in? The very same activity that the British Empire did the MOST to put an end to? You retarded ignoramuses are insufferable.
Say what you want about the monarchy or the king, I will tolerate a powerless ceremonial monarch far more than the elected politicians who are actively using their power to make the country worse. For as long as politicians are raising my taxes and taking away my rights, I will respect Buckingham far more than Westminster. "An immovable Parliament is more obnoxious than an immovable king"
Okay but dont you see how having a monarch in which there is a permanent leader is worse than one where the people have a choice in who they wish to elect? I mean these monarchs are politicians as well in some way, you dont think they are paying anyone off? Influencing politics and politicians and doing a ton of lobbying? Alot of politicians are bs i get it but id rather have the power to elect a leader than be stuck with one for the rest of my life.
@@sirrobbieiii1953 How is having a permanent ceremonial monarch with no political power, incredibly limited constitutional power, even remotely worse than an elected politician with the power to (and is doing so) take your money and your rights? It doesn't matter if a monarch is permanent, they are not deciding policies or laws, parliament is, no amount of influence or lobbying will give a monarch a speck of power over the public, it all resides with Westminster, voted in by the public, which can completely ignore the monarch. The point is getting rid of a ceremonial monarch that has no power while parliament is responsible for most of the countries problems solves nothing, and is just more asinine virtue signaling by people who think an elected tyrant is better than an un-elected powerless monarch.
@@dinghysupreme2972 I literally just told you how they hold power and your immediate response is that they have no political power with 0 explanation. Right... I never said they were literally deciding policies or laws so I don't know why you had to say that as if it was something I said... Because its clear I didn't say this because I explicitly said "you dont think they are paying anyone off? Influencing politics and politicians and doing a ton of lobbying". (Now I said influencing politics, which could be done through politicians not them literally making policies so i guess you just misinterpreted that). Now you know what I mean at least. "No amount of influence of lobbying will give a monarch a speck of power over the public" Okay so let me get this straight, you genuinely think that the Monarch lobbying through assets maybe or the immense amount of Money they have to Politicians and Political party's for further advertisement across the country and promised benefits that usually don't come to the public have absolutely no influence on the politicians and their politics and therefore the general public? Yep that was it for me, im ending it here. Im not gonna continue with someone like you... best of luck in life 🤣
@@sirrobbieiii1953 Clearly you don't understand. Lobbying and influencing with money does not mean control, it is the weakest form of pressure on politicians or the political sphere in the UK. The very fact that laws are passed, referendums won, opposition parties voted in, that are CONSIDERABLY against the interests of the monarchy and the establishment, shows it does not have the power that you claim it doe. Politicians only care about one thing and that is votes, votes mean power and power means money and control, the monarchy is not responsible for their tyranny. If you get rid of the monarch do you seriously think any of that changes? That in itself should tell you how little the monarchy actually effects politics or the public. "Im not gonna continue with someone like you... best of luck in life" Well thanks to deluded and naive people like you, none of us will have any luck due to your scapegoating of the monarchy over tyrants because "At LeAsT ThEy'Re ElEcTeD!1" Try not to act so surprised when the state still bends you over after the monarchy is gone, because you were warned.
But like, you already have elected politicians doing that. Your solution to smooching politicians is to add a smooching monarch on top. Genius play my friend.
I wonder what George III's initial opinions on the colonists' concerns were? I'm sure it couldn't have been genuine worry for his people who were hating the idea that they were even descended from people that came from Britain... Seriously, the King was the scapegoat for that conflict, if you want to blame someone then blame the PM at the time, Lord North. The King had essentially no power by that point as just a little over 100 years earlier a king was killed by people who thought he was overstepping the mark, and so the stamp act, and all the taxes levied on the colonies were really all pushed by parliament, not the King himself. George III had apparently also considered abdicating over the failure to keep the colonies because he thought it was shameful to him as a person despite having essentially nothing to do with the conflict. Again, the King was not the bad guy in the AWI, he was merely a scapegoat.
The royal family is a cultural institution and no longer a political one. I think we should either go back to having a monarch take the throne and lead, or remove all the power and simply leave them to be a purely cultural power under their own wealth
Name someone who did more for the country of Great Britain (and the Commonwealth) than Queen Elizabeth. Go on, I'll wait. She served in the war and once she ascended to the throne, she worked tirelessly. You live in a country that whilst not perfect, is a damn sight better than 99% of all other countries and part of that is that we have a stable form of governmemt, with the Monarch at it's head. You should be grateful for that.
@@cypherpunk12 Because with Monarchy, a country has a natural figure to represent itself. A president just seems... there, but Monarch represents a nation.
To be fair there is something to be said for having a long-term ruler trained from an early age to steward a nation, to consider a 'lifetime' rather than a few years between election cycles. The hard part is finding that intiial benign ruler and keeping the heirs from falling into disrepute, into tyranny, petty or otherwise.
King Charles was best freinds with Jimmy Savvile and now can't be trialed on any kind of sexual harassment charge even if it was true. I don't trust a useless cunt who's never worked for anything in their life to be king. King's in the medieval ages were somewhat nessesscary. But nowadays the house of Windsor is producing such intellectual specimens as this gilded nonce and Prince dumbfuck Harry. THEY DONT DO ANYTHING except eat our money, church and state our separate and on that principle monarchy shouldn't exist.
@@AokijiTheIceWarrior only if you’re uneducated on what powers they have. They have absolute power but if they used it they know it would put the country in chaos. So they technically refrain from using their power, instead they head the wants of the people. They are better rulers than all of the politicians in the USA.
No really as history has shown that's not always the best. In fact it tends to be the worst ideas. So I have no idea what rock you were hiding under or where you have been that there is no access to historical facts but you should probably go back there.
Celebrities dying tends to get more attention than the average carpenter dying of natural causes. Mostly because more people were aware of their existance.
I believe, you are right about the attention the queen's death got outside the commonwealth. Within the commonwealth it is on another level. People seem to believe that she was indeed more worthy than themselves.
@@joze838 People thought the same of JFK and FDR when they died in office, no? She was the serving head of state for nearly a century, not some random paraplegic or a drug-addled sex pest who won a popularity contest. "InB4 Muh Andrew!" Is Andrew dead? Is he King? No? Irrelevant.
Alex, by resorting to misinofmration such as the false claim that Elizabeth II is somehow "far more deserving of respect" serves to undermine the republicain cause. FTR, I myself am not a monarachist but if people are going to critise the monarchy, they should do so factually and not resort to the misinformation of strawmen.
We certainly *are* told the royals are more worthy of respect than the rest of us, at least tacitly. The BBC for example reports every burp and belch of Charles and Billy. The death ceremony dragged on and on in a predictable manner, as we were told about how we all felt. It really is little different to the way the leadership cult is set up and sustained in the kind of countries we're invited to sneer at.
Yes, and we’re lucky he can just speak about this in front every average person who watches this video and doesn’t have to go to a secret society in order to do it.
"Why I don't recognise democracy: When President Kennedy died, there was a huge funeral and he got far more attention than the 100,000 other people who died that day."
Well said : also Kennedy just won an election, tricking the most dumbasses to give him power while Élisabeth worked her whole life for the better of her kingdom, was a respected and dignified figure marvellously representing her people, kept dignity even in old age, protected the weak, fought against the Nazis and doing an incredible job of diplomacy for the UK. A life of committment just to be frown out the window by a mother f*** because he's pissed of people believing in a God he doesn't believe in, and he dares say such God doesn't exist while not having a single more clue than anybody else about that matter.
That because he was elected by the PEOPLE and has a job and responsibility for the people not because of nepotism and belief God gave me power to rule over people.
The obsession with bloodlines is bad for humanity. It is bad enough across the pond where you are born "higher than". In America, the ultra wealthy play the same role. People worship and admire them. While the wealthy here play that same bloodline game. The goal is to keep the money and power in the family. Don't get me wrong. Genealogy is interesting. I'm a Melvin, so I can trace my family history through Ireland and Scotland all the way back to the Franco Melville's. I'm descended from royal blood too. It doesn't make me special or any better than anyone else. In fact most people can trace their family lines back to someone important even if it were just a lesser noble. So your family history doesn't make you special because pretty much all of us have royal ancestors if you dig deep enough. There is still a Melville castle in Scotland today. Melvin is an Irish surname of Melville so they would have been like my family's richer cousins back in the day. It would be interesting to visit. But I wouldn't go there acting like I had any rights to anything or expect special treatment. I would be just another tourist. My arm of the family is too far removed in my opinion. But they may not see it that way and like give me a free tour or whatever. That would be kind of unfair to the other people who have to pay. I probably wouldn't even tell anyone that I have the genealogy papers that connect me to them.
Englishman in favour of the monarchy. I see some political benefits for it, not having to consider reelection, His Majesty is afforded a lot more of a long term view and same could be said for the house of lords Second is it being ancient , seems to work fine, why change it. There's a phrase about if you don't understand why something is there, you should be the last person to change it. Just a couple notes, there are plenty of people who are far more articulate with it.
@@oliverrowland2725it doesn’t work fine when people are starving in the country yet these people who’ve never worked get to live a cushy life. Plus everyone else has to pay a tax on their inheritance but they don’t. Also don’t you guys have to elect prime ministers anyways?
@@OpossumOnTheMoon we vote for the party, the prime minister is typically head of the party is chosen to be prime minister, see the last few months where there have been 3 prime ministers in the span of 60 days. No general election. As for the people starving, the crown does not control the markets and it has no duty to do so. That would be closer to parliament, even then I'd say it goes beyond the proper remit of parliament.
@@oliverrowland2725 but parliament would have more funding to provide help for them if the crown wasn’t hoarding millions (if not billions) of dollars. Maybe I’m not understanding, but since you hold a vote anyways for a party how is that any harder than just doing that without having a monarch? The monarch’s (as I’ve been told) have very little political power anyways so it sounds like parliament and the prime minister run the country anyways.
@@OpossumOnTheMoon any arguement of any state body hoarding money means little when it's a fiat currency. The political powers of modern monarchs I'd say are seldom understood as they seldom if ever have any impact on common politics. Another oft forgotten role of the monarch is the supreme governor of the church of England. Tit for tat I'd consider more important than the pope
You are mistaken. Complaining about those in power is peak British culture. Alex is actually a true patriot for trashing the queen and what she represents. Only a brainwashed monarchy simp would claim that being complacent and embracing your position as an inferior is british culture...
@@dumbtch-lk5yrYou’re free to express anything you want in Britain, even though the law doesn’t allow “treason” or whatever blah blah blah it hasn’t and will never be actually used
Respect is earned it's not given which is why I don't respect all old people blindly I don't respect judges blindly I don't respect cops blindly and I don't respect royalty blindly either.
this feels like more of us not being royals then them being royals. Next thing you will be saying is we should get rid of the appreciation of art, cause its just paintings, and their are bigger problems, like climate change. The royal family are figure heads of history, and i dont believe they cause problems. Its amazing how people just want history to go away if it don't fit modern view. Side note: this topic is low hanging fruit, of course the monarch is pointless, but its presents today has never been a issue, humans are the issue
Getting rid of terms like highness is just idiotic, at the end of the day, whether its president or other term, he will always be more important than other people, thus superior or higher.
The 'Royals' are and always were parasites feeding off and oppressing the real, working class people... If anything in all fairness it makes them lower! Don't get suckered in by the glitz and glamour, it's all just an illusion bought with bloodshed and corruption to blind ignorant fools to what true class really is.
Correct. Just like cultures have customs to respect your elders. Calling someone "sir" for example, is similar. This modern attitude means we have a lot of disrespectful young twats running around. People need to be humbled more.
@@debuthunter5389you are the disrespectful one. The king is the disrespectful one. He is superior because of who his ancestors happened to be? Monarchy is lunacy even in the absence of incest
This is only the second video I’ve seen from this channel and it’s already clear he sucks the joy out of every subject he speaks on. I cannot imagine how draining it would be to have an actual conversation with the guy.
@lordredcrest1621 But _why_ though? What respect have they earned? Having lots of gold? They do LITERALLY NOTHING for the UK government, they hold power due to wealth and some batshit insane suggestion that God himself ordained their royaly, and they've proven to hide some HORRENDOUS secrets. The list goes on and on, but then I'd be here all day. I guess what I'm asking is, why on earth would any fully grown, critical thinking and intelligent person EVER willingly cuck themselves like that? What REAL reasons do you have for showing this family any respect? What have they ever done for the common man? What purpose do they serve in that fucking disgustingly large palace? The answer is none, and you only have that respect because you've been told to. You can't fathom not licking boots. People like you have no individuality.
@@anon4854 ok. If on what he said good. Idk what copy pasta is but I agree with his ideals shown here. Dunno what a forum and copypasta have to do with morality
Well yeah, while I don't know exactly how the British monarchy works, But here in Denmark the queen does not have any political power and only works as a diplomat and cultural and national powerhouse. They are kinda the statue of liberty , a sign of culture and nationality and nothing else. But all of that is still important And as far as I know the same can be said for the British monarchy
Beautifully explained. I really like Denmark's way of handling their monarchy. They preserved the Danish history and still managed to become incredibly democratic. 🇩🇰
Sadly, when the British monarchy gets abolished, the British Empire will ultimately die. The British Empire is barely hanging onto his health after the World Wars and decolonization and given the fact that Queen Elizabeth II didn't do anything to save the British Empire. The British monarchy is the only source that keeps the British Empire from dying. After the monarchy gets abolished, Scotland will instantly gain its independence, and quite possibly Wales. Northern Ireland will be united with Ireland. Furthermore, each of the British Overseas Territories will claim their independences one by one or become terra nullis depending on indigenous population, and the Commonwealth Realms will become republics. After that, the new Republic of England will barely have any power compared to other countries, will lose quite a bit of population, and it can spark a wave of communism in Europe, as the UK is one of the key countries that support capitalism, along with Germany, France, Italy, and other strong EU states. With such a great reduction of power, England would no longer keep its legacy of not being invaded for long, as eventually, it could collapse into smaller states with even less power. The saddest part is that the British Empire would never get a chance to unite with Brittany, so Great Britain would never have a chance to unite with Little Britain before its death by monarchy abolition.
@@AlbertTheGamer-gk7snThe monarchy is the soul of the UK. a huge part of the british identity. If jt goes, the uk will go with it. British identity will be crushed and the former states of the uk will be weaker than they were before. The uk is benefiting Scotland, wales, northern ireland and england respectively. A dissolution of the union would not bode well for the citizens or the economy of those respective states.
Or maybe she was naturally a cold person who had no difficulty caring about no one and nothing but symbols, nor remaining neutral if she had no personal opinions to express. In that case there would be no great merit to appear "very dignified" for decades.
@@user-fx4hp2em8s He never claimed the world was ending nor implied that kids comments in the video had any substantial impact on anything at all. He implied he was an obnoxious bore, which is in all likelihood true since he's making edgy videos about cultural institutions from a perspective of a false intellectual
@@unyieldingsarcasm2505and for support the nation during the pandemic, and for cheering up people and clear up their worries daytimes of distress, and for helping the people when mr BJ is not there to help, and to become one of the main reason people come to the uk and bring in millions of pounds. Want me to go on ?
As someone in the U.S. she seems like a sweet and proper Grandmother, but I don't bow to other people...I may nod out of respect, but they have to have earned it.
The British are too inbred and stupid to function without a monarchy. Just look how far they've fallen since. Monarchs are designed to keep the dirty godless peasants in line and the fact that the UK has let their poors get so out of control. It's ridiculous. British people are too stupid to run a country. They should have left it to the Monarchy
The monarchy doesn't rule Britain. We are a parliamentary democracy. This allows us to disassociate politics from the celebration of our country. Our leaders have to regularly stand before the monarch where they are held accountable to the whole country, not just their supporters. Humility for our leaders is the main thing stopping us falling into a tyrannical dictatorship. A separate head of state to the prime minister allows for citizens to criticise their own political leaders in the way other countries do not. Take the US for example, their country is fracturing into two camps, where they worship their leader and refuse to accept their ineptitudes and blindly follow them on both sides. They have no common ground to get behind. You think a Republic of England and Wales, an independent, People's socialist Republic of Scotland on the border, and an Ireland at war again is a better alternative than a United Kingdom? The monarchy brings a huge net surplus to the budget of the UK, not just through tourism but by giving huge sums of money out of their private crown estate. They don't have to do this, but they do. Everything from post boxes to our legal justice system has a bit of gravitas to it because of a royal connection. But hey, let's just do away with ceremonies and paint the whole country grey. The Queen never once thought she was better than anyone else, she was humble, she knew her duties and she carried them out until her final week in her 90s. But hey if you want to usher in a future where someone like Tony Blair and Rishi Sunak is a 4 or 5+ term President with no one to keep them in check be my guest, but don't complain to me if you end up in a gulag.
There's a lot to unpack in general here, but I'll start with this: "The monarchy brings a huge net surplus to the budget of the UK, not just through tourism but by giving huge sums of money out of their private crown estate. They don't have to do this, but they do." Now, fine sir, here is the question I must ask you: why does the monarchy deserve ANY of the money brought about by tourism, or ANY taxpayer money? For simply existing? The royal families assets were gained by slaughtering, stealing, and colonizing. Why should we have any moral obligation to protect the thieves' descendants their rights to keep what their ancestors stole? And how is it somehow morally upright of them to donate some of these profits to the country they leech off of? You claim that the monarchy brings about a huge net sum for the UK, but abolishing the monarchy won't make this money magically disappear: tourists and assets will still exist. The money can simply go directly to the government, without the royals skimming off the top. I realize this argument is completely futile and you will never change your opinion, but alas, I respond.
@@jacksonsmith2955 This is a hard one to answer. I also have concerns in my country over stolen assets. Loads of our wealthy inhabitants have gained off the misery of others. Some of these mega wealthy individuals have status that a police officer, paramedic, teacher or nurse can only dream of. It is like money brings respect. This should not be. But we do not live in a utopia instead a dystopia. As for a constitutional monarchy; the alternative is a constitutional Republic. I look at the USA and quake at times. Please no one hate on me for this post. By the way I loved the USA last time I was there. Peace out.
@@jacksonsmith2955you talk about the crown as if they are unique, there are oligarchs who probably don’t deserve their wealth in every single country, In every country there are powerful people who exploit the peoples who live in them. However in Britain they have a crown on their head and actually provide something to their people; pride. People like the monarchy because the monarchy unites everyone. Every couple try on earth has plundered and looted and starved and killed. But The UK is the only one to relinquish their power and return ti their island. Does that mean colonialism is morally right? No. But back then everybody did it. Every race has done it. But the english were the only ones to stop it.
Certainly higher than you. Bet she didnt take pleasure in making insulting youtube comments, pretty sad really. That alone means she is 'higher' than you, even now.
@@klausschwab4019 the irony of you saying that after saying "bet she didn't take pleasure in making insulting youtube comments" is hilarious. There was no insult in that comment so no I'm not thick. I think you definitely are though, or perhaps you're just soft.
When George Washington became the first U.S. president, there was discussion over how to address him. Highness and Majesty were suggested, but he shunned such terms and instead chose simply Mr. President.
Some people get through school and decide to speak proper English. Some Redditors try to imitate them to sound smart (and I can't blame them). Maybe they seem similar, but I'm afraid this one is of the former category. I'm of the latter though LMAO
Monarch sacrifice there freedom to be à head à state. They sacrifice most of there life. So the People can use them as a model of stability. In time of hapiness or crisies. People are In need of a leader and someone to represent them.The criticism here just sound like a ego trip.
@@luiscluzano2436 Billions of people are getting by fine without a hereditary monarch. If you want a figure head to serve as “model of stability” look at the ceremonial presidents in Germany or Ireland, etc. who perform a ceremonial national role apart from the political Prime Minister.
I get it and can agree that having one sole "ruler" is such an outdated concept for a government institution when in reality it's a figure head to take the majority of the blame while the read scum bags in back room politics get away mostly unscathed. But the history of the Queen, this particular Queen was fantastic, far more memorable than any other of her family outside of gossip magazines.
Full video available now on my TH-cam: “Why the Monarchy Should Have Died With the Queen”
Alex, you are 100% correct.
If there was a democratic vote to decide whether the monarchy should continue, would you abide by the result?.
Even if you are a monarchist by divine right the current line was invited by Parliament from the Netherlands to replace the unpopular catholic king James 2nd and later after that the Hanoverians took charge. Meaning it isn’t a selection from god it’s a quite loose selection of Parliament. That was what the Jacobite restoration attempt was about as back then the divine right of hereditary monarchy really did justify it then but now the monarchy means nothing but arbitrary ‘highness’ for the sake of a fairy tale that can and often does get its hand involved in politics.
Just abolish it. It doesn’t even make sense by its own rules and it doesn’t make sense by our own today.
@@colinharbinson8284 I can’t speak for Cosmic Skeptic but the answer I would give is, no. The monarchy don’t add any real value. I also have an issue with people being “better” than me without there being good evidence to support that claim.
King Charles is a tool. It’s that simple.
I think you're entirely wrong on this, and i'm an atheist. You clearly just don't understand the purpose outside of it's attachments to religion. Subject, subordinate, you throw out these words with such hatred as if we're shackled and beneath them when it is us that they serve. Being the King or queen isn't just a job, it's a way of life, a state of being in which one must represent us, radiate our values and culture, embody all of our values and goodness and none of our shortcomings. Elizabeth understood this possibly more than any other Queen, everything she did was done with thought and severity, concentration, and reflexion of her duty to uphold all this. I wouldn't want to be King, it's a big ask. people act like they live lives like any other rich person and can do whatever they want, when they want. Absolutely not. Our kings and queens and knights and more play a invaluable role in our nation's culture and society as a whole. The queen herself could date her lineage back to King John and beyond, the monarchy is interwoven in all of our myths, legends, heroes etc. In a country which its becoming ever more Angry at and self-hating towards their own bloody good old country - because it's trendy and a replacement for personality as you 'appear politically aware/active' - constitutional monarchy is keeps us connected to our past and traditions that are intrinsic to our nationality. It's not a coincidence that those who support this system are most often more patriotic and happy to be here.
You claim they are higher than me, and yet they haven't been smoking weed during every public appearance. Checkmate, monarchists
i cannot argue wit that logic
i suppose drugs are the answer all along 😂😂
Boom. End of conversation.
🍷
Very right, your highness!
ohh you remind me of something, checking my pockets right now
Wanna get rid of Monarchy? Call the French. They might have expertise in this.
We would come help you too. Swish swish...😂
They would be like "Aight lets get that done, chop chop"
Americans did it too without any royal heads being removed.
@@crixxxxxxxxx and what did that leave, a monarchy still in existence. where's the French monarchy
@@DeathProductions200 They haven’t existed for us since 1776.
The idea of having to bow down to someone not based on their merits or character as a person just puzzles me.
God save the king 🇬🇧🇬🇧
@lordredcrest1621 based
@lordredcrest1621Weird form of cuckism
@lordredcrest1621even before that, anglo saxon kingdoms emerged around the 500s
@@riazorthofrom his own childish hubris?
"oh so you're an ATHEIST anti-monarchist"
-- British Bill O'Reilly
No...this guy could give away bills iq points and still be 3 times smarter.
I'm technically a Protestant anti-monarchist. What warped sect are you?
Winston Churchill was also an athiest
Im atheist pro monarchist,im weird(and anti-habzburg because cechia needs a cech king)
@@BabaG2016My family too
Can we have this same energy for celebrities too?
Why are they treated like royalties? Why are they deemed more important than any other human being?
Th
I agree, but for most celebrities, they at least they provides some value in terms of entertainment for the mourners, as opposed to the monarchy, which merely exists.
@@Ducktility its worse than merely existing, they leech off of every single citizen
@@skipelen neither do billionaires, at least we pay less tax thanks to the monarchy bringing in revenue to the country.
@@ratflakes3135 Tax payers pay $100 million to the family per year. And the argument that they bring in more money is absurd.
Instructions unclear, planted a couple barrels of gunpowder under the houses of parliament.
He tried to blow up the houses of parliament not the palace. But you do you :) please do it on November 6th or 3rd please. We need a new nursery rhyme.
@@theblackbaron4119 my b, corrected it
Cringe
@@chapman2001 found the pro-monarchist, if you find the Gunpowder Treason "cringe" then you, my good sir, are a complete bellend
*gets placed on MI6/MI5/GCHQ watchlist
"These fellow homo sapiens" i am dying XD
They have more skeletons in their closet than the Tory party . Never will have my respect
It's pretty obvious you havent listened to Hitchens or Alex.
And Democracy has entire forests of skeletons out in the open. Or have you not been paying attention to what the yanks have been doing for the last seventy odd years?
Why do you retards act like leftist politics is just above reproach? 😂
Those who did that were catholics
Instructions unclear. My harbor is now full of tea
Sadly most modern Americans have forgotten what the revolutionary war was really about. Crazy that the English monarchy is so accepted in the US. It goes to show how the American.oligarchy sees itself.😂
@@swoldetsadick wtf are you smoking?
@@swoldetsadick No, we don't accept them. We would love nothing more than to not hear anything about this silly, antiquated institution that you still cling to for God knows what reason.
@@crixxxxxxxxx Well my people dealt with this type of institutions way back. As a republican in the true sense of the word, meaning someone against a monarchy, I have never visited Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Great Britain, Sweden or any other land with royal families. Not even for a conference friend.
@@elizanovember7697 No this is my opinion based on experience. The eagerness in people to experience the british monarchy when the Kate and her husband visited in the US was shameful. Now it might be that people in the US might see them as nothing but celebrities but still one has to know what institutions they represent and what that meant for the US
Yea, i don't respect democracy either. Someone won a popularity contest and now all of the sudden i am suppose to respect them.
You don't need to respect the elected head of state, at least in most countries like the way you are supposed to respect the monarch. Monarchy claims recognition from God and demands respect from birth unlike democracy.
You may not respect democracy but it is a superior institution to monarchy.
@@madscientist3134 You are supposed to respect them because they can make a law that more than half of the population wanted and now you are stuck because of a logical fallacy. Democracy is just as poisonous as Monarchy is.
We indirectly tell our children that one is special by birth and not because of one’s actions.
Both ar possible, for example given a genetic advantage or when it comes to inheritance rights.
No we don't
Speak for yourself bro
@@Philrcnuh uh
Well some are special by birth most not in a good way😅
Every nation that doesn’t already have a monarchy should create one by picking random citizens in a lottery and then dressing them up and parading them around in ridiculous ceremonies. For any diplomatic meetings we force the British royals to meet with our royals 😂
😂😂😂 meet Makungo of the Papua new Guinea our Royal soul and representative of his goodness lord all mighty.
Unfortunately in the US, our eternal Emperor Norton is already dead, and it would be too disrespectful to simply hand his title away.
Although could probably appoint an eagle or something if it’s just for meetings with the british
@@shrekatemyonions "and now make way for the royal american eagle who will perform the greatly diplomatic task of shitting on our royal guests"
@@franciscolima1762 tbf, if PNG was able to unite under a singular native leader would be a massive improvement over yhe regional tribalism issues.
@@shrekatemyonions rest in peace god emperor norton, may his peace be everlasting and peaceful 😢
Saw this guy embarrass Piers Morgan recently, with all the calmness of Master Yoda.
Share the link 👍
@@mrknowles1540 It should be neighbouring this one here somewhere on the same channel.
Piers Morgan embarrasses himself casually, so I don't see anything special.
This guy is doing the same in this short tho...
Embarrassing Piers would be on a pre-school test. It's not exactly an achievement.
Link please 👉
mate I was convinced with your argument until that unholy bombshell at the end 💀
Lol 😂
I mean, monarchs succesfully used religion as a justification for their positions for thousands of years. Across every culture you can find kings claiming divinity because it is simply the only way to convince a population that you and your offspring should have absolute power over them forever. The catholic church in particular colluded with hundreds of kings the gave them the moral authority to make millions of humans miserable and halted scientific progress for 1000 years.
@@stuartlittledrowning4965 Science flourished under the Catholic Church. You've been fed lies and propaganda your whole life. Don't underestimate how much protestants hate Catholics. You're also making a lot of baseless claims. They made millions of people miserable? In what ways? Who did and in what countries and what time periods? You're condensing thousands of years of history worldwide into one ignorant, arrogant, sweeping statement. Ah, but you are a man of reason! Obviously you must be much smarter than all the millions and billions of people who came before who were simply incapable of reason.
You can be Christian and still deny the monarchy. There is no biblical evidence that the monarchy is supported by God. Every European monarchy ever has said the same thing.
@@THEDrew-trekRomans 13:1-9 "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" So authority figuers have authority because of god, and to go against kings/rulers is resisting who god appointed. Kindove suspicious the roman governments translation helpfully told people to listen to their own authority.
So there is one thing that the French did much better than the British
As a Mortician, I treat every single deceased with the exact same care and compassion. Every. Single. One.
Good to hear it. ❤
Youre still just embalming a dead body which is a completely unnecessary job. All so you can get more money out of grieving family members of the deceased
Congrats
You know you shouldnt fk them tho, right?
Family?
"I am your king."
"I didn't vote for you."
"Well you dont vote for kings."
Monty python ahead of its it's time.
😂 classic
There are multiple instances in history where people voted/choose someone into king status, where people bought their way into king status or simply just said "well I have nothing to prove but I own most stuff here so I'm king" and got king status. amen
“Just because some watery bint waved a sword…”
Democracy is pathetic
@@Spectator777My country had elective monarchy for over 200 years.
Only nobles were allowed to vote, who were approximately 10% of total population but still the king was chosen in elections.
I love and appreciate your views...and appreciate your meaningful deliverance as well. Thank you...thank you. Namaste!
As the Irish part of my family says, "I'll share a drink with who they are, but I'll fight what they are with every fiber of my being."
As an irish person born and raised in dublin my whole life: DECK THEM IN THE BLOODY FACE LAD. GO FOR THE THROAT. NEVER TRUST A BRIT
What?
@@jameshunter2025 "ill drink with who they are" meaning theyll respect them as humans, "fight what they are" reffering to wanting the monarchy abolished
Nice one, you made a good point, but it would be entirely lost on hyper logical and rational. Let's those who see, see and those who don't, don't.
The stubbornness of the Irish did not help them
As an enlightened centrist on this issue I have come up with an excellent compromise which absolutely has the potential to satisfy both sides on this issue. Listen up: We get rid of the present monarchs, put me as the king instead, and you won't have to call me "highness" or "majesty". Huh? Oh no, please, you don't have to applaud so loudly, come on guys. I know, I know.
I support this idea
What is thy bidding, Master?
Oh God cover yourself your narcissism Is showing!
God save King / Queen Pechna I.
I don't usually like centrists, but you your highness are fine with me
Here are reasons as to why preserving a monarchy is beneficial to your nation as a whole (sorry this is a long reply, but I thought I should try and be detailed):
1). They represent an important part of the nations rich heritage - seeing as England has had a monarchy for 1,300 years - and uphold many of the countries centuries old traditions (e.g. Royal ceremonies, ancient customs, historic celebrations, religious events, unique medieval traditions and so forth). For me, tradition is VERY important to conserve, and without it, a nation loses its culture and identity. Remember, no other country has preserved so many of its ancient and grand traditions like you in this regard, and it is of utmost importance to preserve!
2). The huge benefit they bring directly to the people of the nation - the thousands upon thousands of charities and organisations they have helped and continue to help; including many charities they have started themselves (e.g. the Prince’s Trust - one of the most successful in the country), the championing of cherished members of communities (with events such as the King’s Garden Party), the beneficial revolutionary ideas they have promoted (protection of nature, wildlife and the environment, historical preservation and architectural restoration, clean organic food, championing buying local, the Duke of Edinburgh’s award etc etc etc), the dedication of the monarchs entire life to serving their country and people (the Queen was 96 and still working), the Royal Family visiting every corner of the land and actually greeting their people (whether that be through hospitals, schools, charities, local businesses etc)… and so much more. Can you think of a single non-Royal Head of State in any other country that does the same? The reigning monarch only has two days off a year from Royal duties, and the working royals have hundreds of royal engagements each and every year (for example Princess Anne has carried out over 11,000 engagements over the course of 2002-2022); and this will continue until their eventual passing.
3). The money is costs to actually run a working monarchy is minuscule, seeing as the vast majority of the money goes towards things that would have to be paid for regardless (Castle and palace maintenance, state visits, hosting foreign officials etc). If you abolished the monarchy, you would still need to pay for repairs and the upkeep of royal residences (millions upon millions every year); still pay for the protection and upkeep of millions of Royal possessions (from the Crown Jewels to priceless art); still pay for all the staff that work to keep these residences and wider estates running; still pay for state visits; still pay for foreign visits (and everything else associated with a head of state); still pay for security of the new Head of State and also continue paying for the security of the King as well (he would absolutely be entitled to it). You would save nothing, and would lose the huge amount of money they bring in, which is my next point.
4. They bring in a vast amount of money. You only have to look at the Coronation to see this. The event has been paid for many times over with the huge number of people from all over the world who have descended on London (practically every hotel was completely booked up), and spent money on anything from souvenirs to restaurants to public transport. They come because they are fascinated by the rich traditions, culture and heritage of Great Britain, and the Coronation is something that embodies this through actual living history. Same with the Queen’s funeral and other events such as the Jubilee, Commonwealth service, weddings etc. These events are watched by billions across the world - why else are they some of the most watched events in world history? We also cannot forget the vast amount of money they bring to charity and good causes (like I said above), and the non-event touristic value they serve through their castles and palaces (which yes would still be visited regardless, but the fact they are lived in only adds to the appeal and certainly does not take away - just like the thousands of stately homes and castles around the English countryside; it is no coincidence that the most visited are almost always still lived in by the original families that built them), and royal guards stationed throughout London and Windsor who certainly are an attraction within their own right.
5). Constitutional monarchies have historically proven to be more stable than republics, and having a neutral head of State is certainly a massive plus. But there are so many reasons why having the Royals representing the country as opposed to just another politician is superior. I mean what politician could possibly have compared to Queen Elizabeth II who had travelled to over 120 countries; met with, and had longstanding relationships with thousands of officials, dignitaries, world leaders and other royal houses (and importantly pass on these relationships to her son Charles who has done the same throughout his life, both by her side and on his own); through her life long role as monarch and Head of State gained wisdom and understanding that would be impossible for a person not in her position to do (which again, no other Head of State would have). You can see this when looking at her funeral. What politician/ president would have had the same world reaction? Every world leader was there to pay their respects (even Putin sent his respects to her and the new king and he wasn’t even invited). That speaks volumes as to their soft power. The monarch hosts state visits, official functions, military parades, parliamentary responsibilities, religious events and countless others ceremonies and ancient traditions - all watched by billions across the world (ever wonder why their weddings/ funerals are some of the most viewed events in television history)? Royalty transcends the modern age, and offers a glimpse of real magic in an otherwise rather mundane modern world. Remember, there’s no other nation that comes anywhere close to matching British Royal pageantry. And you think a random politician would be a more preferable emblem of the nation?
6). The monarch is also a unifying force for the nation and wider Commonwealth. Again if we look at the Coronation: the 60,000 coronation street parties over coronation weekend that brought thousands of communities together; the thousands of people that went to see the King on the palace balcony; the thousands of people that descended on London to be a part of history (from all over the world); the hundreds of millions of people that tuned in live to watch the Coronation. What other country has such a unifying head of state; for not only their own country but for millions all over the Commonwealth and world. And speaking of the Commonwealth, to understand the monarch’s unifying power, you only have to look at the number of members upon Queen Elizabeth’s coronation (14), with the number of nations that *asked* to join throughout her reign; and as a result there are now 56 countries part of the Commonwealth (1/3 of the worlds population). That says a lot.
I could go on, but I think I’ve written enough. Hope this helps.
You listed 6 personal opinions that make sense to you. Unfortunately for you, I strongly disagree with all of them. I have to, though, respect your opinion because everyone is entitled to one.
@@TheDayBeforeWednesday They are backed up by fact:
1. Monarchy does indeed preserve 1000+ years of English tradition (in multiple different ways).
2. The Royals do indeed help hundreds upon hundreds of charities, good causes and beneficial organisations.
3. The money they cost as individuals is indeed tiny; seeing as the vast majority of said money would have to be paid regardless of keeping a monarchy or not.
4. They do indeed bring in billions. So you’re under the impression events such as the Coronation did not bring in any money when there were tens of thousands of tourists from outside the UK descending on England over that one weekend alone, so much so, that practically every London hotel was booked up (I know because I tried to stay there during Coronation weekend). Not to mention the sales of Coronation related merchandise found across most stores.
5. Having a head of state that is politically neutral, and set up in such a way that they can form life long relationships with other world leaders (quite literally from childhood), is of course a benefit to UK-foreign relations. Again, how many heads of state have every world leader attend their funeral, and billions across the world watch live on TV?
6. They are indeed a unifying force for millions. How many countries have a head only state that can generate 60,000 street parties held in their honor?
You can choose to ignore these facts, and that’s totally up to you, but they certainly are fact. I chose to make it so detailed, and back up each point with real life data, for this exact reason. Plus you can easily look up this stuff yourself so that you can form a balanced and educated opinion; as opposed to most of the comments under this video, that are seriously misinformed as to how a modern day constitutional monarchy works. Again, you’re entitled to see things how you wish, and thankfully the majority understand the value of preserving such a historic and beneficial institution.
@@TheDayBeforeWednesday
I don't know if you read his reply, but he listed facts. Was it his opinion when he said england has had the monarchy for over 1,000 years? When he said monarchs have kept certain traditions? If you really think those are opinion, you need to relearn those definitions of fact and opinion.
Bro got the filthy peasant starter pack. Monarchies are archaic and outdated. The monarchy isn’t representative of Britain anymore. The UK has changed over the last 200 years, but the monarchy has stayed stagnant. The average royal is more closely related to Hitler than the average Englishmen.
I agree they are more stable but wouldn’t it be better if we all just would continue too life in villages and clans without a particular leader ? Why did humans have too do this modernization what is it for ?
"And how did the nobles become so noble anyway? They took it, with the tip of a sword"
- William Thatcher
And how did they get the control over "tip of a sword"? By convincing the warrior that money is something of value.
We should refer to anyone smoking weed as your highness.
😂
Hear hear!
At least the North Koreans mourned Kim Jong-Il for eleven days.
Dig a little deeper dude. Kim’s death day is a national holiday, he has been named the “eternal leader,” and they are erecting 100 foot statues in his name. Kim Jung-II is still leader of the country, his son is merely substituting till he gets back.
and they would be shot if they didn't
@@random6033 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_traditional_funeral I’m not so sure about that. A North Korean defector told the person interviewing her that a majority (~90%) of the people mourning in the well-known video were showing genuine emotion, herself included. Think about this, if you’re in a country cut off from the rest of the world and all you know about your country’s leader is all the amazing things you’ve heard about them, their death would probably upset you.
@@random6033 people get arrested for not respecting the queen in the UK. They're not so far off.
@@random6033 Plus, the women’s hysteria is part of a Korean funeral tradition. You don’t see it that often in South Korea because of its Westernization.
I have a deep patriotic love of the UK and I feel a great sense of pride that we are represented on the world stage by an institution that stands above the rest and has stood the test of time. My dad taught me proper respect from an early age and as I grew up my respect for the it has continued to grow...I am of course referring to the King and Queen of British excellence, the BS1363 standard 13 amp electric plug and socket.
Let's hear it for the OG in safe electrical systems, the 'Type G'!
There used to be a lot more to love but then Brexit happened...
Everyone is a part of God. When enough people realize this they will naturally get rid of the monarchy. 🌞💗🕊️
Everyone is made in the image and likeness of God and the telos of man is to become deified and made to share in God's life, but we are not a part of the infinite transcendent Creator. We are His creations.
I'm not part of God. God is just something you choose to believe in, with no scientific evidence. God is one (of many) answers to the question: "How was humanity and the world created?"
Scientific evidence have many different criteria, but for example "can be observed and agreed upon by most people who observe it, especially by people with expertise in that field" and
"is following logic, doesn't contradict itself", as well as something like "create a certain result in the physical world that be connected to the source".
That last one: let's say you pray, and then nothing happens, or if it happens it was not the exact same thing anyone ever prayed for. God can not in any way be shown create any effect on the world that can be traced back to God, because nobody knows what or where God is. This hasn't been shown in any reliable way in the past, and it is not shown today either, so there is no reason anything of that sort will happen in the future (although it is a possibility, it has not yet been proven in any way).
The belief in God, what's written in the bible etc. is not fullfilling any scientific criteria.
With the religious "logic", I can believe in... well let's say that the universe (and humans) were created by an alien species far superior to anything we can imagine, capable of creating the universe. "The Kenneths". Let's go with that. I believe in "The Kenneths". The Kenneths are a species who created the universe and then died, because that was their purpose. These "Gods" are no longer relevant, they died and have no longer any influence over the world. They specifically chose to create a world and humanity that have an undecided fate, a free will with no connection to the Kenneths, once their side of the job was done. That was their specific idea, to destroy all relationship between us and them.
This theory is exactly as plausible as the differerent religious "Gods" out there. But I have a feeling you don't want to believe in "The Kenneths", a bunch of dead, powerless "Gods". But if I told you: "You are part of the Kenneths, you just haven't realized it yet", how would you feel?
Stop telling me what to believe in. I don't believe in anything which there is no proof of. Live your life as you wish and let other people live theirs.
All they are are a bunch of people lucky enough to be born in a specific family, there's no reason they should have the power and respect they do.
The power they have is inherited. Just like the power you have is inherited. You are lucky enough to be born in one of the richest and most privileged families on the planet. Anyone born in Britain or a select few other nations have this privilege. You are given this privilege because your parents want it for you. And because the nation they and you live in has made it possible.
Why dont you sell all your worldly goods and fly a poor person from africa to come and live in the UK and swap places with them. You were lucky enough to be born in the UK. Is that acceptable, do you really deserve your privilege. These games go both ways. The king and queen deserve their privilege because their ancestors took it by force, what have you done recently?
@@16m49x3 A selective monarchy is better than an hereditary one. Just because your parents chose this for you does not mean you are more important or less.
@@degstoll
It's irrelevant. The relevant part is being able to hang the monarch when they fuck up
I agree that they were born lucky. But let's be honest none of us are going to be mourning prince Andrew. They are given a platform at birth to hopefully do good with. Queen Elizabeth has, doing her part in ww2 as an example. I agree that it is unfair but at the same time I see king Charles being watched by an entire country of people as he attends his own mothers funeral and I pity their situation as much as I envy it.
God save the Queen has always been unsettling for me. Thanks for speaking out.
Lmao imagine being British. You missed the bus 245 years ago
Lol imagine living in a republic 😂😂
Britain literally created the modern world. You are absolutely nothing without us
@riazortho Lol Living in the Republic and loving it.
@@ryguy1483Where you choose your opressors based on their popularity, while others have a ruler to embody their nation.
We're in the same boat fellas, old people are trying to control everything we do haha.
From Monty Python's "The Holy Grail":
Arthur: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, king of the Britons. Whose
castle is that?
Woman: King of the 'oo?
Arthur: King of the Britons.
Woman: 'Oo are the Britons?
Arthur: Well we all are! We are all Britons! And I am your king.
Woman: I didn't know we 'ad a king! I thought we were autonomous collective.
Man: (mad) You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship! A
self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
Woman: There you go, bringing class into it again...
Man: That's what it's all about! If only people would--
Arthur: Please, *please*, good people, I am in haste! WHO lives in that
castle?
Woman: No one lives there.
Arthur: Then who is your lord?
Woman: We don't have a lord!
Arthur: (spurised) What??
Man: I *told* you! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We're taking
turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week--
Arthur: (uninterested) Yes...
Man: But all the decisions *of* that officer 'ave to be ratified at a
special bi-weekly meeting--
Arthur: (perturbed) Yes I see!
Man: By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--
Arthur: (mad) Be quiet!
Man: But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major--
Arthur: (very angry) BE QUIET! I *order* you to be quiet!
Woman: "Order", eh, 'oo does 'e think 'e is?
Arthur: I am your king!
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you!
Arthur: You don't vote for kings!
Woman: Well 'ow'd you become king then?
(holy music up)
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake-- her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite,
held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by
divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why
I am your king!
Man: (laughingly) Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical
aquatic ceremony!
Arthur: (yelling) BE QUIET!
Man: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some
watery tart threw a sword at you!!
Arthur: (coming forward and grabbing the man) Shut *UP*!
Man: I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an emperor, just because some
moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
THIS. Spot on.
@@ts4686 There's much about the human race that baffles me. You can't have dictators and Queens/Kings without some level of collusion amongst the subordinates.
All primates organize themselves in some form of hierarchical manner. It's just nature's way. Our intellect might reject it but we still accept it to a good degree.
Yeah but look to where democracy has brought us now... & what a mess we have created. I just wish there was a real system that can replace everything that's been and gone.
@@tantalisinglabrat Until that system swallows you up along with your autonomy and relative freedoms... Be careful what you wish for, it may come true.
I was looking for this. I want to to ask, why did you write so much, but at the same time, why did you stop there?
Listen, despite being in the Commonwealth (Australia, specifically), I spent all of 2022 mourning the loss of my mum in January and I honestly did not give a shit when Queen Lizzie II died because my mum is more important to me than some thing that somehow survived the middle ages.
the only sad thing i felt about the queen dying was the fact that all those "the queen is immortal" joke memes died with her. your mum was much more important then a living tourist attraction.
@lordredcrest1621Yeah, you can scratch that, the rest of europe did not give too shits about grandma dying. The british are already not very liked by the EU, so trust me, no one but england cared
@lordredcrest1621 France? Try again mate, we just look at your crumbling economy and laughs over here.
Also, nice endorsing of colonialism
@lordredcrest1621 no, not really. Sure I can say it's sad for them, but it is very much not my business.
Again, it's not a dislike of britain, it is a genuine lack of care. Some years ago we still had to, but now with tye brexit there are no real reason for europe to care about that country beside tourism
Thank you so much for your invaluable anecdote
This doesn't go away. Our politicians in the States also believe their lives are more valuable than ours, and we are somehow less human than they are and the rules don't apply to them.
Right, it's not perfect but it's better and that's the point. A republic isn't guaranteed to be awesome, but it is a big step up from a monarchy
I was agreeing to most last point until The God part😅
Hitchens would be proud.
Which one???
@@nafeesmuktadir3199 Christopher
rip my guy
Y'all gotta put the blame on God somehow bruh💀
@@out_of_orbit1968 it‘s a two way street. you can‘t only blame him for all the good in your life and then proceed to squeal free will to explain away all evil. what about the free will that brought about all the good in your life? god doesn‘t make any sense. you cannot divorce the creator of absolutely everything (including your brain and all environments and circumstances that shape your character) from your life and actions. it makes no sense. free will makes no sense.
I think the Americans appreciate the British monarchy more than the British
Funny, seeing that you literally declared independence from it
Because they realise the presidential system isn't that great
I personally despise the entire concept of the monarchy, but yeah, there is a weird fascination some have with it.
@@ben7932 No just from appearances seems more noble then the average immoral politician. However they never think about the ancestors of those people who needless murdered across the land in the countless pointless wars like the War of Roses. They didn't think about the crimes against humanity committed out of because some royal assholes decided they needed a world war to test their fancy new tools. Absolute Power can not be hereditary and the second you look into history you see why.
The only people who can get rid of the royal family is the people of the UK. My country fought a war to throw off a British king. And frankly the British people are in a better position to do so then the American colonies were. Those "Royal" Celebrities still have the power to reclaim the full authority and power the monarchy once held. That means nothing for me because I'm American and I have my own government that's usurping its authority. But the UK is far from free.
Not gonna lie I stop caring after she passed, I only then started caring when her funeral took over the plans I had for my SO's birthday and closed everything!
The rest of the world is wondering why you cared before.
What boggles my mind is that British citizens are okay with paying a family $100 million per year for no reason other than that they consider themselves to be higher than thou. It's insane.
They bring in more money in tourism than they are paid
@@Mythee That's what they want you to believe. Of course it's complete bullshit.
@@kubush it’s literally facts lmao, they bring in billions every year
@@Mythee No, it literally isn't. You think the people visiting England are going to just see the royal family? 🙄
@@Mythee Literally propaganda bought by the royal family paid for by England's tax payers. You're a good little sheep. Keep paying a wealthy family to continue being wealthy for their sake.
As a humanoid, I've always thought that kings and queens have been the worst we've had in our species. Read the fairy tales in the old testament.
No. I rather jump off A building than have to follow A republic.
I think that communist "presidents" are even worse than kings and queens.
The claim that this monarchy's supremacy is somehow the divine will of the "Christian God" is in and of itself the madness, regardless of the truth of the existence of God, let alone it being worse in case he does exist in the fashion that they supposedly spiritually adhere to.
As someone from the United States, my ancestors settled this question long ago.
And ended up with Donald Trump.
@@timball8429 Only for 4 years, 8 years max. No system is perfect. Overall a republic is still better than ANY monarchy. Better not to be a royal subject (i.e. a slave) but occasionally have to deal with total moron in charge.
@@TinsleyLaw not sure that I would ever regard a monarchy as abject slavery. They’re a constitutional head, rather than an executive. Thanks for replying.
@@timball8429 but we’re not subjects to a president. And trump was literally elected democratically a monarch is not.
You had help you dont count 🤣
it is not reasonable to respect a monarch as a human being, they set themselves aside from human beings and they don’t deserve that respect.
*hits the vape*
“Not higher than me”
My man you rock.
Tobacco vape or weed vape?
@@Regular_Decorated_Emergency both equally bad
@@eurko111 Are they? Isn't smoking tobacco more carcinogenic?
@@Regular_Decorated_Emergency What? Nicotine isn't tobacco. Cigarettes contain carcinogens but nicotine itself is the chemical responsible for its addictiveness
Monarchy is an important part of European history and culture, and it’s a better system than most systems that exist today. Portugal was better off as a monarchy than a republic
It’s a better system, really? Please, do explain how giving unquestioned hereditary power to one family with no removal process is a good idea.
@@stevenmcalister826 Of course, there’s several reasons why it’s a better system than most systems that exist today. As I mentioned in my original comment, monarchies are an important part of European culture and tradition. They uphold many of the nations centuries old traditions (Royal ceremonies, ancient customs, historic celebrations, religious events, unique medieval traditions, etc). For me, tradition is very important to conserve, and without it, a nation loses its culture and identity. It’s also a misconception that monarchies have unquestioned power, since many monarchies after the Age of Enlightenment were constitutional and had a democratic systems in place.
@@uptown_rider8078 Tradition can easily be preserved without handing the highest position in government to one person without election, term limits or really any rules whatsoever. Plus, making it hereditary rule, just to make sure there’s no contest as to who can be in power, wouldn’t want any peasants getting involved.
Also this constitution argument is new to me. Can you pinpoint thr democratic system that was involved in appointing the monarch in the UK? I must’ve missed it when Charles was put on the throne.
Backwards thinking. Human future is not nationality or religion or "culture" but internationalism.@@uptown_rider8078
@@uptown_rider8078monarchies are known to be unstable compared with, for example, democracies
This one survived because Britain was wise enough to stop letting the monarchs rule
I understand this point even though i don't particularly mind having a monarchy. My issue is that some anti monarchists don't just want rid of the monarchy and that's it,they want it replacing woth something else and tgat worries me as to what sort of replacement they want and what agenda they require the replacement institution to have. This just stinks of another attempt by the far left extremists to cancel another part of British culture. If the monarchy was to go i would be a bit sad but not to a level that it affects my life but i definitely would not want it replacing by anything else
We can replace it with democracy. Like our "british culture" values so much but refuses to truly give us.
@@a70770 we have the commons for that,
@@shaundempsy645 I'm thinking we should maybe democratically elect every single position in government so we get to decide who governs us.
But maybe that's being far left, idk
As a foreigner, I didn't know British law...I find it utterly ridiculous that the monarchy pay no taxes and that they cannot be prosecuted by law. Why on earth do the British public put up with that???
they pay taxes even though they aren't required and they donate a lot and i mean A LOT of money to the country, added bonus just tourist attraction from royalty give hundreds of millions a year
@@Llatyska That tourism point is just a huge nothingburger Proof that bullshit before you spread it around.
@@Llatyskaand yet they’re still pieces of shit lmfaoooo fuck em
@lordredcrest1621 Patriotism doesn't mean allowing the rich and powerful to be above the law.
@lordredcrest1621 Ughhh. You're really not helping your case there. I'd argue it's possible to love GB and still want the monarchy to be abolished.
I'd argue in most countries where the monarchy was abolished, the people did it out of love for their countries to which they identified their monarchy as harmful to. You know, jsut like the people who want to abolish the British monarchy right now. Why would anyone who loves GB want it to be represented by that eotheric conspiracy nutcase? It's honestly a disgrace.
I'd rather call the king your majesty than call Boris Johnson, Lizz Truss or Rishi Sunak the right honourable
Thanks Piers
You already do, so you're picking the worst of both worlds.
You should be able to call all of them cunts to their faces. Where does this idea that abolishing the monarchy will bring about other dictatorships come from?
We don't have a monarchy in my country and we hate our politicians very openly if necessary.
Non of them are
You literally already do both. Why are you making it an either/or when it could be a neither/or. We could just as easily use your logic to justify abolishing the tory party in favour of the monarcy or labour.
Bowing to another human being. Not for me. How did they get all of that land and money in the first place?
Because their relatives killed people better then other family.
Go bow down to an oil company or Apple if you want to get rid of your monarch because once the monarchy is gone all the people will have to look up to are corrupt politicians and corporate overlords.
Have fun bowing to yoour presidents and party secretery’s
They are actually elected from people, as people are Party. There has to be one party, one party system with strict rules of the game. Whoever disobeys rules is out of the game. And Party president is chosen by Party members. Monarchist just get power and wealth trough family inheritance and the got that "right" by being bloody murderers. @@eeroraute281
Conquering Land by their Ancestors
Thanks for your work, the era of enlightenment has not ended.
Thanks for your work, the Cold War is now about to finish its intermission and fade into Act 2.
Oh come on... the queen is the UK’s mascot. Like Mickey Mouse for Disney.... she’s a brand ambassador.... if the UK doesn’t want the Royals, I’m sure they can have a home and show in Las Vegas... people will pay money to come and see them...
they cost alot for a simple mascot
@@MrFrancoisMorrissey £1.29 per UK citizen is a lot of money to you?
@@carsongrosche9410 Its a lot of money together my guy. why that familly and not another? why not put it into health care, infrastructure, education. it's money spent way better
@@MrFrancoisMorrissey Not really.
@@christopherzhou5361 ????? How is Healthcare less important than ONE RANDOM FAMILY you brainwashed potato
There is no claim in the term 'subject' that you are inferior to another human being, the term refers to one being subject to the constitution which is the guardian of our rights and freedoms, we are subject to it because we expect from it... a perfectly reasonable provision. The job of the Monarch is (on behalf of all subjects) to defend our constitution from tyrannical government. The Monarch serves the people and in respect of that onerous duty we duly pay with our allegiance, to the person who performs this duty i.e. the reigning Monarch.
All his talks are like this, he is completely blind to subtle distinctions. He's a total head banger.
Agreed! Monarchy does only good for a nation if implemented the correct way.
The people who are ruled by a monarch are subjects, by definition.
Never really got primogeniture.I suppose the French saw it more as a hindrance rather than an advantage.
I'm Presbyterian and I agree with you. The monarchy is fine as a church of England thing and I understand the significance of the head of the church of England passing away, similar to the head of the Vatican/ Catholic Church passing away, I understand the importance and grief this brings but it's it's not my church and I'm not entirely comfortable with the
" head of state " either.
If, as monarchy-lovers say, this system is more stable than democracies, and gives unity to a nation, why should such an important position be left up to chance, why should it be hereditary? Shouldn't we elect this person, through a rigorous process, so as to make sure that it's a good human being who represents the population's wishes?
And what's the point of the rest of the royalty? Why give them such riches as if they deserved them? Why have them be above the law?
Mind you, as a citizen in the Constitutional 'Democratic' (aka, elective aristocracy) Republic of Argentina, I don't understand why we also treat our Presidents and public officials as if they were royalty themselves. There's something very vertical, hierarchical in our systems of goverment, even in so-called democracies.
We don't need to elect anyone. She has no power and that's what we need nothing more
A big slap to my Kuya Macmac who is monarchist...
He is living his life in belgium
The whole point is that it isn't up to the whims of electors. The stability is in the constance of the family and the transition being seamless. They are apolitical and in being so, they are for all citizens, not just the people who voted for them.
The family is the job, people born into it are trained to follow strict protocols to keep the institution running.
Constitutional monarchies are the longest lasting democratic regimes around (i.e., no regime changes like France has had in its 3 Republics in a century).
@@natedinnerplate8796 How does having a royal family make a nation more stable? Are there no other factors up for consideration, like having been an empire that stole other nations' wealth, having a parliamentarian instead of a presidentialist system, etc?
I noticed that the higher in the democracy index a nation is, the higher in the stability index they are. Could it be that it's democracy what makes a nation prosper, not the quite useless royal family?
Only in the UK is the monarchy so public, but it's less so in other constitutional monarchies. You can't pretend that it unites people there (if it really does) as strong as in the UK, when people spend their whole day without even thinking of the monarchy.
*"They are apolitical and in being so, they are for all citizens,"* Sounds more like, the real reason the British monarchy is still around, is because they are very good at making nobody angry. Do nothing, and say nothing, and you won't make anybody question your position. That's the whole job of monarchs in constitutional monarchies, to keep a positive public image so nobody questions why we still have them around.
@@marcocappelli2236 The monarchy is a constant in the ever changing landscape of democracy. While they aren't needed for any practical purpose in elections or getting laws passed, it serves an important symbolic purpose in being officially the one who calls for new elections (by dissolving parliament), approving the new Prime Minister, and giving royal assent to laws passed in the House of Commons. (edit: the King is never going to say "no", but his constant presence in every aspect of democracy is the constant needed to keep the machine going.)
The purpose of the crown is mostly about upholding and maintaining the monarchy throughout any crisis the country may face (and there have been many). Such a symbol is not possible if elected based on the whims of the people at that point in history.
Having a bloody history isn't the King's fault, and there's nothing he can do about it, that's up to the people and the politicians they vote for, the King is there to represent their choice, no matter who it is (the same way Her Majesty represented the UK under Thatcher and Wilson, two very different figures). The United States, a vehemently anti-monarchist nation has its own bloody and colonial past...
"Bro, this is Burger King, when I asked what you wanted I ment from the menu."
a random soldier out there done something bigger than the entire royal family
Not to forget the centuries of genocide, slavery, exploitation carried out across the world
And? You mean that which every power has ever engaged in? The very same activity that the British Empire did the MOST to put an end to?
You retarded ignoramuses are insufferable.
Say what you want about the monarchy or the king, I will tolerate a powerless ceremonial monarch far more than the elected politicians who are actively using their power to make the country worse.
For as long as politicians are raising my taxes and taking away my rights, I will respect Buckingham far more than Westminster.
"An immovable Parliament is more obnoxious than an immovable king"
Okay but dont you see how having a monarch in which there is a permanent leader is worse than one where the people have a choice in who they wish to elect? I mean these monarchs are politicians as well in some way, you dont think they are paying anyone off? Influencing politics and politicians and doing a ton of lobbying?
Alot of politicians are bs i get it but id rather have the power to elect a leader than be stuck with one for the rest of my life.
@@sirrobbieiii1953 How is having a permanent ceremonial monarch with no political power, incredibly limited constitutional power, even remotely worse than an elected politician with the power to (and is doing so) take your money and your rights?
It doesn't matter if a monarch is permanent, they are not deciding policies or laws, parliament is, no amount of influence or lobbying will give a monarch a speck of power over the public, it all resides with Westminster, voted in by the public, which can completely ignore the monarch.
The point is getting rid of a ceremonial monarch that has no power while parliament is responsible for most of the countries problems solves nothing, and is just more asinine virtue signaling by people who think an elected tyrant is better than an un-elected powerless monarch.
@@dinghysupreme2972 I literally just told you how they hold power and your immediate response is that they have no political power with 0 explanation. Right...
I never said they were literally deciding policies or laws so I don't know why you had to say that as if it was something I said... Because its clear I didn't say this because I explicitly said "you dont think they are paying anyone off? Influencing politics and politicians and doing a ton of lobbying". (Now I said influencing politics, which could be done through politicians not them literally making policies so i guess you just misinterpreted that). Now you know what I mean at least.
"No amount of influence of lobbying will give a monarch a speck of power over the public"
Okay so let me get this straight, you genuinely think that the Monarch lobbying through assets maybe or the immense amount of Money they have to Politicians and Political party's for further advertisement across the country and promised benefits that usually don't come to the public have absolutely no influence on the politicians and their politics and therefore the general public?
Yep that was it for me, im ending it here.
Im not gonna continue with someone like you... best of luck in life 🤣
@@sirrobbieiii1953 Clearly you don't understand.
Lobbying and influencing with money does not mean control, it is the weakest form of pressure on politicians or the political sphere in the UK.
The very fact that laws are passed, referendums won, opposition parties voted in, that are CONSIDERABLY against the interests of the monarchy and the establishment, shows it does not have the power that you claim it doe.
Politicians only care about one thing and that is votes, votes mean power and power means money and control, the monarchy is not responsible for their tyranny.
If you get rid of the monarch do you seriously think any of that changes?
That in itself should tell you how little the monarchy actually effects politics or the public.
"Im not gonna continue with someone like you... best of luck in life"
Well thanks to deluded and naive people like you, none of us will have any luck due to your scapegoating of the monarchy over tyrants because "At LeAsT ThEy'Re ElEcTeD!1"
Try not to act so surprised when the state still bends you over after the monarchy is gone, because you were warned.
But like, you already have elected politicians doing that. Your solution to smooching politicians is to add a smooching monarch on top. Genius play my friend.
Confused American here, have you tried throwing tea in the harbor? For some reason that royal family tends to stop ruling you when you do that😂
Are you retarded?
American education on display here you guys.
I wonder what George III's initial opinions on the colonists' concerns were? I'm sure it couldn't have been genuine worry for his people who were hating the idea that they were even descended from people that came from Britain...
Seriously, the King was the scapegoat for that conflict, if you want to blame someone then blame the PM at the time, Lord North. The King had essentially no power by that point as just a little over 100 years earlier a king was killed by people who thought he was overstepping the mark, and so the stamp act, and all the taxes levied on the colonies were really all pushed by parliament, not the King himself. George III had apparently also considered abdicating over the failure to keep the colonies because he thought it was shameful to him as a person despite having essentially nothing to do with the conflict.
Again, the King was not the bad guy in the AWI, he was merely a scapegoat.
The royal family is a cultural institution and no longer a political one. I think we should either go back to having a monarch take the throne and lead, or remove all the power and simply leave them to be a purely cultural power under their own wealth
Name someone who did more for the country of Great Britain (and the Commonwealth) than Queen Elizabeth.
Go on, I'll wait. She served in the war and once she ascended to the throne, she worked tirelessly.
You live in a country that whilst not perfect, is a damn sight better than 99% of all other countries and part of that is that we have a stable form of governmemt, with the Monarch at it's head.
You should be grateful for that.
Got a letter in the mail today,
I do what I want.
-King Charles
For now
I love the idea of him mailing just you.
I agree with you. This stupidity needs to end.
Are you -trying to- saying Republic is better than Monarchy?
@@mohdadeeb1829 Yes I am.
@@cypherpunk12 Okay! Let's respect each other's opinion.
@@mohdadeeb1829 Do you think the monarchy is a good thing? If so why?
@@cypherpunk12 Because with Monarchy, a country has a natural figure to represent itself. A president just seems... there, but Monarch represents a nation.
As a Christian I cringe at Divine Right of Kings philosophy
To be fair there is something to be said for having a long-term ruler trained from an early age to steward a nation, to consider a 'lifetime' rather than a few years between election cycles.
The hard part is finding that intiial benign ruler and keeping the heirs from falling into disrepute, into tyranny, petty or otherwise.
What does the British monarchy actually do to steward the ridiculous number of countries they (on paper) lead?
No there isnt
King Charles was best freinds with Jimmy Savvile and now can't be trialed on any kind of sexual harassment charge even if it was true.
I don't trust a useless cunt who's never worked for anything in their life to be king.
King's in the medieval ages were somewhat nessesscary. But nowadays the house of Windsor is producing such intellectual specimens as this gilded nonce and Prince dumbfuck Harry. THEY DONT DO ANYTHING except eat our money, church and state our separate and on that principle monarchy shouldn't exist.
@@AokijiTheIceWarrior only if you’re uneducated on what powers they have. They have absolute power but if they used it they know it would put the country in chaos. So they technically refrain from using their power, instead they head the wants of the people. They are better rulers than all of the politicians in the USA.
No really as history has shown that's not always the best. In fact it tends to be the worst ideas. So I have no idea what rock you were hiding under or where you have been that there is no access to historical facts but you should probably go back there.
Celebrities dying tends to get more attention than the average carpenter dying of natural causes. Mostly because more people were aware of their existance.
I believe, you are right about the attention the queen's death got outside the commonwealth. Within the commonwealth it is on another level. People seem to believe that she was indeed more worthy than themselves.
@@joze838 People thought the same of JFK and FDR when they died in office, no?
She was the serving head of state for nearly a century, not some random paraplegic or a drug-addled sex pest who won a popularity contest.
"InB4 Muh Andrew!" Is Andrew dead? Is he King? No? Irrelevant.
Ironically the carpenter probably did far more for society than any monarch.
Yeah but with Celebrities they don’t force you to take three days of mourning for some hag with a fancy title dying.
Alex, by resorting to misinofmration such as the false claim that Elizabeth II is somehow "far more deserving of respect" serves to undermine the republicain cause. FTR, I myself am not a monarachist but if people are going to critise the monarchy, they should do so factually and not resort to the misinformation of strawmen.
We certainly *are* told the royals are more worthy of respect than the rest of us, at least tacitly. The BBC for example reports every burp and belch of Charles and Billy. The death ceremony dragged on and on in a predictable manner, as we were told about how we all felt. It really is little different to the way the leadership cult is set up and sustained in the kind of countries we're invited to sneer at.
Plus all the abuse that took place (and still takes place today) in the Caribbean due to colonialism. Abolish the monarchy already
Bro's speakin like an enlightenment thinker like it's a new concept to not want a monarchy.
It's not new so it's wrong? What tf is this logic.
it sadly is a new concept in the uk
Yet it is an issue still relevant till today
Fact that monarchy was not abolished is shameful
Yes, and we’re lucky he can just speak about this in front every average person who watches this video and doesn’t have to go to a secret society in order to do it.
You'd be surprised by how many UK citizens this *is* new info to.
"Why I don't recognise democracy: When President Kennedy died, there was a huge funeral and he got far more attention than the 100,000 other people who died that day."
Well said : also Kennedy just won an election, tricking the most dumbasses to give him power while Élisabeth worked her whole life for the better of her kingdom, was a respected and dignified figure marvellously representing her people, kept dignity even in old age, protected the weak, fought against the Nazis and doing an incredible job of diplomacy for the UK. A life of committment just to be frown out the window by a mother f*** because he's pissed of people believing in a God he doesn't believe in, and he dares say such God doesn't exist while not having a single more clue than anybody else about that matter.
Unlike the monarchy nowadays, a modern president actually has a job and responsibilities. The monarchs are special just cuz they exist
There was a huge funeral for Michael Jackson.
That because he was elected by the PEOPLE and has a job and responsibility for the people not because of nepotism and belief God gave me power to rule over people.
A president is ELECTED the monarchy goes by blood and that shouldn't make someone better.
The obsession with bloodlines is bad for humanity. It is bad enough across the pond where you are born "higher than". In America, the ultra wealthy play the same role. People worship and admire them. While the wealthy here play that same bloodline game. The goal is to keep the money and power in the family. Don't get me wrong. Genealogy is interesting. I'm a Melvin, so I can trace my family history through Ireland and Scotland all the way back to the Franco Melville's. I'm descended from royal blood too. It doesn't make me special or any better than anyone else. In fact most people can trace their family lines back to someone important even if it were just a lesser noble. So your family history doesn't make you special because pretty much all of us have royal ancestors if you dig deep enough. There is still a Melville castle in Scotland today. Melvin is an Irish surname of Melville so they would have been like my family's richer cousins back in the day. It would be interesting to visit. But I wouldn't go there acting like I had any rights to anything or expect special treatment. I would be just another tourist. My arm of the family is too far removed in my opinion. But they may not see it that way and like give me a free tour or whatever. That would be kind of unfair to the other people who have to pay. I probably wouldn't even tell anyone that I have the genealogy papers that connect me to them.
Lmao even the British think its ridiculous
As an American, I've never understood why the brits would want someone who dresses like a chess piece to be the head of state
Englishman in favour of the monarchy.
I see some political benefits for it, not having to consider reelection, His Majesty is afforded a lot more of a long term view and same could be said for the house of lords
Second is it being ancient , seems to work fine, why change it.
There's a phrase about if you don't understand why something is there, you should be the last person to change it.
Just a couple notes, there are plenty of people who are far more articulate with it.
@@oliverrowland2725it doesn’t work fine when people are starving in the country yet these people who’ve never worked get to live a cushy life. Plus everyone else has to pay a tax on their inheritance but they don’t. Also don’t you guys have to elect prime ministers anyways?
@@OpossumOnTheMoon we vote for the party, the prime minister is typically head of the party is chosen to be prime minister, see the last few months where there have been 3 prime ministers in the span of 60 days. No general election.
As for the people starving, the crown does not control the markets and it has no duty to do so.
That would be closer to parliament, even then I'd say it goes beyond the proper remit of parliament.
@@oliverrowland2725 but parliament would have more funding to provide help for them if the crown wasn’t hoarding millions (if not billions) of dollars.
Maybe I’m not understanding, but since you hold a vote anyways for a party how is that any harder than just doing that without having a monarch? The monarch’s (as I’ve been told) have very little political power anyways so it sounds like parliament and the prime minister run the country anyways.
@@OpossumOnTheMoon any arguement of any state body hoarding money means little when it's a fiat currency.
The political powers of modern monarchs I'd say are seldom understood as they seldom if ever have any impact on common politics.
Another oft forgotten role of the monarch is the supreme governor of the church of England. Tit for tat I'd consider more important than the pope
Never thought I'd see a British person so openly despised by his own culture and tradition.
You are mistaken. Complaining about those in power is peak British culture. Alex is actually a true patriot for trashing the queen and what she represents. Only a brainwashed monarchy simp would claim that being complacent and embracing your position as an inferior is british culture...
a lot of british people are they just dont openly speak up about it bc of yk jail
@@dumbtch-lk5yrYou’re free to express anything you want in Britain, even though the law doesn’t allow “treason” or whatever blah blah blah it hasn’t and will never be actually used
@@The_Chicken_One You are wrong. At this point in time, if you are a Christian you can actually get arrested for just praying silently.
@@GerhardtRoossay more please
Respect is earned it's not given which is why I don't respect all old people blindly I don't respect judges blindly I don't respect cops blindly and I don't respect royalty blindly either.
"Higher than what?"
Not me
this feels like more of us not being royals then them being royals. Next thing you will be saying is we should get rid of the appreciation of art, cause its just paintings, and their are bigger problems, like climate change. The royal family are figure heads of history, and i dont believe they cause problems. Its amazing how people just want history to go away if it don't fit modern view.
Side note: this topic is low hanging fruit, of course the monarch is pointless, but its presents today has never been a issue, humans are the issue
Getting rid of terms like highness is just idiotic, at the end of the day, whether its president or other term, he will always be more important than other people, thus superior or higher.
The 'Royals' are and always were parasites feeding off and oppressing the real, working class people... If anything in all fairness it makes them lower!
Don't get suckered in by the glitz and glamour, it's all just an illusion bought with bloodshed and corruption to blind ignorant fools to what true class really is.
Correct. Just like cultures have customs to respect your elders. Calling someone "sir" for example, is similar. This modern attitude means we have a lot of disrespectful young twats running around. People need to be humbled more.
@@debuthunter5389 Yes, they do.
Starting with politicians.
So young royal should call elder citizen "highness". Your analogy is stupid and you are boot licker.@@debuthunter5389
@@debuthunter5389you are the disrespectful one. The king is the disrespectful one.
He is superior because of who his ancestors happened to be? Monarchy is lunacy even in the absence of incest
This is only the second video I’ve seen from this channel and it’s already clear he sucks the joy out of every subject he speaks on. I cannot imagine how draining it would be to have an actual conversation with the guy.
I noticed that too!
I am in a better mood after watching this.
Perhaps you are subpar at having fun?
@@SigFigNewtondude, if you feel energised at the sheer vapid conversation he gives then I suggest you see a doctor.
Was there any joy in the idea of a monarchy in the first place?
British man discovers that living under a monarch makes him a subject of that monarch
He's been well aware. Many people forget about that fact and become complacent. He's simply reminding them of reality.
@lordredcrest1621 But _why_ though? What respect have they earned? Having lots of gold? They do LITERALLY NOTHING for the UK government, they hold power due to wealth and some batshit insane suggestion that God himself ordained their royaly, and they've proven to hide some HORRENDOUS secrets. The list goes on and on, but then I'd be here all day. I guess what I'm asking is, why on earth would any fully grown, critical thinking and intelligent person EVER willingly cuck themselves like that? What REAL reasons do you have for showing this family any respect? What have they ever done for the common man? What purpose do they serve in that fucking disgustingly large palace? The answer is none, and you only have that respect because you've been told to. You can't fathom not licking boots. People like you have no individuality.
I decided not to miss either the funeral or the coronation.
That's to say that while I studiously avoided both, I didn't miss them.
You spoke my thoughts down to a t
Your thoughts sound like a reddit copypasta lmao
@@anon4854 ok. If on what he said good. Idk what copy pasta is but I agree with his ideals shown here. Dunno what a forum and copypasta have to do with morality
Same I thought those exact words in that order loads of times
You fail to appreciate that vast majority of people can’t think for themselves.
Conservative media control
Well yeah, while I don't know exactly how the British monarchy works,
But here in Denmark the queen does not have any political power and only works as a diplomat and cultural and national powerhouse.
They are kinda the statue of liberty , a sign of culture and nationality and nothing else. But all of that is still important
And as far as I know the same can be said for the British monarchy
Beautifully explained.
I really like Denmark's way of handling their monarchy. They preserved the Danish history and still managed to become incredibly democratic. 🇩🇰
Constitutional monarchy is the best.
The monarchy should be abolished
Very funny
@lordredcrest1621 fr fr no cap ong
And you should be deported. I bet theres not a single drop of british blood in you
Sadly, when the British monarchy gets abolished, the British Empire will ultimately die. The British Empire is barely hanging onto his health after the World Wars and decolonization and given the fact that Queen Elizabeth II didn't do anything to save the British Empire. The British monarchy is the only source that keeps the British Empire from dying. After the monarchy gets abolished, Scotland will instantly gain its independence, and quite possibly Wales. Northern Ireland will be united with Ireland. Furthermore, each of the British Overseas Territories will claim their independences one by one or become terra nullis depending on indigenous population, and the Commonwealth Realms will become republics. After that, the new Republic of England will barely have any power compared to other countries, will lose quite a bit of population, and it can spark a wave of communism in Europe, as the UK is one of the key countries that support capitalism, along with Germany, France, Italy, and other strong EU states. With such a great reduction of power, England would no longer keep its legacy of not being invaded for long, as eventually, it could collapse into smaller states with even less power. The saddest part is that the British Empire would never get a chance to unite with Brittany, so Great Britain would never have a chance to unite with Little Britain before its death by monarchy abolition.
@@AlbertTheGamer-gk7snThe monarchy is the soul of the UK. a huge part of the british identity. If jt goes, the uk will go with it. British identity will be crushed and the former states of the uk will be weaker than they were before. The uk is benefiting Scotland, wales, northern ireland and england respectively. A dissolution of the union would not bode well for the citizens or the economy of those respective states.
I dont respect ANY form of tyranny.
Do you even understand what tyranny is? If so, how is it relevant to this video?
I’m a Republican and don’t support Monarchy but QE2 was an exceptional person who lived her life with honour and dignity. Not all can say this
It's so hard to live with honor and dignity as a billionaire who has no responsibilities whatsoever.
@@MrTheclevercat undeserved bilionaire* to be more precise..
Or maybe she was naturally a cold person who had no difficulty caring about no one and nothing but symbols, nor remaining neutral if she had no personal opinions to express. In that case there would be no great merit to appear "very dignified" for decades.
"I'm a Republican..."
It's okay buddy. Nobody's perfect.
Yes, like how she protected ger broods from scandals, or even frim justice system. Truly a remarkable woman
He'd be fun at parties.🎉
Your feelings are hurt by someone insulting a monarchy? I think you are confused
@@user-fx4hp2em8sand insulting God. Just an annoying guy in general.
@@CyclismHS How terrible! The world will end now that God has been insulted. What a truly despicable man.
@@user-fx4hp2em8s He never claimed the world was ending nor implied that kids comments in the video had any substantial impact on anything at all.
He implied he was an obnoxious bore, which is in all likelihood true since he's making edgy videos about cultural institutions from a perspective of a false intellectual
@@Droid6689 Edgy? I don't see anything edgy about this video.
I do wonder if Former Queen Elizabeth would even want to be treated better than the average civilian
Then step down
People always apply more value to deaths of well known people instead of a random joe.
Yeah it's not like they've supported everyone through good times and bad times lol
She was only well known due to being a queen.
@@unyieldingsarcasm2505 Yeah it's not like she was the head of The Church #dickhead
@@unyieldingsarcasm2505and for support the nation during the pandemic, and for cheering up people and clear up their worries daytimes of distress, and for helping the people when mr BJ is not there to help, and to become one of the main reason people come to the uk and bring in millions of pounds. Want me to go on ?
As someone in the U.S. she seems like a sweet and proper Grandmother, but I don't bow to other people...I may nod out of respect, but they have to have earned it.
That's the trick, to make you think that.
Why are people bitching about a monarchy that made the western world succesful
God save the King!
The British are too inbred and stupid to function without a monarchy. Just look how far they've fallen since. Monarchs are designed to keep the dirty godless peasants in line and the fact that the UK has let their poors get so out of control. It's ridiculous. British people are too stupid to run a country. They should have left it to the Monarchy
GOD SAVE THE KING!
May the crown live on forever
@@Specialistkay how does those boot taste?
Pheasant crumble pie
The monarchy doesn't rule Britain. We are a parliamentary democracy. This allows us to disassociate politics from the celebration of our country. Our leaders have to regularly stand before the monarch where they are held accountable to the whole country, not just their supporters. Humility for our leaders is the main thing stopping us falling into a tyrannical dictatorship. A separate head of state to the prime minister allows for citizens to criticise their own political leaders in the way other countries do not. Take the US for example, their country is fracturing into two camps, where they worship their leader and refuse to accept their ineptitudes and blindly follow them on both sides. They have no common ground to get behind. You think a Republic of England and Wales, an independent, People's socialist Republic of Scotland on the border, and an Ireland at war again is a better alternative than a United Kingdom?
The monarchy brings a huge net surplus to the budget of the UK, not just through tourism but by giving huge sums of money out of their private crown estate. They don't have to do this, but they do. Everything from post boxes to our legal justice system has a bit of gravitas to it because of a royal connection. But hey, let's just do away with ceremonies and paint the whole country grey.
The Queen never once thought she was better than anyone else, she was humble, she knew her duties and she carried them out until her final week in her 90s. But hey if you want to usher in a future where someone like Tony Blair and Rishi Sunak is a 4 or 5+ term President with no one to keep them in check be my guest, but don't complain to me if you end up in a gulag.
Well said. Very well said!!
Totally agree.
There's a lot to unpack in general here, but I'll start with this: "The monarchy brings a huge net surplus to the budget of the UK, not just through tourism but by giving huge sums of money out of their private crown estate. They don't have to do this, but they do."
Now, fine sir, here is the question I must ask you: why does the monarchy deserve ANY of the money brought about by tourism, or ANY taxpayer money? For simply existing? The royal families assets were gained by slaughtering, stealing, and colonizing. Why should we have any moral obligation to protect the thieves' descendants their rights to keep what their ancestors stole? And how is it somehow morally upright of them to donate some of these profits to the country they leech off of?
You claim that the monarchy brings about a huge net sum for the UK, but abolishing the monarchy won't make this money magically disappear: tourists and assets will still exist. The money can simply go directly to the government, without the royals skimming off the top.
I realize this argument is completely futile and you will never change your opinion, but alas, I respond.
@@jacksonsmith2955 This is a hard one to answer. I also have concerns in my country over stolen assets. Loads of our wealthy inhabitants have gained off the misery of others. Some of these mega wealthy individuals have status that a police officer, paramedic, teacher or nurse can only dream of. It is like money brings respect. This should not be. But we do not live in a utopia instead a dystopia. As for a constitutional monarchy; the alternative is a constitutional Republic. I look at the USA and quake at times. Please no one hate on me for this post. By the way I loved the USA last time I was there. Peace out.
@@jacksonsmith2955you talk about the crown as if they are unique, there are oligarchs who probably don’t deserve their wealth in every single country, In every country there are powerful people who exploit the peoples who live in them. However in Britain they have a crown on their head and actually provide something to their people; pride. People like the monarchy because the monarchy unites everyone. Every couple try on earth has plundered and looted and starved and killed. But The UK is the only one to relinquish their power and return ti their island. Does that mean colonialism is morally right? No. But back then everybody did it. Every race has done it. But the english were the only ones to stop it.
We can’t call Lizzy “highness” anymore since she is 6 feet under, in a box
Certainly higher than you. Bet she didnt take pleasure in making insulting youtube comments, pretty sad really. That alone means she is 'higher' than you, even now.
Not underground. Still in a box.
@@klausschwab4019 what part of that comment was insulting?
@@MrCCFCfan Are you thick? LOL
@@klausschwab4019 the irony of you saying that after saying "bet she didn't take pleasure in making insulting youtube comments" is hilarious. There was no insult in that comment so no I'm not thick. I think you definitely are though, or perhaps you're just soft.
When George Washington became the first U.S. president, there was discussion over how to address him. Highness and Majesty were suggested, but he shunned such terms and instead chose simply Mr. President.
I would've just said "just call me George"
King. Queen. President. Prime minister. Celebrity. God. We all need someone to follow.
Who gave the redditor a camera and TH-cam access?
Bro is also a communist 💀
Some people get through school and decide to speak proper English. Some Redditors try to imitate them to sound smart (and I can't blame them).
Maybe they seem similar, but I'm afraid this one is of the former category.
I'm of the latter though LMAO
Your mom
how's the gaming channel going?
Great job ignoring the point and just insult someone
Its crazy that people think theyre above others just cause their family tree is built like a wreath
Monarch sacrifice there freedom to be à head à state. They sacrifice most of there life. So the People can use them as a model of stability. In time of hapiness or crisies. People are In need of a leader and someone to represent them.The criticism here just sound like a ego trip.
@@luiscluzano2436 shut the fuck up lmao, you cannot be serious
@@luiscluzano2436 Billions of people are getting by fine without a hereditary monarch. If you want a figure head to serve as “model of stability” look at the ceremonial presidents in Germany or Ireland, etc. who perform a ceremonial national role apart from the political Prime Minister.
@@cautera3403 Even Germans have no idea who the president of germany is.
Written by a true brokie
I get it and can agree that having one sole "ruler" is such an outdated concept for a government institution when in reality it's a figure head to take the majority of the blame while the read scum bags in back room politics get away mostly unscathed.
But the history of the Queen, this particular Queen was fantastic, far more memorable than any other of her family outside of gossip magazines.