imagine changing the head of state, the absolute final word on the most important matters in a nation, every couple of years or so. And also deciding on that person in a popularity contest run by PR firms
One of the reasons why the Queen (and now King Charles) was so effective on the international stage is that she had been thoroughly briefed weekly on all inter governmental events, happenings, etc for decades, and reportedly was pretty good at taking this all in and understanding it. Those weekly chats with the PM aren't just for tea and cakes either I'm sure. For example, if Eisenhower had made a promise to the UK through her in 1958, she remembered it. And if, say, Obama said something to contradict that in 2012, she would not have been afraid to ask him if the USA was reneging on the promise given all those decades earlier. (There was a newspaper report some years ago that she had in fact done just this, though it was not laboured upon because it was a just a mistake). And when it really comes down to it, who out there is prepared to offend a charming elderly lady who has just thrown one of the best parties ever for you and your kin? In short, in doing diplomatic business with the UK, one was in fact doing diplomatic business with the Queen. And she was by a very long way the longest serving, most experienced diplomat in the world who knew more about everyone else than anyone else did, and she would in effect also have been playing an active role in the Government's approaches to other countries. And KC3 I gather has been similarly briefed for decades too. Succession planning, but only more so. In terms of dismissing Parliament, the "monarch" has acted in this regard twice in my lifetime. I use quotes, because actually it was the governors of Australia and Canada (the people appointed to represent the Monarch in those countries). The governor of Australia dismissed parliament and forced a general election to break the stalemate between political parties (1973?). And the governor of Canada refused to call an election after the prime minister lost a confidence vote, forcing the politicians to settle their differences on the budget (2005?). Both times it was highly controversial (and still is in some respects), but both times it worked out well. For example, Canada was forced to sort its budget issues fast, and pretty much got things sorted by the time the financial crisis hit in 2008. In this role the Monarch effectively is acting like a lot of other countries' Presidents. Only the USA and France in the democratic world are slightly odd in having Presidents with more than that limited (but essential) power.
One of the first things King Charles III did was indicate he would continue his mother's approach of HAVING ULTIMATE POWER yet using no power whatsoever. The genius of the British system is that each branch of government can cripple the others but they all agree not to. Like four panthers all agreeing not to tear the others to shreds
the great thing about the crown having these powers and not using them or having any reason to do so is that a politician can't have them and use them for corrupt reasons or to stay in power and usurp democracy.
Not correct. We were British Subjects until the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force on 1st January 1983. Prior to that we held the nationality of 'British Subject. Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies'. From 1st January 1983 we became 'British Citizens'.
@@Ben-xe8ps It's always better to check this sort of thing before posting it. S. 1 (1) of the British Nationality Act 1948 says: "British nationality by virtue of citizenship (1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject". The exception in subsection (3) applied only to "Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon [sic]". Anyone born (etc.) in the UK became "a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies". I was born in 1952 and have never been anything but a British citizen.
@@pabmusic1 Did you actually ever hold a UK passport prior to 1983? If you did your nationality would have been shown as 'British Subject: Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.' The term 'British Citizen' did not even exist prior to 1st January 1983. Therefore, prior to 1st January 1983, we were both British Subjects AND Citizens of the UK and Colonies, but NOT British Citizens! What you have posted above would also appear to confirm that you were a British Subject! The main purpose of this 1948 act was to create separate nationalities for the inhabitants of the UK and the former Dominions in order for them to have the nationality of their own country in addition to remaining British Subjects.
@@Ben-xe8ps For anyone born in the UK their status became 'British citizen' under the 1948 Act. No question about that. The continued use of 'British subject' (which was a wider concept and didn't confer the same legal status as 'citizen') made no difference to British citizens, whether it was in their passport or not. Oh - and you couldn't get a British passport after 1948 unless you were a 'British citizen'. "British subject" was not enough.
JJLA, you should stop the videos if Simon Whistler is in them. He doesnt really do his research. Like the fact that the 'Magna Carta' was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king/queen and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king/queen from exploiting their power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself. So in the UK they are subject to the same laws as the common man regarding crimes.
In the UK sure. This dude is joking about trump who was basically allowed to escape his insurrectionist crimes (although still has 34 convictions) basically trump started a riot at the capitol and succeeded in delaying the vote for the first time ever, he was trying to replace the real selectors with his chosen fake electors to get them to choose him over biden who won. This is literally a facist insurrection and similar to what happened in 1930s Germany during H rise to power @@xKynOx trump DID NOT deny any of this even in court and only asked for presidential immunity which was partially upheld meaning they can't INVESTIGATE crimes commited by the president in the usa right now. Meaning trump could become a dictator since none of his 'illegal' actions can be investigated.
Our Monarchy long ago learned painful lessons from the French, given our long history with France, and they realised the people could and can easily decide they don't want them. So there is in effect an "entente cordiale" by which our royal family operate for the public good, and I accept that many will dissent from this view. When our late great Queen Elizabeth passed away, there was a seamless and instant transfer of power from one Head of State to the next, something that you guys might dream of. On balance and accepting there are many arguments to the contrary, I am content with our Monarchy, fairly benign as it is...
A psychopath becoming king of England is basically the plot of the first Johnny English film. By the way, Whistler is way off beam referring to all Brits as "subjects" - with vanishingly few exceptions,that hasn't been the case since 1949. We're citizens of the UK.
So it's a movie about trump being president in the USA after the recent supreme court decision to ignore the 14th amendment he is a defacto king. The USA cannot investigate the president anymore to even decide if a crime was commited. This means trump could literally kill people as president and because he can't be investigated it's basically legal
Not correct. We were British Subjects until the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force on 1st January 1983. Prior to that we held the nationality of 'British Subject. Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies'. From 1st January 1983 we became 'British Citizens'.
14:15 it's characteristic of the parliamentary system that it's much harder for the majority of legislature to be opposed to the executive, since the executive is, on the whole, drawn from the legislature. So there are fewer deadlocks. And it's the Speaker who referees business in the House of Commons. The Speaker, despite being an elected member, is expected to be an impartial champion of the parliamentary process. He/she is not the leader of the majority, as in the US, and notionally suspends any political allegiance. The monarch is not allowed in the House of Commons. It didn't turn out too well for the last one that tried that on.
The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy. So the concepts of "The Crown" and "The State" are often interchangeable. Can "The State" declare war? yes. Can Charles Windsor declare war? I don't think so. In practice these powers are excersised by the Prime Minister.
Simon Whistler presents some very slick and interesting videos but for an Englishman he appears to have little understanding of his native language. In a recent video he pronounced Field Marshal Auchinleck (Orkinleck) as ‘Ooshinleck’ and had some difficulty with Aneurin Bevan’s first name. These may be people unknown to the vast majority of his US audience but I cannot believe that he would pointlessly mispronounce them deliberately. In addition when referring to Oliver Cromwell’s great military achievements he compared them to Washington or Bolivar.
All those powers are exercised through the ministers who "advise" the monarch, they bear all responsibility and answer to parliament. Think of it like the monarch having a bunch of executive crowns that holds all the powers, the monarch then places those on the heads of the ministers who then act on the monarchs behalf. So the powers of the crown is permanently delegated to these executive crowns.
He was ok until he got badly injured during a joust were his leg never recovered from it and only got worse over the years and his temper also , plus of course he was under pressure to have children ( more so males ) to pass on his crown . Other wise he was just a nutter 😂😂
Much of what is suggested in this video although correct is not realistic. If the King were to appoint somebody as Prime Minister who could not command a majority in the House of Commons, then that individual would be unable to govern as any attempt to pass any laws would fail as we would assume that the Members of Parliament would vote against them. If the King were to repeatedly dissolve parliament a new general election would have to be called each time and the King has no power to influence how people vote. The King could NOT make laws by simply appointing Ministers. A law has to be passed by Parliament and he cannot appoint Members of Parliament. The King could, I suppose, put pressure on the Prime Minister who in turn could put pressure on their MP's to vote in favour of the law. Although the Monarch does not require a driving licence, both the late Queen and current King certainly passed their driving tests and held licences prior to their ascending to the Throne. Whilst true that the Monarch cannot be prosecuted (as all prosecutions are in their name and they would therefore have to prosecute themselves) I am sure that any serious misbehaviour could be dealt with by alternate means, such as having them declared mentally ill.
It didn't do those responsible any good either, mind you, as they were all eventually hunted down (even if already dead, as in Cromwell's case!). Not much consolation if you've already lost your head, it has to be admitted!
When DJT went on a state visit to ER2, he broke all the rules of normal etiquette, never mind the manner expected in the presence of Royalty. I may not be a fan of Donald, but I found myself blushing for him. Gaff after gaff after gaff. Of course, Elizabeth kept the show on the rails. No doubt she kicked her shoes off with a sigh of relief after he left. I wonder if the ornaments were all glued in position. If you would like to see how Elizabeth made a wonderful impression on her state visit to the Republic of Ireland, have a look at th-cam.com/video/4Zb_yPeR-Gw/w-d-xo.html
10:00 we Brits shouldn't really tell you this, but in 1976 she told her guards that she wanted a special do (british for party). That guard misheard her and launched a coup.
I do like ow the monarch does have this power but has enough restraint not to wield it (or try to). I do think the Royals would do a better job than recent governments at running the country, although i'm not technically a monarchist, i do like and enjoy democracy.
Henry v111 started the Church of England,,,Anglican Church...He was originally Catholic. I believe he wouldn't toe the line so they kicked him out....He started his own and that is why the Reigning Monarch is always head of the church of England...
14:19 before the Kevin that shall not be named became House of Cards president, the original imagined a ruthless man becoming UK PM. Series 2 imagined Francis Urquhart battling wits against an activist new king. Spoilers: the king loses all his power when he alienates half the uk en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Play_the_King
there was a tv show i think called Charles 3rd - based on the premise that Charles would use his authority to take over the govt and cause a civil war (kind of like how the og King Charles did). its pretty crap though wouldn't recommend.
This is a bit of a misrepresentation. Royal power has not been enacted for 300 years. If they did the U.K. would quickly become a republic. That is why we had several civil wars in the 16th century to counter royal power.
It probably easiest to understand the Monarch as the Constitution, all powers are defined and vested in Government, courts, military etc via it. Which is why rather than mourning his mother's death King Charles went to all four home nations collecting oaths of fielty to ensure the new monarch retained the power and influence.
England was one of the only major powers in Europe which did not suffer a revolution during the 18th or 19th century. They did this by the royal family seeing what was going on in Europe and willingly giving more rights and benefits to the working classes. Parliament and the other governmental structures were created as a check on royal power, but they were often seen as just a new nobility: rich industrialists taking advantage of workers instead of rich landowners doing it. The result of all this is that (a) the Royalty never really gave up any power, they just let other people start doing things on their behalf, and (b) a lot of citizens see royals as an ally who protects them from government overreach, despite the fact that the King or Queen is essentially the head of government. They maintain power by not using it, but they've had it taken from them, officially.
As someone who doesn't like the monarchy, I would never wave the flags then go home and grumble. I would either stay home or outright protest. And as for them having power and no using it, they you their influence behind the scenes. If they ever outright started throwing their weight around there would be an uprising.
It's very smart of the monarch to not wield their power too much, it didn't go well in the 1600's when a monarch did ride roughshod over everyone. Today's monarchy are cleverer than that. Sorry to cheapen the discussion, but I was waiting for you to say "Our souls" 😂
As the Head of the Church, The Monarch is basically like our Pope😂. Also The Monarch is crowned in a Christian ceremony by an Archbishop and is seen as a Divine ceremony. As Christians believe that Monarchs are chosen by God. You should watch The Crown, specifically the speech between Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth. Whilst not strictly true, it has a good speech about the whole religion and Monarchy spiel
It's hard to explain but I'll try. The excessive of power in England (and the U.K.) is both ancient and modern. Technically all power comes from God and invested in "the crown" (an ethereal entity). The Monarch is the living embodiment of the crown, selected by God (by dint of birth) and anointed by Him through Coronation. The Monarch delegates his/her powers (the crown prerogative) to the Prime Minister and/or Cabinet (not the ruling, just the cabinet -ministers, who, although selected by the Prime Minister are legally appointed by the Monarch, as the the PM his/herself) however the Monarch reserves the right exercise the powers of The Crown him/herself as appointed by God. As stated they exceed aw their right not to do so for fear of the reaction of the people and causing a second civil war/revolution. However, in times of emergency they could do so and therefore are our last line of defence against both foreign powers and domestic dictators.
The advantage of a monarchy is that the monarch wants to leave a strong country for their heirs and that they have usually been well trained by the previous monarch. Tge Prime Minister is merely there to be a servant to the monarch. His position is far more ceremonial than that of the monarch.
Since Magna Carta nobody is above the law. The last time this was called was the British Civil War and King Charles, a man worse than you know who, was tried, found guilty and executed. But goodness he had it comming; having been arrested for starting a civil war, he then started another from in jail he he ;-)
The Royal Family are supposed not to have anything to do with politics. Yet on a WEEKLY BASIS, the Prime Minister has a meeting with the Monarch. Make up your own mind about that!
No, she was Head of the Commonwealth, not Queen of the Commonwealth. You do not have to be a king or queen to be head of the Commonwealth: it just happens that all those in that position so far have been. She was queen at the time of her death of 15 member states (UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Jamaica, etc.) in the Commonwealth but not of the majority. Republics don't have queens e.g. India.
@@Thee_PenguinYou are wide of the mark: there are 56 Commonwealth countries and it's not a case of countries being "left in the Commonwealth" as the Commonwealth is not shrinking but growing - countries which were never part of the British Empire have joined in recent decades (colonies of other colonial empires such as Portugal, France and Belgium). There is a list of a dozen other countries which have expressed an interest in joining. So that is 15 countries out of 56 whose monarch is the same as the UK - not the majority at all. Some of the other Commonwealth countries are monarchies too but their king or queen is someone other than our monarch in the UK.
I want a film about a secret department that has to go around covering up all of The Queens crimes because she just goes around stealing stuff & punching people
Just watch USA politics, this is basically reality after the 14 amendment was ignore by the supreme court. Actually it's worse they don't even need covered up anymore now that the SC said that presidents CANNOT be investigated for crimes. This means trump could literally murder people claim it to be presidential duty then face NO investigation nevermind charges. An example of this is trump is clearly guilty of insurrection on January 6th and a coup with the fake electors scheme which is all true with 900 pages of evidence in the January 6th report. Trump DOES NOT deny these crimes in court, his legal defence is to ask for immunity against investigation and that was upheld so yea trump got away with trying to destroy the USA basically
It may sound strange to an American but having such a long standing non political Head of State is a very good thing. Queen Elizabeth worked for us from the age of 16 up until her death at the age of 96. Eighty years!!! And WAY longer than I have been alive. About 80% of us approve of having a Monarch (as long as they behave themselves 😉) and wish to keep things that way. 🙂
Not over your soul, that responsibility is all on you. You choose the behaviour, you choose the consequences, and that applies to everyone on Earth because God is the final Judge, whether you believe in Him or not. God cares about HIS church, the one Jesus came to establish and which is still thriving today. It is only through His Church that we can learn about His teachings and live His commandments.
@@nicksykes4575 The one that had Peter as the Head of the Church on Earth. The one that existed for more than 1500 years before anyone broke away. The one that still stands today and has Peter’s successor as its Head. The one that came out of Judaism when the Messiah arrived. According to google, there are 45,000 Christian denominations, where Jesus came to set up One.
You have no idea at all how these ppl found themselves in power. The 'small local gangster' type person you are imagining were all killed off. You also have no idea how far these ppl claim their right to rule from. Where do you think the term blue bloods come from? You have merely presented the widely held common myth view. You need to do a lot more research on all this and not on YT!
The video is misleading; the monarchy is not above the law. For those unfamiliar with the legislation, refer to the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (10 & 11 Geo. 6. c. 44) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that allowed, for the first time, civil actions against the Crown to be brought in the same way as against any other party.
8:35 that's actually incorrect. It's the heir to the throne that gets first dibs on any aquatic mammals washed ashore Hence the title: Prince of Whales.
Oh dear Simon ! " Queen/King of ENGLAND " !!?? Queen/King of the UK/BRITAIN !! And Simon. Why the use of letter Z instead of S in your onscreen captions !? That's a WAX WORK at Madame Tussauds !! "Above the law" . Just like Donald Trump !! The monarch can't take Richard Branson's island as it's NOT in British waters. JJ. The way your mind works and things you say baffle me sometimes !! Have you ever thought about what you say... before saying it !? Engage brain cell before speaking !!
"The monarch has the right to claim ownership to any mute swan - the all-white, orange-beaked version - in the open waters of Britain, but in practice they exercise this right only in the Thames around Windsor." (Wikipedia)
@@ianwalker5842 I remember quite a few years ago a family getting in to trouble for catching swans to eat. I can't remember their nationality, but they were up in court if i remember rightly.
I'm disappointed with Simon in this video. The Queen of England? The monarch can't do anything without government approval. Most of what Simon is saying is utter nonsense.
imagine changing the head of state, the absolute final word on the most important matters in a nation, every couple of years or so. And also deciding on that person in a popularity contest run by PR firms
That picture of The Queen and Philip is from Madame Tussaud’s wax museum. London. They are full sized waxworks figures. 😂
Yes a bit disrespectful. You would have thought he could have used a real photograph.
@@Ben-xe8psGiven how many things the channel he’s reacting to gets wrong, including in this video, I’m not surprised they used a photo of a waxwork.
One of the reasons why the Queen (and now King Charles) was so effective on the international stage is that she had been thoroughly briefed weekly on all inter governmental events, happenings, etc for decades, and reportedly was pretty good at taking this all in and understanding it. Those weekly chats with the PM aren't just for tea and cakes either I'm sure.
For example, if Eisenhower had made a promise to the UK through her in 1958, she remembered it. And if, say, Obama said something to contradict that in 2012, she would not have been afraid to ask him if the USA was reneging on the promise given all those decades earlier. (There was a newspaper report some years ago that she had in fact done just this, though it was not laboured upon because it was a just a mistake).
And when it really comes down to it, who out there is prepared to offend a charming elderly lady who has just thrown one of the best parties ever for you and your kin?
In short, in doing diplomatic business with the UK, one was in fact doing diplomatic business with the Queen. And she was by a very long way the longest serving, most experienced diplomat in the world who knew more about everyone else than anyone else did, and she would in effect also have been playing an active role in the Government's approaches to other countries.
And KC3 I gather has been similarly briefed for decades too. Succession planning, but only more so.
In terms of dismissing Parliament, the "monarch" has acted in this regard twice in my lifetime. I use quotes, because actually it was the governors of Australia and Canada (the people appointed to represent the Monarch in those countries). The governor of Australia dismissed parliament and forced a general election to break the stalemate between political parties (1973?). And the governor of Canada refused to call an election after the prime minister lost a confidence vote, forcing the politicians to settle their differences on the budget (2005?). Both times it was highly controversial (and still is in some respects), but both times it worked out well. For example, Canada was forced to sort its budget issues fast, and pretty much got things sorted by the time the financial crisis hit in 2008.
In this role the Monarch effectively is acting like a lot of other countries' Presidents. Only the USA and France in the democratic world are slightly odd in having Presidents with more than that limited (but essential) power.
Kerr's Cur
Passports and driving licences are technically issued by the Monarch.
One of the first things King Charles III did was indicate he would continue his mother's approach of HAVING ULTIMATE POWER yet using no power whatsoever.
The genius of the British system is that each branch of government can cripple the others but they all agree not to. Like four panthers all agreeing not to tear the others to shreds
the great thing about the crown having these powers and not using them or having any reason to do so is that a politician can't have them and use them for corrupt reasons or to stay in power and usurp democracy.
or four ferraris driving slowly.
The police also swear allegiance to the monarch.
We have not been 'subjects' since 1948. We are 'British citizens'.
This guy gets things wrong all the time, I wish people wouldn’t take his videos as gospel.
Not correct. We were British Subjects until the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force on 1st January 1983. Prior to that we held the nationality of 'British Subject. Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies'. From 1st January 1983 we became 'British Citizens'.
@@Ben-xe8ps It's always better to check this sort of thing before posting it. S. 1 (1) of the British Nationality Act 1948 says:
"British nationality by virtue of citizenship
(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject".
The exception in subsection (3) applied only to "Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon [sic]". Anyone born (etc.) in the UK became "a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies".
I was born in 1952 and have never been anything but a British citizen.
@@pabmusic1 Did you actually ever hold a UK passport prior to 1983? If you did your nationality would have been shown as 'British Subject: Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.' The term 'British Citizen' did not even exist prior to 1st January 1983.
Therefore, prior to 1st January 1983, we were both British Subjects AND Citizens of the UK and Colonies, but NOT British Citizens!
What you have posted above would also appear to confirm that you were a British Subject!
The main purpose of this 1948 act was to create separate nationalities for the inhabitants of the UK and the former Dominions in order for them to have the nationality of their own country in addition to remaining British Subjects.
@@Ben-xe8ps For anyone born in the UK their status became 'British citizen' under the 1948 Act. No question about that. The continued use of 'British subject' (which was a wider concept and didn't confer the same legal status as 'citizen') made no difference to British citizens, whether it was in their passport or not.
Oh - and you couldn't get a British passport after 1948 unless you were a 'British citizen'. "British subject" was not enough.
JJLA, you should stop the videos if Simon Whistler is in them.
He doesnt really do his research.
Like the fact that the 'Magna Carta' was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king/queen and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king/queen from exploiting their power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself. So in the UK they are subject to the same laws as the common man regarding crimes.
I don't think he's actually British.
Yay, this is the one I recommended to you after you first "what do the royals do" reaction. Looking forward to this one
Imagine that level of power in the tiny hands of someone in your country? A dictator, say...with immunity. Terrifying.
And a spray tanned face !
Nah we have had civil wars before they happen
In the UK sure. This dude is joking about trump who was basically allowed to escape his insurrectionist crimes (although still has 34 convictions) basically trump started a riot at the capitol and succeeded in delaying the vote for the first time ever, he was trying to replace the real selectors with his chosen fake electors to get them to choose him over biden who won. This is literally a facist insurrection and similar to what happened in 1930s Germany during H rise to power @@xKynOx trump DID NOT deny any of this even in court and only asked for presidential immunity which was partially upheld meaning they can't INVESTIGATE crimes commited by the president in the usa right now. Meaning trump could become a dictator since none of his 'illegal' actions can be investigated.
Our Monarchy long ago learned painful lessons from the French, given our long history with France, and they realised the people could and can easily decide they don't want them. So there is in effect an "entente cordiale" by which our royal family operate for the public good, and I accept that many will dissent from this view. When our late great Queen Elizabeth passed away, there was a seamless and instant transfer of power from one Head of State to the next, something that you guys might dream of. On balance and accepting there are many arguments to the contrary, I am content with our Monarchy, fairly benign as it is...
Very, very tiny hands. Abnormally small hands.
And you know what they say about men with small hands, yes?
A psychopath becoming king of England is basically the plot of the first Johnny English film.
By the way, Whistler is way off beam referring to all Brits as "subjects" - with vanishingly few exceptions,that hasn't been the case since 1949. We're citizens of the UK.
So it's a movie about trump being president in the USA after the recent supreme court decision to ignore the 14th amendment he is a defacto king. The USA cannot investigate the president anymore to even decide if a crime was commited. This means trump could literally kill people as president and because he can't be investigated it's basically legal
Not correct. We were British Subjects until the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force on 1st January 1983. Prior to that we held the nationality of 'British Subject. Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies'. From 1st January 1983 we became 'British Citizens'.
14:15 it's characteristic of the parliamentary system that it's much harder for the majority of legislature to be opposed to the executive, since the executive is, on the whole, drawn from the legislature. So there are fewer deadlocks. And it's the Speaker who referees business in the House of Commons. The Speaker, despite being an elected member, is expected to be an impartial champion of the parliamentary process. He/she is not the leader of the majority, as in the US, and notionally suspends any political allegiance. The monarch is not allowed in the House of Commons. It didn't turn out too well for the last one that tried that on.
The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy. So the concepts of "The Crown" and "The State" are often interchangeable. Can "The State" declare war? yes. Can Charles Windsor declare war? I don't think so. In practice these powers are excersised by the Prime Minister.
That thing about committing a crime anywhere in the world isn't unique to her but applies to all diplomats.
Simon Whistler presents some very slick and interesting videos but for an Englishman he appears to have little understanding of his native language. In a recent video he pronounced Field Marshal Auchinleck (Orkinleck) as ‘Ooshinleck’ and had some difficulty with Aneurin Bevan’s first name. These may be people unknown to the vast majority of his US audience but I cannot believe that he would pointlessly mispronounce them deliberately. In addition when referring to Oliver Cromwell’s great military achievements he compared them to Washington or Bolivar.
The word of the Monarch is the law, by definition anything done by the crown could be held as lawful;.
All those powers are exercised through the ministers who "advise" the monarch, they bear all responsibility and answer to parliament. Think of it like the monarch having a bunch of executive crowns that holds all the powers, the monarch then places those on the heads of the ministers who then act on the monarchs behalf. So the powers of the crown is permanently delegated to these executive crowns.
Trump is above the law in the USA 😂
Well, he likes to think he is.
@@stevefrost64The Supreme Court recently ruled on Presidential immunity. If Trump wins in November he can do whatever he likes.
Henry VIII was a bit of a psychopath.
He’s the reason why a lot of these powers are wielded by the monarch in the first place.
He was ok until he got badly injured during a joust were his leg never recovered from it and only got worse over the years and his temper also , plus of course he was under pressure to have children ( more so males ) to pass on his crown .
Other wise he was just a nutter 😂😂
JJ, there was something weirdly satisfying (or satanic) about repeatedly pressing the rewind key on that initial greeting of yours! 🤣
It's rather disturbing! 😮
15:35: yes all the power and they are totally chill
Don't disappoint them by throwing your tea in the harbour
US National Archives: A Welcome to Britain, 1943 Starring Burgess Meredith and featuring Bob Hope.
Much of what is suggested in this video although correct is not realistic. If the King were to appoint somebody as Prime Minister who could not command a majority in the House of Commons, then that individual would be unable to govern as any attempt to pass any laws would fail as we would assume that the Members of Parliament would vote against them. If the King were to repeatedly dissolve parliament a new general election would have to be called each time and the King has no power to influence how people vote. The King could NOT make laws by simply appointing Ministers. A law has to be passed by Parliament and he cannot appoint Members of Parliament. The King could, I suppose, put pressure on the Prime Minister who in turn could put pressure on their MP's to vote in favour of the law.
Although the Monarch does not require a driving licence, both the late Queen and current King certainly passed their driving tests and held licences prior to their ascending to the Throne.
Whilst true that the Monarch cannot be prosecuted (as all prosecutions are in their name and they would therefore have to prosecute themselves) I am sure that any serious misbehaviour could be dealt with by alternate means, such as having them declared mentally ill.
Being 'above the law' did not stop Charles I being executed. That fact was the main plank of his defence during his trial, but it did him no good.
It didn't do those responsible any good either, mind you, as they were all eventually hunted down (even if already dead, as in Cromwell's case!). Not much consolation if you've already lost your head, it has to be admitted!
Waheyyyy, you need to watch/react to more factboy (also known as simon whistler) and 'brain blaze' is top tier
The King is also Duke of Lancaster, also Duke of Normandy
Re the armed forces that is why an officer gets The Queen or Kings commission.
When DJT went on a state visit to ER2, he broke all the rules of normal etiquette, never mind the manner expected in the presence of Royalty. I may not be a fan of Donald, but I found myself blushing for him. Gaff after gaff after gaff. Of course, Elizabeth kept the show on the rails. No doubt she kicked her shoes off with a sigh of relief after he left. I wonder if the ornaments were all glued in position.
If you would like to see how Elizabeth made a wonderful impression on her state visit to the Republic of Ireland, have a look at
th-cam.com/video/4Zb_yPeR-Gw/w-d-xo.html
One of the U.K. papers has a story about trump and the late queen on front page and apparently she found him rude
It would be a short show. The monarch would be taken to the Tower and the monarchy abolished.
10:00 we Brits shouldn't really tell you this, but in 1976 she told her guards that she wanted a special do (british for party). That guard misheard her and launched a coup.
'The Queen of England'? Really Simon? Tut. Tut.
That's her primary title. queen of the United Kingdom is secondary
@@SirZanZa she had no title of queen of England the last queen to hold that title was Queen Anne 6 February 1665 -
1 August 1714
@@SirZanZathat's not true. It's been United Kingdom since the Act of Union.
The thing about psychopaths is you want them inside the tent peeing outwards, not outside the tent peeing inwards.
You have to remember that she’s the Head of the Church of England. That holds her accountable to God.
The power of absolute restraint
I do like ow the monarch does have this power but has enough restraint not to wield it (or try to).
I do think the Royals would do a better job than recent governments at running the country, although i'm not technically a monarchist, i do like and enjoy democracy.
3.49 is a waxwork figure.
Yep, the queen on the chess board has a whole lot of power!
Henry v111 started the Church of England,,,Anglican Church...He was originally Catholic. I believe he wouldn't toe the line so they kicked him out....He started his own and that is why the Reigning Monarch is always head of the church of England...
14:19 before the Kevin that shall not be named became House of Cards president, the original imagined a ruthless man becoming UK PM. Series 2 imagined Francis Urquhart battling wits against an activist new king.
Spoilers: the king loses all his power when he alienates half the uk
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Play_the_King
there was a tv show i think called Charles 3rd - based on the premise that Charles would use his authority to take over the govt and cause a civil war (kind of like how the og King Charles did). its pretty crap though wouldn't recommend.
A psychopath couldn't even run for government over here. We have enough trouble with the one's that aren't.
This is a bit of a misrepresentation. Royal power has not been enacted for 300 years. If they did the U.K. would quickly become a republic. That is why we had several civil wars in the 16th century to counter royal power.
It probably easiest to understand the Monarch as the Constitution, all powers are defined and vested in Government, courts, military etc via it. Which is why rather than mourning his mother's death King Charles went to all four home nations collecting oaths of fielty to ensure the new monarch retained the power and influence.
That's our souls . . . . .
The Queen IS the law.
Once there was a run on the banks, and they woke her up at 3am to declare a bank holiday.
England was one of the only major powers in Europe which did not suffer a revolution during the 18th or 19th century. They did this by the royal family seeing what was going on in Europe and willingly giving more rights and benefits to the working classes. Parliament and the other governmental structures were created as a check on royal power, but they were often seen as just a new nobility: rich industrialists taking advantage of workers instead of rich landowners doing it.
The result of all this is that (a) the Royalty never really gave up any power, they just let other people start doing things on their behalf, and (b) a lot of citizens see royals as an ally who protects them from government overreach, despite the fact that the King or Queen is essentially the head of government.
They maintain power by not using it, but they've had it taken from them, officially.
The monarch has immense power but that is given back to the people through their elected representatives.
I want to be a queen. Where do I sign? 🤣(That was interesting!)
It’s a waxwork!
The King of Canada can declare war on the King of Australia.
The last Queen of England was in 1707, before America fell off. Since Anne it's been Queens of Britain. (^Great^ Britain is the island).
As someone who doesn't like the monarchy, I would never wave the flags then go home and grumble. I would either stay home or outright protest.
And as for them having power and no using it, they you their influence behind the scenes. If they ever outright started throwing their weight around there would be an uprising.
The Queen/Kind owns every single British swan.
Not true
Only thames mute swans
6:27 Ah but the Queen's uncle was forced to abdicate. When did you last remove a president?
There is no Queen of England. Queen of the United Kingdom but the office of Queen of England no longer exists.
Passports and driving licences are issued in The Kings name so he doesnt need one
It's very smart of the monarch to not wield their power too much, it didn't go well in the 1600's when a monarch did ride roughshod over everyone. Today's monarchy are cleverer than that.
Sorry to cheapen the discussion, but I was waiting for you to say "Our souls" 😂
Queen of england is from past she was queen on the United kindom of Great Britain and Nother Ireland
As the Head of the Church, The Monarch is basically like our Pope😂. Also The Monarch is crowned in a Christian ceremony by an Archbishop and is seen as a Divine ceremony. As Christians believe that Monarchs are chosen by God. You should watch The Crown, specifically the speech between Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth. Whilst not strictly true, it has a good speech about the whole religion and Monarchy spiel
It's hard to explain but I'll try. The excessive of power in England (and the U.K.) is both ancient and modern. Technically all power comes from God and invested in "the crown" (an ethereal entity). The Monarch is the living embodiment of the crown, selected by God (by dint of birth) and anointed by Him through Coronation. The Monarch delegates his/her powers (the crown prerogative) to the Prime Minister and/or Cabinet (not the ruling, just the cabinet -ministers, who, although selected by the Prime Minister are legally appointed by the Monarch, as the the PM his/herself) however the Monarch reserves the right exercise the powers of The Crown him/herself as appointed by God.
As stated they exceed aw their right not to do so for fear of the reaction of the people and causing a second civil war/revolution. However, in times of emergency they could do so and therefore are our last line of defence against both foreign powers and domestic dictators.
There hasn’t been a King or Queen of England since 1 May 1707. It’s weird that the ‘Today I Found Out’ channel doesn’t know that. 😂
When she refused consent in 1999, Blair spitefully punished her by selling off the Royal Yacht Britannia.
No, the refusal was on the advice of the Labour Ministers.
If the monarch did oppose Parliament, most people would go along with it.
What planet are you on silly person.
9 other ignorant idiots on here who want to study the 1910 Parliament Act.
The advantage of a monarchy is that the monarch wants to leave a strong country for their heirs and that they have usually been well trained by the previous monarch. Tge Prime Minister is merely there to be a servant to the monarch. His position is far more ceremonial than that of the monarch.
Since Magna Carta nobody is above the law. The last time this was called was the British Civil War and King Charles, a man worse than you know who, was tried, found guilty and executed. But goodness he had it comming; having been arrested for starting a civil war, he then started another from in jail he he ;-)
The Royal Family are supposed not to have anything to do with politics. Yet on a WEEKLY BASIS, the Prime Minister has a meeting with the Monarch.
Make up your own mind about that!
In every country where the head of state is not also the head of government such meetings take place. It’s about keeping the head of state informed.
The Queen of England NO.....the Queen of the entire commonwealth YES
No, she was Head of the Commonwealth, not Queen of the Commonwealth. You do not have to be a king or queen to be head of the Commonwealth: it just happens that all those in that position so far have been.
She was queen at the time of her death of 15 member states (UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Jamaica, etc.) in the Commonwealth but not of the majority. Republics don't have queens e.g. India.
@@MrBulky992 I believe there are only 24 commonwealth countries left though....so 15 is still the majority
@@Thee_PenguinYou are wide of the mark: there are 56 Commonwealth countries and it's not a case of countries being "left in the Commonwealth" as the Commonwealth is not shrinking but growing - countries which were never part of the British Empire have joined in recent decades (colonies of other colonial empires such as Portugal, France and Belgium). There is a list of a dozen other countries which have expressed an interest in joining.
So that is 15 countries out of 56 whose monarch is the same as the UK - not the majority at all. Some of the other Commonwealth countries are monarchies too but their king or queen is someone other than our monarch in the UK.
@@MrBulky992 Ok, so I meant commonwealth 'realms'....that's where the 15 comes from. My mistake.
you just suggested another English civil war 🤣
Remember Queen Victoria loved a bit if Charlie and we had the biggest Empire the world has ever known then 👃👸
Not queen of England queen of united Kingdom which includes Scottish crown
The Queen was never like TRUMP, Nor any other people in positions of power...
I want a film about a secret department that has to go around covering up all of The Queens crimes because she just goes around stealing stuff & punching people
Just watch USA politics, this is basically reality after the 14 amendment was ignore by the supreme court. Actually it's worse they don't even need covered up anymore now that the SC said that presidents CANNOT be investigated for crimes. This means trump could literally murder people claim it to be presidential duty then face NO investigation nevermind charges. An example of this is trump is clearly guilty of insurrection on January 6th and a coup with the fake electors scheme which is all true with 900 pages of evidence in the January 6th report. Trump DOES NOT deny these crimes in court, his legal defence is to ask for immunity against investigation and that was upheld so yea trump got away with trying to destroy the USA basically
It may sound strange to an American but having such a long standing non political Head of State is a very good thing.
Queen Elizabeth worked for us from the age of 16 up until her death at the age of 96. Eighty years!!! And WAY longer than I have been alive.
About 80% of us approve of having a Monarch (as long as they behave themselves 😉) and wish to keep things that way. 🙂
No JJ, just say "America." It's fine, only Redditors really care if you if you call your country by the name that everybody in the Anglosphere uses
Not over your soul, that responsibility is all on you. You choose the behaviour, you choose the consequences, and that applies to everyone on Earth because God is the final Judge, whether you believe in Him or not. God cares about HIS church, the one Jesus came to establish and which is still thriving today. It is only through His Church that we can learn about His teachings and live His commandments.
Which one of the dozens of different denominational churches is his church? Because, although you can all be wrong, you can't all be right.
@@nicksykes4575 The one that had Peter as the Head of the Church on Earth. The one that existed for more than 1500 years before anyone broke away. The one that still stands today and has Peter’s successor as its Head. The one that came out of Judaism when the Messiah arrived. According to google, there are 45,000 Christian denominations, where Jesus came to set up One.
Monarchs have such power because they were originally small town gangsters, but they ended up taking over a country and now have to be civilised.
You have no idea at all how these ppl found themselves in power. The 'small local gangster' type person you are imagining were all killed off. You also have no idea how far these ppl claim their right to rule from. Where do you think the term blue bloods come from? You have merely presented the widely held common myth view. You need to do a lot more research on all this and not on YT!
dunno why you dislike putin so much when america started ww3
Sorry was not queen of England she was queen of great Britain and ni
The video is misleading; the monarchy is not above the law. For those unfamiliar with the legislation, refer to the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (10 & 11 Geo. 6. c. 44) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that allowed, for the first time, civil actions against the Crown to be brought in the same way as against any other party.
The first galatic empire will be british lol
Wax work 😂
The Queen of England referred to in the video, Queen Liz II has no power at all because she died nearly two years ago!
Telekinesis
8:35 that's actually incorrect.
It's the heir to the throne that gets first dibs on any aquatic mammals washed ashore
Hence the title: Prince of Whales.
The way England is being run at the moment I wish she would dissolve parliament.
@@dib000 slip of the key, he lol
Oh dear Simon ! " Queen/King of ENGLAND " !!?? Queen/King of the UK/BRITAIN !!
And Simon. Why the use of letter Z instead of S in your onscreen captions !?
That's a WAX WORK at Madame Tussauds !!
"Above the law" . Just like Donald Trump !!
The monarch can't take Richard Branson's island as it's NOT in British waters.
JJ. The way your mind works and things you say baffle me sometimes !! Have you ever thought about what you say... before saying it !? Engage brain cell before speaking !!
Even i didn't know she owned all the seabed's around the UK . . he didn't mention that the monarchy also owns all the swans in the UK too.
"The monarch has the right to claim ownership to any mute swan - the all-white, orange-beaked version - in the open waters of Britain, but in practice they exercise this right only in the Thames around Windsor." (Wikipedia)
@@ianwalker5842 I remember quite a few years ago a family getting in to trouble for catching swans to eat. I can't remember their nationality, but they were up in court if i remember rightly.
12:00, she's the same position over Anglicans as the Pope is over catholics.
What the queen/king does in the woods, I'm not going to tell you
This current government needs to be dissolved !!!
I'm disappointed with Simon in this video. The Queen of England? The monarch can't do anything without government approval. Most of what Simon is saying is utter nonsense.
not true at all. the government rules in her stead. meaning she lends her power. she can take that away at any point and go nuclear if she wanted.
No. The Monarch rules only with the conseñt of Parliament - that's what the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was about.
Simon does awful videos
You’re quite creepy.