Should Monarchies Still Exist in the 21st century? | Debate with J.J. McCullough
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 มิ.ย. 2021
- Watch J.J.'s video:
• The Case Against Monar...
CREDITS:
Charts & Narration: Matt Baker
usefulcharts.com/
Animation: Syawish Rehman
/ @almuqaddimahyt
Audio Editing: Jack Rackam
/ @jackrackam
Intro music: "Lord of the Land" by Kevin MacLeod and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license 4.0.
Available from incompetech.com
Watch J.J.'s video to the hear the "No" argument: th-cam.com/video/Aers_XT417M/w-d-xo.html
Thanks
No
👍
I think this question should be up to the societies that still have monarchs, the king of Thailand is obviously corrupt and problematic but the Queen of England brings in a lot of money
3:29 Also known as constitutional monarchy.
Liechtenstein's monarchy is playing it for the long game by "If nobody notices me. Then I'll be just fine." Tactic.
anti-monarchists, do they even exist "up on the young Rhine" ? :D
Aren't they dukes?
@@Fenrasulfr the english term is Principality, so the head of state is a prince.
still the same as monarch and not to confused with "son of king", who is a prince too. the superior to Prince of Liechtenstein would be the Holy Roman Emperor, but such a title does not exist anymore :D
@@Fenrasulfr they are a principality so they have a Prince. Both princes and dukes are monarchs as they are unelected heads of state of which the role is handed down within their family.
@@onneheijsteeg8507 maybe confused Liechtenstein with Luxembourg, the head of state of the latter is a grand duke.
Monarchies should exist so that UsefulCharts can keep his job.
Lol
Hahahaha 😅
there's plenty of history to cover even if somehow every single monarchy on earth got abolished
Counterpoint: the most interesting UsefulCharts videos are speculative. "Who _would_ be the
@@JimCullen Exactly. And following your argument, I'd argue that all of the existing monarchies should be abolished with the highest amount of potential heirs, in the most ambigous way possible. We need one last cheating monarch who has a ton of bastard children everywhere before the Buckingham Palace burns with the whole family inside. Tragic, I know, but makes up for terrific content. Of course I'm only arguing for it on the basis of a youtuber's content... yes, sure.
You said you're going to having a debate by addressing JJ's points. Amateur! Debates are all about dodging the issue and attacking the person and his failings.
- signed all politicians
😋
XD
😄
And Ben Shapiro.
imo monarchies have more of a patriotic sense to them than other forms of government, largely due to their history. And so in that regard it's much more appealing for a nation to rally behind a monarch than it is to rally behind a political official.
That point has been perfectly made by the death of Queen Elizabeth II. The patriotism shown has been on display for the past week.
Incidentally, I cannot recall any HOS anywhere in the World that has come close to the level of affection we are currently witnessing.
@@commonsense7049 Tito did.
@@commonsense7049 Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il-sung, etc.
@@lamename6913 Those people were dictators of Communist countries, if the people didn't mourn them, they would have been murdered. The Queen wasn't a dictator, so it is different. The affection the prior person was talking about was genuine and non-forced affection.
@@lamename6913 Kim Il Sung with his 2-generational succession is a de facto Monarch.
As a political scientist, I really appreciate that you explained the different forms of government as well as the difference between a republic and a democracy. It is very rare that these terms are explained at all. Bravo! Your channel is one of the best educational channels on TH-cam in my opinion. :)
Although, monarchy is sometimes differentiated from royalty/royalism (at least, they are sometimes differentiated in French).
Monarchy is etymology mon-archy, the power of one. It does not necessary implies that power is passed done hereditary as demonstrated by elective monarchies in the Middle-Ages. And by that definition, the United States and France are monarchies since power is mostly concentrated in the hands of one while the United Kingdom since she is parliamentary would be more oligarchical (while having a symbolic queen for the aesthetic).
well, you could argue that no "parliamentary monarchy" is an actually true democracy, because most people would consider human rights to be a defining feature of a democracy. and that is simply not possible with a monarchy. every single monarchy violates article 7 of the human rights declaration.
the UK is often brought up as an example, but it really has A LOT of factors about it that makes it undemocratic. things like church representation in the government (bishops have guaranteed, unelected, seats in the house of lords) aswell as the existance of the house of lords itself is profoundly undemocratic.
Can there be monarchies that are also republics? It would seem so to me, for instance the constitutional monarchy that has existed in England since the Magna Carta, disputed though it is, and limited in scope though it was. If it is not strange to call a Communist or juche country a republic - and I grant it is technically a rule of law - it doesn't seem strange to me to call a country where the Church decides, negotiates, or influences the rule of law a republic as well.
Vive le Roy ⚜🦅
@@azhadial7396 The etymological explanation is true, however: 1. Even in ancient greece, there was a distinction between a monarchy (like in Macedonia) and a tyrannis/dictatorship, although a tyrannis wasn't necessarily seen as a bad thing. (As I'm sure you know, the term "dictator" has it's origins in the early Roman Republic and was originally not associated with forced or violent rule, see Cincinnatus).
2. The modern scientific term "Monarchy" as the opposite of "Republic" was heavily influenced by both the American and the French Revolution. Nowadays, the scientific term monarchy usually refers to a system of rulership which draws it's legitimacy from tradition, hereditary rules and religious ideas (all of which applies to the British or Japanese Monarchy for example).There is also a strong connection with tribal and theocratic forms of rulership, which have similar strategies of legitimizing power.
However, modern parliamentary monarchies are essentially hybrid models, in which the tradtionalistic/religious/hereditary strategy of legitimizing power is supplemented by democratic strategies and has lost it's dominant role.
In Liechtenstein there was a referendum on abolishing the Monarchy, and people voted to maintain it
Ah yes, a country with roughly half the population of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
And they are right to vote so
It's not a good example
Liechtenstein is a very small nation and the prince threatened the people to take all the country's wealth outside of it
@ isn,t a big issue if its a true
@ No I don’t think so.
As a Malaysian, the monarchy has always been important, especially today because having a non political head of state can somewhat reduce problems during crisis, unlike most countries like the US or Korea where the HOS holds power over the government
True
I hope that you are kidding! Monarchy is the worst form of government.
@@hanaluong2672 we have a parliamentary democracy, the monarchy's just there in case our parliament goes haywire, which has happened multiple times
@@CRenggi I am glad that it works in your country. I have to admit that I am quite ignorant about what has been going on in Malaysia. I only care about the lives of orangutans there. About monarchy, the most well-know royal family is British. So far they have been parasites off the British taxpayers. Look at Prince Andrew. Other family members are quite average in terms of intelligence.
@@hanaluong2672 ah, we can't give 1 crap of what happens in Europe
"The face of the country" Crying Brazilian tears here
@Kazumaf a misconception which assumes the heirs of d. Pedro II would be good leaders and not dick heads (which they are)
He wasn't content with showing his face once, he had to do it twice
Cry more 🤣 4 more years.
@Kazumaf "but Brazil decided to ditch their king so off"
The majority of the population supported the emperor, the ones who overthrew him were only a minority composed of rural landowners and army officers.
@Kazumaf Ah, the mystical country of Brazil, hidden beneath jungles and treetops and unknown to the world.
Thank you for pointing out that a democracy and republic are not the same thing. I get sucked into debates all the time for trying to point out that not all countries that do not have a royal family are democratic ( or democracies). You continue to do the good work on behalf of your Canadian brothers and sisters!
Republics are a form of democracy though. I take issue with his claim that North Korea, Syria, or the DROC are republics, because they're clearly not. A republic is another word for a representative democracy. Kim Jong-Un is closer to a monarch than an elected representative.
How is defending the monarchy "good work"?
@@DanielVCOliveira He's thanking him for differentiating democracy from republic, not for defending monarchy. At least not here.
@@cooljoelguy The Roman Republic? The Dutch and Venetian Republics? The Florentine Republic? All known to be republics but were not democracies.
@@robertjarman3703 ? Not really familiar with the others, but the Roman Republic was definitely a limited democracy. Why are you fighting me on something that can be proven with a quick google search?
The part about the Japanese monarchy is interesting. It is true that the monarchy is ceremonial in nature, but the existence of the monarchy also has deep social implications. After WWII and Emperor Hirohito losing his ability to govern, the Japanese public was heavily incentivized by the government and by cultural practice NOT to criticize him or his actions in the war, as the Emperor is closely linked to the Shinto religion. It was only after Hirohitos death in 1989 that people began to criticize him and the government. However, even today many people are too afraid of social backlash or government sanctions to push against the monarchy system. This is called the Chrysanthemum Taboo and a really interesting book about it is called "In the Realm of a Dying Emperor" by Norma Field. Great video btw! Love your content!
@@KarmG-fo4xr you're partiality correct, insofar as much of the military in Japan was pushing for the continuation of the war and colonization. However, Hirohito does carry a lot of the blame as he was the head of state and a military leader revered as a deity. The argument is that he never owed up to what he did in pursuing wartime aggression and civilian loyalty to the Imperial throne. I mean, people were willing to die for him, even if he knew that it was a losing battle towards the end, but he stayed quiet and kept his title as Emperor.
The Japanese Emperor is more akin to a Pope or Caliph than an actual monarch.
Yeah Japan works differently from Western Monarchies. I wouldn't mind them. But every other from Europe to even some in Southeast Asia perhaps, needs to go. Barbecue 'em all. Except the Netherlands one as for that one I hope the Queen can turn it into an Argentinian colony, that would be cool, I wouldn't mind a South American monarchy, but the British specially, needs to go.
@@genghiskhan5701 Secular-Religious heads of state with both secular and religious power? Yeah, not good.
Iirc, japan was the first parliamentary monarchy, it just was not democratic. The role of emperor was a figurehead, while the shogun--think prime minister+supreme commander was the political ruler. The "political" parties if you would 🤔 were clans (eg Tokugawa, minamoto) with the clan leader of the ruling clan being the shogun. Obviously, no elections, but still parliamentary (separation of head of state from head of govt).
Matt: “We’re not going to talk about whether Canada should be a monarchy”
JJ: “I joined Citizens for a Canadian Republic because Canada should be a republic”
He isnt saying that they wouldnt TALK about them
Merely that it isnt what they believe
I don't generally agree with McCullough, and especially not in this matter, but I think he's just laying his cards on the table about what his opinions are and where he stands
J.J. is extremely ridiculous 🙄 no one in Vancouver says A boot. 🙄
@@LordBeauchamp1994 he has Prarie heritage and they say it more in those parts
@bighillcraft he's lived his entire life in BC and no one around him would have said it no one at school no adult no one at work.
"The role of a monarch in the modern world is to protect the people from the politicians."
- Franz Joseph, emperor of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.
AEIOU🇦🇹K&K
Like a couple of years ago when Spain had no active President, and King Philip VI was the only source of stability that you could find around.
Kinda biased that you're quoting the emperor who's interested in keeping his position innit
@@deckeroful what? Pedro Sanchez was the acting President, and the king literally does nothing in Spain, beyond being protected by laws
@@truedarklander I'm talking about the more than half a year in 2016 that Rajoy was the President "en funciones".
And then a politician broke apart his empire, allowing a politician in Germany to later annex it and then start ww2.
I think that was a pretty good prediction, if I do say so myself.
Seems like nonsense to consider the quesstion to be about absolute & parlimentary monarchies simultaneously. That should be two separate questions.
This is the way the question is often put by modern (post-Cold War) republicans, though.
Indeed. It’s highly disingenuous otherwise
This. Parliamentary ones are pretty beneficial because no PM can pull “father of the nation” shit when they kiss the boots of some dude who spends his time signing charity papers and visiting hospitals. Ones that have power though? Nopenopenope
@@Katerina-kqkq ah shut up parliamentary one is the real shitty one. It just makes Monarch nothing more than a figurehead that corrupt politicians can use for their propaganda. Real monarchies are absolute ones or semi-Constitiunal ones.
Balance of power is needed. Look what happened at the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. Their own parliament became too powerful and corrupted that it hindered any meaningful progress by the government, which weakened it severely.
Monarchies are something I've always been highly interested in. Their ties with culture and history make them very interesting to learn about, but I've always been unsure about their place in our modern society. I think your arguments are very strong and well presented, and they've made me revalue my own opinions on the topic.
I was interested in them too. I found very good arguments for Aristocratic Monarchies.
@@luisguilherme2964 all monarchies aristocratic! Because well a Monarch is a Aristocrat . Long Live The Monarchy
I came from JJ's video and the way UsefulCharts presented it, is really persuasive cuz he wasn't acting arrogant and he just stated that countries should be allowed to have a monarchical style of government compere to JJ's video where he came like an activist trying to abolish the monarchy plus he avoided the topic of none British monarchist and lastly he was talking about broader ideas rather than the reality at the ground.
@@manospronoob Yeah, it seems like most republican arguments are based on philosophical principles while monarchist arguments are more based on pragmatism.
@@manospronoob
Holy shit, I just watched 15 seconds. The elitest tone coupled with the dirty-sanchez and fro were too much for me. You watched the whole thing?
Being Belgian and Moroccan, I’ve always been a Monarchist, and I love the Monarchy systems. But I thinks that there is a very good republic system you forgot to tell about: The Swiss system. I think it’s called Direct Democracy there
Monarchies are bad
@@SaveznaRepublikaJugoslavija better than undemocratic Republics or dictators
@@RonDiani I hate all monarchies and will rather live under a dictator than a king
@@SaveznaRepublikaJugoslavija it’s the same thing really
@@SaveznaRepublikaJugoslavija So for example you'd rather live in Belarus, a country that is under an opressive dictatorship where you would be persecuted if you criticized the goverment, than Denmark, a monarchy for almost thousands of years that is currently amongst the highest ranking in education, healthcare, has one of the lowest crime rates? That's a lot of advantages to give up just because the head of state happens to come into offiice due to their lineage.
I wish Dom Pedro was here to dismiss the current parliament and senate...
Y'all need to move to a system like the Portuguese, a president with powers over parliament and to veto but without control over the government
@@truedarklander that's gonna be the same. The group that elects a president, corrupt or not, is the same that elects the congress.
... and president
@@DonMadruga72 We wouldn't even have him
One thing you missed: any elected position in a country will inevitably become politicized, even if it’s meant to be neutral.
Hard to be the referee (head of state) if you're also a team player or recently resigned from such (political party member)
Even worse when the referee and a team coach (party leader) is the same person (presidential system).
@@Emigdiosback
My jab was at the presidential system (I think...been a while), which merges the referee with the winning team coach. Why only one (US) has not devolved into dictatorship at some point in its history...yet.
@@Emigdiosback and he suspended freedom of the press
Neutrality is a myth. The fact that some people are against monarchies already makes them political.
That's kinda a bad argument since you're assuming that unelected figures aren't already politicized, which they 100% are even in ceremonial situations (If they weren't we wouldn't be having this debate)
One monarchy I think goes about against the odds is Bhutan’s. Their king stepped down from power for his younger son. The son then got rid of the absolute power monarchy into a democratic monarchy. The people actually didn’t seem to be so supportive of it as they’d seen the instability of democracy and the country worshiped it’s king. The king then personally went around the country helping promote democracy and working with the government to get elections done
Wasn't it the son who murdered his parents and siblings?
@@bistli1566 that's the Nepal's one.
@@jlo8863 oh, thank you. :D
What a nice story.
Yes this is foolish and "woke"
You missed an important point - the multi-generational stability offered by a monarchy, rather than having a new leader or a new government every 4 or 8 years. Any idea how stabilizing the influence of a long-lived monarch is to the world - like Queen Elizabeth, who has met so many world leaders over the past 70 years. A non-political monarch can host even ideological enemies in the same room, for the sake of "diplomacy".
This is a non-argument though. Parliamentary monarchies still change head of government every 4 to 8 years.
@@truedarklander What? Your statement is a non-argument. You have missed the point of what I said.
What does a changing government - which I mentioned - have to do with the stability of a monarchy?
Maybe read what I wrote and agree or disagree with that.
Is the longevity and stability of a monarchy an advantage to a country or not?
@@thesynopticgospel3277 you mentioned the changing of governments in opposition to the so called stability of the monarchy. I assumed you were arguing in favor of parliamentary monarchies.
Unless you're arguing in favor of a absolute or semi-absolute monarchy, but that then would contradict the idea of a "non-political monarch" (which in itself makes no sense, but I understand what you mean)
@@truedarklander I am arguing that a monarch offers a form of stability for a country with an ever-changing democracy, and therefore I am agreeing with this video - that a monarchy is a good thing - even with a democracy.
(if you can afford it, and if your monarch is not an evil despot or dictator)
@@thesynopticgospel3277 but in that case the government is still "unstable"
(Lack of changes isn't stability btw) and is still less democratic than say, a non-partisan election of a head of state, and doesn't really help with stabilizing government-you can have a mediator president that is in charge of appointing a government from a parliamentary assembly, and by having a popular mandate, he can actually do political work in that aspect of political life.
An issue I had with the video comes up here, which is the whole democracy / monarchy relation, which is in my opinion a misconstruction of what that argument entails, which is that two identical systems, one with an elected head of state, and the other with a hereditary head of state, the latter would be less democratic. I bring this up because it's part of my argument here.
As someone who finally made the switch to pro-monarchy, I’d like to credit this video as one of the main motivations for making me reconsider when I first watched to a year and a half ago. Too bad I live in a republic…
Which republic?
@@willfakaroni5808 the United States
A recent poll shows that only 12% of Americans think a monarchy in the US is a good idea
@@swinger9374 count me in
@@swinger9374 There are dozens of us... dozens!
Is it possible you can make a video debating what countries want or could restore their monarchies if they wanted to???
I think Germany and Brazil are constantly in a state of a few people trying to get the Kaiser and Emperor back respectively.
@@donewitheverything2292 now that would be awesome to see
Only a fool would want to bring back some old bag or geezer to sap money out of the population.
@@paulkoza8652 lol sure bud ur not even Brazilian or German what’s ur point ?
@@paulkoza8652 not if their presidents do the same or worse.
Norway even voted in 1905 to become a monarchy!
The franchise did not include women at the time, so not all of Norway had a voice on the matter.
@@tapio7118 Ah, so you mean that people that have been raised to support the monarchy, support the monarchy?
@@tapio7118 It’s not only that; the Norwegian royal family is, for the most part, extremely non-polarizing! Something that is very hard to achieve with a presidential figure who is elected. They are someone who anyone can get behind and support. Even if you put aside the historical context of what Haakon VII did during WW2, they have always shown that they understand the people. Haakon VII’s son, Olav V, proved himself to be “a man for the people” on several occasions. Notably during the gas shortage during the early 70’s. When he died in 1991, he was deeply mourned by the people. Now, Olav’s son, Harald V truly have earned the respect and admirations he has been given! He broke with European monarchical traditions early and married a commoner. He has often proved himself to be a respectful, empathic, tolerant, and wise monarch. A particularly noteworthy occasion was after the Utøya terror attack in 2011. Harald delivered a speech during a memorial service where he broke down in tears over how gut wrenchingly horrible the whole thing was. That even him, who had always been a steadfast figure and who always knew what to say to make sense of everything was left in tears. For me, that really hit the fucking mark (or what remained of it)!
If there was any doubt; I agree with Matt on this!
@@jadegrace1312 people in republics are raised to support that system too lol wtf.
@@tapio7118 or maybe he didn't think it was worth it
As a Dane, I can say that I love our Monarchy! I wouldn't want in any other way! I also think our crown prince is super cool. Masters degree in political science and a Danish Navy SEAL!
I agree, your royal family is the most likable overall.
@@mariafyodorovna8362 But the Swedish is the best looking. 😁
@@mariafyodorovna8362 The Danish king even played a substantial role in WW2
Just because the current monarch is great doesn't mean future ones will be...having a single family born into a position of power and influence to be revered is just ludicrous to me.
@@aduad Long live monarchy.
With you. I always get frustrated by people (usually Americans) who complain about monarchies by arguing against an absolute monarchy. There are legitimate criticisms of constitutional monarchies like Norway or Canada, but "how can you let a King have power over you" really isn't one of them.
Your criticisms starting at 11:45 are legitimate. I know you weren't talking about Canada specifically in this video, but I've sometimes wondered if we should commit ourselves to always having an Indigenous Governor General. If the GG is effectively merely a symbol, let's have it say something symbolically important.
Yes it is. How can we let a corrupt heredetary caste have power over us? In politics this is called nepotism.
And as an American, we really can't complain about other forms of government until we fix our own problems. We may be a democracy, but we are a backsliding democracy
@@olive_incorporated4803The problem is the organisation of your government. It’s ridiculous
Well, as an American, if you lived a country that fought a war to get away from a tyrannical king, you would be against monarchies too, although I myself am not against them.
From what I hear Absolute Monarchie is great when you have a competent leader who care about their people but suck realy bad when you have a bad or incompetent leader.
But there is no way to control if that leader will be good or not when that leader is born into the role and there aren't legal options to get rid of that leader.
@@martymcflyy6775 British taxpayers fund the royal family through the annual Sovereign Grant and Sovereign Grant Reserve, which totalled £82.2m for the financial year 2018/19 - at a cost of some £1.24 per person in the United Kingdom.
This paid for more than 3,200 royal engagements at home and abroad, with over 160,000 guests being welcomed at royal palaces for events like garden parties and investitures. It also financed the start of a major reservicing of Buckingham Palace that will amount to some £85m over the next five years, while Prince Harry and the Duchess of Sussex’s renovation of their Frogmore Cottage home also made headlines for its cost.That is a lot of money, but in 2016 alone more than 2.7 million tourists visited Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, the Palace of Holyrood and other key royal attractions, boosting Britain’s tourist revenues for the year by some £550m.On present form , it seems highly unlikely that the British royal family will be sent packing. Queen Elizabeth II is immensely more liked than any political, TV or entertainment figure. In 2019, she topped YouGov’s list of Britain’s most admired women with 22.61 per cent of the poll - ahead of Michelle Obama (13 per cent), Judi Dench (7.66 per cent) and JK Rowling (6.77 per cent).A study by the Brand Finance Network estimated that in 2017 the monarchy generated a gross uplift of £1.766bn to the UK economy. This was calculated by taking into consideration the Crown Estate’s surplus, plus the indirect effect of the monarchy on industries such as tourism, trade, media and arts - along with the benefits to British charities and the advertising value of extra coverage around the world for ‘Brand Britain’.
The simple fact remains that abolishing the monarchy would not only be an extremely expensive and problematic process…but it’d be a waste of time. There are a few factors to observe:
First off, all of the sovereign lands controlled by the Crown are private property. Whilst the Queen donates most of the proceeds from those holdings to the British Government, they do not belong to the Government. Abolition of the monarchy would still leave those holdings in the hands of the Royal Family, but the Government would no longer receive the proceeds from them. And they can’t simply take them back: that would be theft of legal property.
Secondly, the purpose of the Royal Family in modern British politics is to provide the nation with an apolitical body both as a diplomatic corps, military figureheads and a unifying figure across the board. The Queen herself serves as the nation’s Head of State: thus, the Prime Minister runs the Government whilst the Queen represents the UK as a whole. Take that away…suddenly we need a new Head of State, and frankly, we’ve seen what a mess that can be. The system we have now is one of the most politically-stable in the world. And we’ve seen nations that combine their Head of State with their government leaders, and it’s almost always horrific.
We must also consider the fact that the Queen isn’t just the Head of State for the United Kingdom. She remains the Head of State for multiple other nations: Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, The Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, the Solomon Islands, St Kitts and Nevis, and St Vincent and the Grenadines. Were the monarchy to be abolished, she would either retain her status there whilst losing it within the UK, or you’d simply be asking over a dozen countries to also reconfigure their governments to install a new Head of State. That’s a lot of hassle.
Note also that the British Armed Forces all swear an oath to the Crown rather than to the Government: this is not overly dissimilar to American troops swearing an oath to the Constitution rather than the President: the Royal Family are apolitical, and therefore serve the country rather than the Government. Remove that…again, now you’ve got the need for a replacement.
Put bluntly, the British Royal Family are far too intrinsically linked both to old tradition, government and our identity as a society. We’re not the sort of nation that simply discards something amazing just because it lacks the same functionality as it once had in the past. Good thing, too, otherwise we’d have knocked down Stonehenge already!
There’s simply no purpose to abolishing the Monarchy. Aside from it being one of the longest-standing political institutions in the world, there’s plenty of merit of maintaining it as it stands - and far too many issues would be involved in removing it.
That's pretty much the case for every kind of political system. And one of the core questions is whether a monarchy is more or less likely to give rise to a competent and empathetic leader than a republic.
(Where "being competent" includes having other competent peoples in their government, because governing a country is hard and definitely not a one-man job)
Though, even then, "great" is debatable in cases where there is an ideological gap between the monarch and the population. Is it "great" if the monarch take a strong decision (for example, banning consumption of meat for ideological reasons) while most of the population disagree with it?
And if "caring about their peoples" including "caring about their opinion", then a competent leader will progressively organise ways for peoples to express their opinion to guide his choices, maybe through representatives or vote ... and you're essentially having a peaceful transition toward a constitutional monarchy.
The thing about an absolute monarchy is that the people know they are being treated unjustly because they had no say in what happened which can lead to stronger opposition from the common people & aristocracy which can lead to replacing the monarch with another member of the family.
With a 'democratically elected' government the people can be repressed but they consider it just since they 'voted for it' so they'll let the government do what they want and blame themselves. There's also less outside help because of the idea that the people want what is happening to them because they voted for it.
I think that monarchies should have more power in a democracy to veto bills that will change the fabric of their country. The monarchs role should be to safeguard the interests of the common people from the excesses of usually aristocratic government.
true like the previous was monarch of Oman was the best to fi
modernized the nation, built roads, and educated the people,
it's rare find a monarch but its better than a 50 year corrupot republic
For the record, there's also elected monarchies 🤔🤔
Malaysia
Vatican City.
Formerly Poland under Poland-Lithuania (Although that’s more of an Oligarchic Monarchy but still).
Norway also voted for having danish prince Carl become the king in 1905 with over 75% support.
@@correctionguy7632 Interesting, Norway and Denmark arent in a personal union anymore. So, what happened to the Danish king?
I just use your newest video to say: The five charts of yours I ordered just arrived: They are awsome! I'm really full of joy about them! From august on I am a class teacher for German language, history, geography, politics and music. The charts will be displayed in my classroom to help the teachings and make the room beautiful and awsome. Thank you so very much!
*The crown must win, always win...*
The crown must win,must always win.
No the establishment of the administration of a nation by royalty is said to be "the crown", it is not a military or a court but departments in Republic it would be the federal branch. Belgium is a federal administration the king royal can only edict an order, much smaller than what being called The Crown.
On my opinion, i believe that Semi-Absolute Monarchies and Constitutional Monarchies are better than Absolute Monarchies
Update 6/12/24: Semi-constitutional monarchies and Absolute monarchies are better than constitutional monarchies
There is also nothing wrong with a technocracy with a king with the best people in each sector
@@NUFCOfficial true
Elected tribal monarchy is best.
Semi-absolute monarchies are the best but absolute monarchies are better than constitutional monarchies.
@Imperial Soviet Because people _choose_ their ruler rather than a dictatorship like the Soviets and others which eventually fail. Edit: Soviet realised he did a stupid, and deleted their reply hoping no one would notice
Coming from a country with a parliamentary democracy (Spain) I'd like to provide the reason for most spaniards not to support changing to a republic (which is not the same as supporting the monarchy)
Changing from monarchy to republic is not an easy thing. You have to make the country from scratch, because there are institutions, regulations and traditions linked to the monarchy for thousands of years.
In fact, most (if not all) european countries that have transitioned from monarchy to republic have gone through tremendous hard chaotic times until reaching a somewhat stable republic. Spain itself tried twice the republic and ended up pretty badly both times.
Living in a parliamentary monarchy, I don't think the high risk of chaos for my generation and that of my kids and future grandkids is worth the effort, to be honest
Also, you have got to admit King Felipe is a better outward representative of Spain than any politician. I mean, could you imagine Pablo Iglesias, Santiago Abascal, Pedro Sanchez or Pablo Casado as Spain’s highest official representative? Any of these guys coming on the TV at Christmas to give a speech. It would be horrid
@@LordDim1 so don't let anyone make a speech on Christmas lmao.
No one should have the birthright to power. Doesn't matter how little.
Miguel Laurito he doesnt have ANY power
@@jorritvanderkooi939 Is the ability to broadcast your thoughts in public tv and being who mediates the formation of government not a power?
@@truedarklander everyone on tv can express their opinion so no, and at least here (The Netherlands) the King doesnt mediate the formation of the government, the party with the most votes does
14:45 Income inequatily
The Virgin USA: **Crippling inequality that creates massive social tensions**
The Chad Poland: **No one has money. Equality!!**
Absolute monarchy has no place in todays world, but constitutional monarchy most certainly does, most republicans don't seem to be able to distinguish the two for some reason. Constitutional monarchy is less corrupt than some republics
True.
Absolute monarchy has no place in todays world, some country still Absolute monarchy. Why them should care someone said Absolute monarchy has no place in todays world?
The Scandinavian countries will not be the first to be abolished in this decade. Perhaps Spain and Monaco's Monarchy might fall. For the UK, William is quite popular and it will be a challenge for Prince George and his descendants to follow. Personally, I dont really want the UK Monarchy to be abolished.
I cannot tell you about Spain but in Monaco the monarchy is not going away. It just has a bit of popularity issue which will be fixed in a few years.
I’m sure you wouldn’t King Henry VIII of England.
@@rebeccaanderson5626 Spain's monarchy is in trouble
As a Spaniard myself, I can tell you that the recent scandals of Juan Carlos I haven't been good for the monarchy's popularity
I still believe it will survive the decade
Monaco's Monarchy is unlikely to be abolished since once they reverted back to France. There's no longer 0% income tax
You abused several wives, murdered two (one of whom was a teenager), and burned the north of England to the ground. You'll forgive me if I don't take what you have to say seriously, "Yer majesty"
Fun fact: in Greek Democracy means Republic, while in Middle Spanish (15th - 17th century) the use of Republic was commonly used for Bureaucratic or Administrative roles.
Hellenic Republic = _Elliniki Dimokratia_ the english and original designations for today's Greece :D
Well to be fair, "republic" and "democracy" both translate to "people's power", just one is in Latin, and the other is in Greek.
Greek person here. This is true, though technically we use additional words to specify the difference. For example Presidential Republic (US) vs Parliamentary Republic under President (Greece or India) vs Parliamentary republic under a monarch (UK).
@@_blank-_ Thanks for the correction, I thought it came from "rex publica".
That's simply because republic comes from Res publica, literally "the public thing" wich translates to "the public things" or "the public gestion of things" wich also is definable as bureaucracy
So
Good points made. However, a key point you missed, especially when talking about cost, is the level of income brought to a country by the monarch. In the UK for example, more than a billion pounds is added to the economy by the existence of the Royal Family. Perhaps also do a cost comparison of the US presidency and the UK monarchy. You might be surprised.
I’ve realized that a monarchy is a much better system than some of the ones that we have today. It prioritizes tradition, culture, and protects the identity and sovereignty of the nation
Interesting topic.
No its not We settled this in 1776 monarchs suck and the legacy ones That exist probably need to go.
@@Mynipplesmychoice elaborate
@@Mynipplesmychoice Yeah, for America’s case, but not for every country that has a monarchy. Also, UsefulChars and J.J. McCullough are both Canadian so what does this have to do with America?
Polish-LIthuanian Commonwealth, despite being a monarchy, was called a republic (Res Publica Utriusque Nationis, Republic of Both Nations).
Its makes sense since the monarchs of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was an elected position, not a hereditary one. Would be an interesting combination today.
It was an empire, no doubt. The Luthuanians and Rhuthenians were supplanted in favor of the Poles
In some old Brazilian documents (from the time of the Colony), the term "república" (republic) was used to mean the State or the Union.
@@gjvnq Would make sense due to the federal nature of brazil.
@@thehetmanmapping1434 oh yeah absolutely. Polish nobility ruled supreme, the monarchy generally having very little real power
I am from Belgium. - Belgium is a fragile state. One of the pieces of duck tape that keeps it together is the monarchie. Having a more or less neutral and stable head of state is very useful when there are many small politicas parties who have a lot of trouble to work together.
As a citizen of a republic (the US, to be exact), I found this an interesting essay! I could see how some countries where the monarch is popular can _retain_ them, particularly with your Japan example! I'll check out JJ's video next. For now, thanks for the video! Subscribed!
As a fellow American, I think one of the smartest things General MacArthur did from a pragmatic standpoint was to work towards letting Emperor Hirohito remain Emperor of Japan. The power of the imperial family certainly weakened, but he feared that it might be harder for Japan to reform to a new order if Japan was completely stripped of their royalty. And I think it was the right decision.
the countries with monarchies are still democracies though. they have representative government that meets the needs of the people through elected representation.
Except for Absolute Monarchies which aren't Democratic. The only systems of Monarchy in the Modern age that are truly Democratic are those with a Parliamentary System/Constitutional Monarchy. I wouldn't consider Jordan a Constitutional Monarchy as the Monarch there still has too much power over elected officials.
This is why the republican system and the monarchical system are complete opposites. Democracy can exist in both of them, but a monarch cannot exist in a republic.
Try and get queen Elizabeth thrown in jail for anything and see how democratic Britain really is.
@@badwolf9956 I mean, there are crowned republics. That is an actual concept.
@@badwolf9956 Look up what a republic is. Constitutional monarchies are monarchies and republics. He was incorrect when he said a republic is any system of government without a monarch. A republic is a representative democracy.
I was rather surprised that elective monarchy wasn't discussed or mentioned in this video. It is rare and vary in places indeed, but I do believe there has a place to be discussed in this since there is question whether how much "democracy" in electing a monarch can be.
Anyway, this is a nice discussion and something still relevant to this date.
cuz it basically doesn’t exist. have you actually looked it up? it’s not sustainable.
likely most family monarchies started elected at one point and then it was passed down the family…like every monarchy ever.
basically if you give full power to one person, they will use their full power to abuse it and put people they like in power. bend the rules? they make the rules. an elected monarch could easily crown a co king or develop a line of succession the excludes anyone.
i don’t know why half these comments are people being little bitches and trying to defend being a peasant. They don’t see themselves as a peasant, but anyone who has a king or queen and isn’t rich or in power is a peasant. kinda in the definition.
@@threestans9096 Old comment that I never expected to have a response, but I appreciate your insight.
The most prominent type of elective monarchy I can think of are the Holy Roman Empire and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but my understanding is just on the surface.
Still, I do live in an actual elective constitutional monarchy country (Malaysia), hence the mention. It's officially a constitutional monarchy based on UK but concept wise, it's elective monarchy/union. It's essentially 9 Sultans rotating the "king" position according to seniority, each only serving a term of 5 years. Basically, it's just 9 crown states plus a 3 non-crown states and an elected/rotative "president" in a federation.
I don't defend being a peasant and I'm more leaning to democracy institution, but I do prefer having an actual balance in the democracy system in this form despite the faults to avoid a competition of who has the most vote. It didn't reaally matter in the end of whose a peasant because under democracy, you still have to respect whoever in charge or you better off with anarchy system.
Watched both back to back. Useful Charts wins. To JJ’s credit, he made his points well, but such an absolutist position is exceedingly difficult to defend. His side of the argument was always going to have an uphill battle.
@louis george Absolutist essential means JJ could only argue that ALL monarchies should be abolished while Useful Charts could cede certain points, in particular the idea that absolute and semi-absolute monarchies are not ideal, while still arguing on behalf of parliamentary monarchies.
Very well argued and clear video. I would say though that the problem of monarchs “unfair wealth” needs to understood in a more symbolic manner, as monarchs themselves are primarily symbols, as you say. I don’t think people would claim that having one more super wealthy family is the issue, rather having one entrenched wealthy family as a symbol of the nation is arguably a symbolic misstep that conflicts with a goal of income inequality.
But the goal and the results are not connected, say for example the British, Japanese, and Swedish monarchies are well established but have much lower rates of income inequality than the US. One might even argue that depending on factors not related to being or not being a monarchy, having a large amount of corrupt officials is even worse than a monarchy as a monarchy’s direction on corruption can be eliminated by eliminating a few individuals vs. rooting out an entire bureaucracy.
Also on the point of economics, some people argue that even if tourism gained via royal influence doesn’t pay for the costs of maintenance, the amount of true accessible, liquid wealth they gain is incomprehensibly small in the grand scheme of a nation’s finances if a nation’s populace fairly decides to keep it. One may say that it is unfair to the minority to pay mandatory taxes towards them, which is a fair argument, but then it must apply to a broader range of issues which cost much more in taxes. Imagine not paying taxes to schools to employ history teachers, language teachers, music teachers, healthcare etc. just because a minority benefits from it.
Imagine if we all banned religion and history and different languages and sports and music. Through religion, music, sports, and languages, people spend inordinate amounts of time and effort to keep up with them even when they are societal inefficiencies. However, a well liked monarchy in the currently developed nations is all of them combined, being celebrities representing a nation’s history and religion.
Why spend money searching for artifacts of a Bronze Age civilization when one can instead spend it on more IT training programs in low income neighborhoods to reduce income inequality? Why? Because people don’t always want to be efficient; no, they want to do what they want even at the expense of themselves.
I think that people shouldn't be annoyed by the fact that there rulers are rich, I'm very monarchist
Since when is possessing money a bad thing? What is bad is stealing money, and elected politicians do that. Don't be Stalin just because someone is richer than you: it's envy, not egality
@@myNameIsNot-most monarchies function on the peoples taxes I don't envy them because they're rich because they have my money
If they were millions of citizens in a country,the monarch needs only 1 or maybe 10 bucks each citizen to be rich
If monarchy eventually falls I'll just write books with a shit ton of King, Queens, Empress, etc...
I just found your channel today talking about the Romanov dynasty. The TH-cam algorithm knows all
I would also add that both monarchies and republics, or any form of politics, have what is called "the incumbent advantage", which also plays into why some countries' populations choose to keep their monarchies. Incumbents have the political advantage of familiarity and name recognition, easier access to resources, etc. However, in cases where the incumbent does a horrible job - for example, the Kings of France, Italy, and Russia - they may be replaced.
Thank you for the calm and informative debate about monarchy - you both had several thought-provoking points. Also, it was fun finding two Canadian channels - hello country-mate 🍁
On the hereditary principle. I also concede that it is indeed unfair. But for me, it's a case of balance. I'd much rather have someone born into a role and trained from birth to conduct that role, who owes no allegiance or favour to anyone by virtue of their birth, than someone who must spend their first term in office learning how the role works whilst simultaneously appeasing those who their position is owed to (i.e campaign funders) and focussing on reelection instead of their sole focus being the country.
They owe their allegiance to the continuation of the monarchy system, which isn’t synonymous with the public interest. When you look at the British royal family, for instance, I think it’s pretty clear that priority number one is just ensuing the monarchy itself remains popular.
That's assuming that every monarch will be perfectly trained from birth and won't be swayed when they grow up. I think there are better options. I do concede that there should be a head of state that is *more* neutral than the elected head of gov. I've seen other people say that for democratic republics, there should be a separate election for a long term head of state (like 20 years) that can essentially be an elected figurehead with some powers BUT can be deposed if the people want it. I believe there are merits to this proposal.
There's probably a lot of psychological burden on people who are raised in the national the national limelight like monarchs are, it's probably not the most condusive environment to producing well adjusted heads of state. Additionally, heads of state are supposed to be beholden to someone, namely their voters, and if the problem is with campaign donors we should just address that instead of scrapping our system of government.
@@JJMcCullough Interesting point and thank you for your response. I’d argue that it is synonymous with public interest, the role of head in state directly entails that your subjects are happy, and to make them happy you must meet their interests. Ensuring the monarchy’s survival is obviously paramount, but I think as it happens, these two things - public interest and self interest - are in twined.
@@benz. Well, as I say in my video, monarchy is an inherently controversial system. So making the monarchy popular isn’t much different than a politician trying to make himself popular in order to win re-election.
If you look as European Monarchies, they have credibility while if you look at those in the Gulf States, it's ridiculous, so depending on those conditions, my answer would depend as a yes and a no.
England spends millions every year on their monarchy instead of giving reparations to my people for hundreds of years of colonization and exploitation. I don’t hate the queen or anything, but I don’t really buy the argument that any European colonialist/imperialist monarchy can claim that their royal families are “credible”, you know what I mean?
@ملقرت ملك صور Actually the CIA is pretty pro Gulf monarchy, Like literally no Monarch in the ME was assassinated by the CIA, from the Shah to Faisal to the House of Saud to the Emirate etc. So i don't understand where this criticism is coming from, Like there's plenty to ,
.blame the CIA for, PLENTY but being Anti-Monarchist (good or shitty monarch) is really not one
.I actually don't the the CIA has actually assassinated or helped to assassinate any monarchs really
not
Hey Matt! Love your work! Thank you for the all the knowledge shared with us!
12:53 As a German monarchist supporter, this is my main point. Even in their own country, not everyone knows who is currently the Federal President ... He is not elected by the population and has hardly any political power, he is more or less just a "figurehead", a king or emperor can achieve a lot better than a politician who was unlucky that all ministerial posts were already filled.
German monarchists are the most based people I’ve ever seen, I would love to bring back the Kaiser even as a figurehead
Indeed a historically and culturally significant role such as a Kaiser in Germanys case holds more weight because of its symbolic and historic weight compared to a President, though whether or not a Monarch should have political or governmental power is still a debatable topic as there are both benefits and downsides to such an arrangement
So those polls weren’t a coincidence eh?
Doesnt matter what system, AS LONG AS THEIR PEOPLE PROSPER.
Pragmatism gang
You have to tie prosperity of the masses to supporting an inter-generational caste system of unearned wealth and power while the serfs have to prove themselves every day they're worthy of employment.
And dont Suffer
@@lohphat Where did you get these facts? The Middle Ages?!
@Gundar Varr: That's kinda evading the question. 😂
What do you do if the people are not prospering? Do you change the entire system of government-monarchy to republic and vice-versa?
Under any government, there will always be some people who prosper, and others who suffer. So then what?
What about times like WW2 or Covid-19, when the majority of the people in every country suffer?
I'm a die-hard Canadian republican. However, the way UsefulCharts presents their argument is in a far superior league than McCullough's way; while I'm a bit distraught by the way my side of the fence is represented, I'm quite happy to have had my politics challenged in such a thorough and clear way. Thanks, UsefulCharts :).
5:50 Why should a monarchy have to have 100% support of citizens? Do leaders of a democratic republic get 100% of the vote?
As long as people support a form a government it should exist.
Thanks, it is the only needed answer
Of course, but that's kind of just semantic posturing. Yes, that it technically the answer to the question, but it's more interesting to go one level deeper and talk about whether those people are right in their support of that form of government.
That statement is double edged sword since the far right has grown stronger in many countries over the last few years
@@xway2 what is right? It's what the majority think is right, esp those in power. What is ideal is if the people through cultural habit keep an ear out for abuse or a minority unjustly being treated bad, and for the government to correct that without creating instability.
I disagree.
Ad-populum arguments don't work, because people change their mind, and in that case you make the truth be bounded in moods.
On the flipside, giving more control over the state to people is something you can base your argument on without being subject to the moods of people on their government form
As long as I get to be the dictator of the entire universe, then yes.
Then I'm the dictator of dictators. 😋
3:47 One could just as well call North Korea a monarchy though given the seemingly hereditary nature of the office of supreme leader and deification of the Kim family
Agreed. It shouldn't be called a republic or a people's republic as it is not a republic or one for the people
It is one in all but name.
Communist monarchy...funny since communists despise monarchies.
@@masonator232 that not how this shit work
Do u agree atheism is a religion then?
Technically couldn’t the UK/Commonwealth’s monarchy be considered Semi-Absolute in technicality, but parliamentary in practice? Queen Elizabeth II (or any other past or future monarchs) does technically sign laws and has the power to challenge legislation, and she can also dissolve parliament if she chose to, however she chooses not to execute these powers because the royal family tries to hold a position of neutrality in that they can represent the whole of their kingdom, rather than only catering to one side in politics. An example of this almost happening was when PM Thatcher refused to sanction South Africa relating to civil rights issues, whereas the Queen supported sanctions. People called it a constitutional crisis, but the Queen is very much within her right to challenge her Prime Minister, or Parliament as a whole for that matter.
No, it is correct that the UK is a parliamentary monarchy. Even in parliamentary republics it is the head of state who signs the laws and can dissolve the parliament etc.
I’m not saying the UK isn’t a parliamentary monarchy, I’m just suggesting couldn’t a parliamentary monarchy also be considered semi-absolute, if the laws depend on the monarch in some instances? And, as I said, the queen has the power to be more influential in Her government, so that to me seems like semi-absolute. She has the power to be involved, but she chooses not to, essentially. I guess I could describe it as purely parliamentary in practice, but somewhat absolute if she chose to.
@@christhehylian6825 The few constitutional powers the Queen has are similiar to the ones the German Federal Persident has, and Germany is a parliamentary republic.
In a "semi-absolute monarchy" the monarch must have much more political power than the British monarch has since centuries.
BTW the categories used in the video for monarchies are not the traditional ones:
- there are absolute monarchies, in which the monarch really can do everything he wants
- there are constitutional monarchies, in which a constitution limits the power of the monarch
-there are parliamentary monarchies, in which the monarch is only the head of state with no political power
@@barbarossarotbart Well that depends on time even after the revolution, George III or Victoria for example had quite a lot of influence.
You are correct though it should be said that it is an absolute monarchy in legal terms, with many 'advisory' bodies having power delegated to them, in purely technical terms the monarch derives their power from God and owns the land and people of the country in the same way as personal property, at the same time they have divine obligations towards the people but these are mostly ignored in practice in the same way as the powers as if they weren't they would put the monarch in direct conflict with the bad governance of those they devolve power to.
This is a crossover I never thought I’d see!
I want to respond to a point you made while discussing income/wealth inequality. It seems to me that the overlap between those people who point out that the inherent privilege and wealth that comes with monarchies and those people who think that we should probably do something about the inequalities in republics as well is substantial.
The question isn't "what should be our primary target to combat wealth inequality" it's "should monarchies continue to exist?". I would concede that dealing with human dragons like Bezos is a more pressing issue than dealing with the continued existence of monarchies, but that wasn't the question that is being posed. The question is "should monarchies still exist in the 21st century?" Saying, essentially, "It's not good that the British royal family has this much wealth simply by virtue of birth, but there's a lot of Americans who have more money than the Queen so that should be our priority" is a red herring.
Hear, hear. Removing monarchies doesn't fix inequality, but a monarchy is a legally-enshrined inequality, and that is bad enough on its own that it should be fixed, regardless of any other concerns which may be more or less pressing.
@@JimCullen The fact that is legally-enshrined also means that is public, known, legally-bound to the duties the monarchy entails, and held accountable by the media. That's not something you can say about other forms of inequality.
So while I agree with Alex up here that monarchies are still an inequality that should be fixed, I also concur with Matt that should not be the priority, as off-topic as it may be in this context.
@@nicolorivoir4399 there is no accountability in a monarchy. That's the _defining_ feature of a monarchy. It's entirely hereditary and not subject to checks and balances like elected officials are.
@@JimCullen popular opinion is the accountability to monarchy. At any time parliament can disestablish the monarchy.
I actually support something like semi-absolute monarchy in my country, Poland, but with an elected monarch. Our tradition of having an elective monarchy is very old (dating back to Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth when the election was really free, Jagiellonian times when even thought members of the dynasty were getting the throne it was the nobles deciding which one specifically is going to get it and formally electing the kings and even Piast times when the duke with best alliances with other ones was the senior duke or later king). In fact our monarchy was parliamentary for a very long time, but this led our country into partitions as earlier some people were arguing that we should be happy that we can elect kings and should let them rule and not only reign but nobody listened to them which led to a situation where nobles only cared about money. Letting an elected king both reign and rule gives us a chance to have a monarchy in which the parliament has good influence over the laws, but the king guarantees that the parliament won't do something dumb. And as he's not removable he won't need to act as a politician promising impossible things to the people just to get reelected and will be able to focus on actually taking care of the country in the best way possible. If someone is to argue that such king has enough time to get hereditary absolute power, here's my idea: make the country a federation (in case of Poland - a federation of voivodeships) with direct democracy on the regional level. Should help.
Been a J.J. fan and subscriber for a long time and upon his recommendation, I checked out this video. I commended J.J. for making his argument clearly and passionately but also encouraging his followers to avail themselves of an alternate viewpoint.
I will likewise commend this channel for doing so. It's so refreshing to have people who can make their points strongly but respectfully and not be so self important as to think that they are right about everything to the point that they dismiss and discredit anyone who holds opposing viewpoints.
Discussion and debate done respectfully; even passionately, is fine. Attacks, insults and inflammatory rhetoric are not!
Well done. Useful Charts!! You've found a new fan.
Well said. I would prefer a parliamentary republic, but I agree with you, that a free society should be able to choose.
Most popular monarchies today are tied to culture. They hold little to no power. It's like your football team. Good entertainment.
@@qwerty222999 entretainment that's extremely expensive and that is paid by the citizens if a nation.
Constitutional Monarchies are the least corrupt & high on human development.
@@Crow22Darkness If you want to go by statistical averages that's fine, but there is no correlation between the Queen and human development in Canada. The royal family is corrupt to their core, and they do nothing to prevent corruption here. They just put a little lipstick on the corruption, and sweep it under the rug.
@@HamishDuh2nd ...It's not like Republics and democracies are that corrupt..
Looking at you, USA.....
Finally! Someone got the republic-democracy distinction right. A lot of people say "We live in a republic, not a democracy" as if they're opposites, when really they're thinking about how direct democracy contrasts from constitutional, representative democracy.
Well we sure don’t live in a democracy. Those types of government are very different. The constitutional republic and a rule of law. A democracy would be rule by the people which leads to rule of the majority. A simple 51-49 would give them power to enact radical changes. Luckily we don’t have that.
@@latin504 Representative democracy is still a democracy. If the people vote for who gets to rule, the people have some control over the government.
@@latin504 Also, individuals can still enact radical changes when in office. In a representative democracy, the general public can still vote for a maniac. It's the *constitution* that protects us from dangerous change. A constitution (or any document) can set limits on the government, whether those limits are obeyed by monarchs (like with the Magna Carta) obeyed by elected officials (like with the US constitution) or obeyed by every single citizen. We already have constitutions that limit what citizens can do to each other: they're called laws.
Ohh so that’s like putting “Democratic” in front of socialism, it completely changes the true nature of what socialism is, right?
@@latin504 I'm not saying that every form of democracy is good, I even said that representative democracy can still suck if you don't have rule of law. But I never mentioned socialism. Where on earth did you get that from?
I live in America and grew up an American and being taught democracy and republicanism. As I’ve grown older I REALLY have begun to see the benefits of a monarchy and separating the head of state from head of government. I may be idealistic in some ways, but the idea of a family devoted to the state and carrying on it’s ancient traditions and values and being a constant reminder to everyone of them… has benefits. As does the protection a monarch can provide from a mislead or manipulated populace. I recall what Franz Josef told Teddy Roosevelt about what his job was “to protect my people from their politicians” that is definitely something I can see is lacking in a lot of republics now.
My opinion: Yes, provided the monarch is not part of the government. The Royal family still pays their taxes like everyone else, so why abolish?
While I disagree with you, the inequality argument is very strong, and it's deeper than what you showed. For example, I've seen a report comparing the costs and expenditures of the Swedish crown and the Brazilian presidential body, and the latter was 3 times costlier. I think this symbolises that the real problem is the privilege over the common people, not the form of government.
About your example, The difference is that in Sweden the do all in the papers while in Brazil they put only 1/10 of it like most of our corrupted south American governments...
Brazil is a corrupt country, of course it’s going to be costlier than Sweden
@@garfield4154 Every country with a high Gini is going to be corrupt one way or the other
@Danilo Alves a família real também é sustentada pelo laudêmio, a mamata abrange todos os setores da sociedade brasileira e é fruto da monarquia e do sistema de favores que reinou no Brasil durante a colonização e o império.
@Danilo Alves se isso é justo então nepotismo, entrega de contratos públicos e peculato são justos também
Can you do one next with JJ to debate whether or not it is pronounced “Aboot” or “About”…because for 2 Vancouverites, you pronounce it so differently 😄
We’re not actually both from Vancouver
@@JJMcCullough, as far as I'm concerned, exaggerates it (not necessarily on purpose). I've never heard a Canadian overpronounce the Canadian Raising like he does - but it is true that most Canadians have it in some form or another.
@@claudiodidomenico it’s true…but it comes in more of an “aboat” more than anything.
I was hoping you would address the most common argument against monarchies: The extra spending to maintain a whole family and their infrastructure for a ceremonial job. I remember you already discussed the particular case of U.K., how they actually bring more money than that it is spent. But what about the other monarchies? Are they "profitable" as well?
You not arguing the same thing as matt here, hes arguing that monarchies should be able to exist any place in the world, just because 1 monarchy might not be profitable, doesnt me we should get rid of them all.
Of course, it is a valid argument. And you understood the opposite of what I said. It is not a matter of 1 monarchy that is not profitable, most of them are not "profitable" at all. Meaning that to maintain them, the money will come from taxes. We all have to pay for government expenses: Politicians, bureaucrats, advisors, street public servers (police officers, teachers, firefighters...) they all cost money. And in many Monarchies, they have the added cost of maintaining the Royal Family. It has already been discussed that at least the British have a lot of return in "investing" in the Royal family, like tourism for example. But that is not the case for every monarchy in Europe.
@@flaviohveloso ok then, do you just want the "unprofitable" monarchies gone then?
Geez, take it down a notch and confront the idea not the interlocutor. What I said is that I was hoping he woukd address this argument, I'm not say I'm against or in favor of monarchies, either if they are profitable or not. I wanna hear his opinion about that.
TH-cam: recommends me a UsefulCharts' video for the first time
Me: clicks his channel and selects another of his videos
There were monarchs in 6th century, 15th century, why not in 21st, 30. and 40. Century as well? People think of monarchy and imagine kings and queens in middle age dresses and stuff🙄 It's ridiculous. Rulers go with the time, ruling a country will never be "outdated".
Exactly. Monarchy is the most flexible form of government in the World. They have been around since the Iron Ages and have modified with the times.
From a moral point of view, I think having a restrained monarch is good for the sake of having a neutral arbiter. Just like a legal process benefits from a neutral judge, and a parliamentary system benefits from a neutral House of Lords. In a republic, the head of state is typically the member of a specific political party, with a party line to toe, elections to win, and sponsors to appease. I think there is a sensible argument to be made for supplementing democratically chosen head of government with a stable, neutral head of state.
In JJs video he argues that since a monarch is still a political figure, they will be inherently politically divisive, maybe not in the sense of conservative vs progressive, but in the sense of monarchy vs antimonarchy, which causes all of the same problems.
The monarch will almost always be swayed in some direction, many times to suit his or her own interest
A neutral arbiter is called a JUDGE. There's plenty of powerful and good judges in republics. And during a crisis the one who commands is the commander of the military, who is schooled in military matters. Monarchs don't actually have a job other than being a walking flag. A monarch is a person born into wealth, health and power over others. In the countries where they don't have power monarchies are the prime example of a corrupt hierarchy not based on merit but on birth and a relic of feudalism, not to mention a walking insult to every working family. If you care about equality and inclusivity and for everyone to live well then all monarchies should be abolished. In the countries monarchies do have power, they might as well have absolute power cause the law doesn't apply to them in any way and they're free to opress their citizens all they want like in Thailand right now. There's no logical reason for monarchy unless you believe in a strict hierarchical caste system. And if you do believe in those systems then well tell that to actual struggling people and see how they like it that you believe they're inherently trash and also look at how many despots were in power thanks to their birth and how much damage to the world they've caused.
@@fclp67 British taxpayers fund the royal family through the annual Sovereign Grant and Sovereign Grant Reserve, which totalled £82.2m for the financial year 2018/19 - at a cost of some £1.24 per person in the United Kingdom.
This paid for more than 3,200 royal engagements at home and abroad, with over 160,000 guests being welcomed at royal palaces for events like garden parties and investitures. It also financed the start of a major reservicing of Buckingham Palace that will amount to some £85m over the next five years, while Prince Harry and the Duchess of Sussex’s renovation of their Frogmore Cottage home also made headlines for its cost.That is a lot of money, but in 2016 alone more than 2.7 million tourists visited Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, the Palace of Holyrood and other key royal attractions, boosting Britain’s tourist revenues for the year by some £550m.On present form , it seems highly unlikely that the British royal family will be sent packing. Queen Elizabeth II is immensely more liked than any political, TV or entertainment figure. In 2019, she topped YouGov’s list of Britain’s most admired women with 22.61 per cent of the poll - ahead of Michelle Obama (13 per cent), Judi Dench (7.66 per cent) and JK Rowling (6.77 per cent).A study by the Brand Finance Network estimated that in 2017 the monarchy generated a gross uplift of £1.766bn to the UK economy. This was calculated by taking into consideration the Crown Estate’s surplus, plus the indirect effect of the monarchy on industries such as tourism, trade, media and arts - along with the benefits to British charities and the advertising value of extra coverage around the world for ‘Brand Britain’.
The simple fact remains that abolishing the monarchy would not only be an extremely expensive and problematic process…but it’d be a waste of time. There are a few factors to observe:
First off, all of the sovereign lands controlled by the Crown are private property. Whilst the Queen donates most of the proceeds from those holdings to the British Government, they do not belong to the Government. Abolition of the monarchy would still leave those holdings in the hands of the Royal Family, but the Government would no longer receive the proceeds from them. And they can’t simply take them back: that would be theft of legal property.
Secondly, the purpose of the Royal Family in modern British politics is to provide the nation with an apolitical body both as a diplomatic corps, military figureheads and a unifying figure across the board. The Queen herself serves as the nation’s Head of State: thus, the Prime Minister runs the Government whilst the Queen represents the UK as a whole. Take that away…suddenly we need a new Head of State, and frankly, we’ve seen what a mess that can be. The system we have now is one of the most politically-stable in the world. And we’ve seen nations that combine their Head of State with their government leaders, and it’s almost always horrific.
We must also consider the fact that the Queen isn’t just the Head of State for the United Kingdom. She remains the Head of State for multiple other nations: Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, The Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, the Solomon Islands, St Kitts and Nevis, and St Vincent and the Grenadines. Were the monarchy to be abolished, she would either retain her status there whilst losing it within the UK, or you’d simply be asking over a dozen countries to also reconfigure their governments to install a new Head of State. That’s a lot of hassle.
Note also that the British Armed Forces all swear an oath to the Crown rather than to the Government: this is not overly dissimilar to American troops swearing an oath to the Constitution rather than the President: the Royal Family are apolitical, and therefore serve the country rather than the Government. Remove that…again, now you’ve got the need for a replacement.
Put bluntly, the British Royal Family are far too intrinsically linked both to old tradition, government and our identity as a society. We’re not the sort of nation that simply discards something amazing just because it lacks the same functionality as it once had in the past. Good thing, too, otherwise we’d have knocked down Stonehenge already!
There’s simply no purpose to abolishing the Monarchy. Aside from it being one of the longest-standing political institutions in the world, there’s plenty of merit of maintaining it as it stands - and far too many issues would be involved in removing it.
@@bennettflint119 in Japan the monarchy is like a religious symbol
And a symbol of the nation.
And does not enjoy political power.
Just like the national flag and the national anthem he is a symbol of the nation
When it comes to parliamentary monarchies one might consider weighing in historical crimes of the dynasty or the privileged position a monarch has to grab more power in a tumultuous situation.
To be fair, other political figures like presidents, prime ministers, or even parties are also risky and may have historical legacy, so that’s probably not an automatic disqualification. But it seems worth considering.
Note: In many republics, the president is forbidden from holding a political party. So the partisanship argument is valid, however, it varies from country to country, for example, in Eastern Europe, presidents are rarely partisan candidates. Hungarian and Polish presidency is pretty much the only valid exception.
Finally my two favorite youtuber head to head hehe.
In Malaysia we hv parliamentary monarchies with 9 Sultan and one Agong(Head of Sultan)We change our Agong every 4 years by going through the list of Sultan. The Agong is the figure head of the country and only ties to ceremonial stuff tho still hv some power lik electing the prime minister(head of government)tho there are rules the Agong needs to follow in order to exert his power. The Sultans represent their own state as head of state.
I hope u can cover Malaysia because our parliamentary monarchy is quite unique
👏 👏 👏
I liked how you weren’t very opinionated and looked at the facts, it’s very civilized and doesn’t affect a lot of people
Late to the party, but monarchs can be elected as well, they don't have to be hereditary. Poland, the HRE, the Catholic Church, and Malaysia are just some examples off the top of my head. The difference is that an elected monarch serves for life, unlike Presidential systems that, typically, maintain term limits.
This is true to be honest. Also add the Novgorod Republic too
It interesting ! I follow both JJ and Useful Charts channels. Thanks for these 2 great videos.
In the Kingdom of the Netherlands👑 the King stands for our identity and unity!🙇♂️
I agree, but there is only 58% support (Ipsos, 2021). That's interesting if we look at the argument that the people WANT a monarch.. because I think the percentage of support will fall below 50% within a few years. should we then yet preserve the Dutch monarchy?
Yes but so does our soccer team or Max Verstappen...
@@alexhoppenbrouwers4754 That 60% was after the Royal family went to Greece for holiday when the government announced the lockdown restrictions😓😭
But the Dutch culture is nothing without Kingsday, the Orange colour, national football team.
We are one of the only monarchies where the monarchy is a synonym of partying!🥳🥳
The monarchy was forced upon your country by other reactionary European countries in the aftermath of Napoleonic wars. Before it wasn't a monarchy
@@KateeAngel We were 'de facto' a monarchy since the 15th century!
It was called the Stadthouder, that were the ancesters of our King.
Napoleon never forced us, it was after Napoleon that the royal family of Orange came back.
But the Prime Ministers always had the powers!
This makes me wonder if the longer arc of human history will return to monarchy, at least until cyborgs are a thing
How about Cyborg Queen Elizabeth?
@@brianbrady139 but she’s immortal? Why would see need cyborg parts?
@@AverageFitnessEnjoyer So that she can ascend to become ruler of all of the internet, also the queen with flaw throwers for hands, would be baste
It's possible, despite all the talk of freedom we do tend to towards dynasties in various forms and I think that with this current age of less accomplished leaders people will get more and more frustrated with a feeling of decline and an ever more insulated elite electing eachother.
@@brianbrady139 incredibly well argued, understandable have a great day
The argument for me against a monarch as head of state is the point that he/she represents the country. As a german I would not like to have a person defined by an undemocratic process as the symbol of the nation (not to mention the historical heritage most monarch carry).
You see I'm french and Im a french monarchist not officially but I support it and I want my bourbon french family
The one thing I find suspect about the "parliamentary monarchy should be left as an option" argument is, "is this really an option any new country would ever take?" Like, assuming your country didn't start with some ceremonial monarch, would there ever be a good argument to install one? In my opinion, the answer there is going to be no, not really.
then the question becomes, they would not becouse nobody would be able to choose someone worth enought to be in that position, or because it isn't a good sistem?
It's going to be no because there is no historical connection between a new country and a monarchy. Monarchy is a great reminder of your country's history and culture. "It should be left as an option" means, in other words, that countries with this specific government structure should be allowed to keep it if they so wish.
Tell Georgia that. They seem to have missed the memo
Weren't there a bunch of countries that arbitrarily installed a monarch after 1700? Several states in South America as well as Greece, Persia, etc.
@@yrobtsvt It wasn’t arbitrary, it made perfect sense. Installing a monarch meant alliances with other, more powerful nations and a guarantee of sovereignty
up to the people of the nations with monarchy's and no one else. each one has its pro and cons
yes
Yes it should be up to the people but to make it up to the people you'll need to take a poll to find out what the people want. The poll should be fair and give all citizen equal voice in the decision. An elected monarch isn't much of a monarch.
@@myothersoul1953 yea
@@myothersoul1953 they do conduct polls where Im from the uk. were they ask people about do they support the monarchy, approval ratting etc. not a referendum every though fews years but its handy to know where the public stands on the issues and form there actions could be taken.
Just have a democracy at that point
I came into the video as an anti-monarchist, but the point you made about a country's symbol made sense. And, more psychologically even, I think that the UK works cus it has a 'mom' aka queen, someone who is gentle yet firm and a representative of the household (country), and a 'dad' aka prime minister, who goes to work and provides. symbolically, it works
I won't miss the absolute monarchies but I do wish the surviving crown heads would be preserved as long as possible. There's just something about them that I don't want the world to be without.
As someone living in a country under an absolute monarchy, Brunei Darussalam 🇧🇳, my view is that as long as the monarch is competent enough (i am aware this cannot be controlled) there is no issue with them ruling the country. In Brunei, the Sultan is the head of state, holding the position of prime minister, Ministers of Defence, Finance and Foreign Affairs and tge commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Though manny western countries do not approve of this, people living in this country love the monarchy and we live generally good lives, decent living conditions, being safe and secure and little to no domestic political issues whatsoever. The system has its flaws, we do have our complaints but the majority here are satisfied with how the government is run.
To add on: The monarchy here knows how to take care of the people and we live a considerably safe life here. They are also a crucial symbol of tbe country's sovereignity and a strong display of the country's rich history, culture and traditions.
@@japchae5645 Ideally a hybrid system of elected officials and a Monarch with power under regulation would prove beneficial given Monarchies general flexibility and advantage to solving problems quickly while also giving representation to the people.
I wrote this comment on JJ's video as well:
Constitutional monarchies work and work well because they provide a check on the ambitions of politicians that are in their profession for the wrong reasons. In the US we just had a president that was not interested in his role as a head of the government. He wanted to be head of state with all the public adulation that supposedly goes with it. If the US were a commonwealth realm like Canada or it had a native born constitutional monarchy that check would have been in place and the job would have been far less appealing to him. Even if you separated the position into an elected ceremonial role and then a head of government like Ireland or Germany there is always the chance that a crafty figure would use that position as either a way to execute influence behind the scenes or a holding place to bounce back into the driver's seat when it is constitutionally allowed (see Russia among others). No matter what Justin Trudeau or Boris Johnson do the Queen is the Queen so there is only so far their egos get fed. That ceiling to ambition would have saved us in the US 4 years of absolute nonsense. I would gladly pay the paltry sum it costs in individual taxes to uphold that failsafe.
In a parliamentary system, the head of state could sack a head of govt who tried to thwart democracy. Unlike the judiciary, the head of states ruling would be carried out as he is the commander in chief of the armed forces.
Very well said. Trump turned me from a republican (in the small-r sense) to a monarchist.
I'm impressed by the opening definition of terms between monarchy, republic, & democracy.
Many assume that democracy and republic relate to the same thing and that they are mutually exclusive. I’m glad he cleared up that confusion
I knew it because I’m living in a Monarchy but I used to hate on them the Monarchy and the family
Long live the monarchy from Australia I want to keep the monarchy because we get a day off! 😀
If we ever become a republic, we'd likely get a day off - just "Independence Day" rather than "Queen's unBirthday"
I’m very surprised to find out that I actually agree (I think). This was a very reasonable and well articulated video, I’m glad I’ve watched it!
monarchs in parlamentary monarquies are the only neutral political position that can bring everyone together even in the most factionalist system
No, there will always be people that have democratic principles and are against the monarchy. So, they can never bring everyone together.
That's not quite true, monarchs mostly have their own agendas or are used as sock puppets by the politicians that are in charge.
@@nietkees6906 true but they are less divisive in general because they are apolitical and typically a symbol of the state instead of the symbol of a party. I'm against their collaboration with undemocratic think tanks like the world economic forum though, that will be their downfall
As a citizen from a Monarchy, The Kingdom of the Netherlands, I wholeheartedly agree with you. We love our Royal House of Orange. They are part of the social fabric of Dutch society. So yes, Monarchies have a place in the 21st century.
15:40 hmm... i would contend that this is an exercise in whataboutism. If we can agree that income inequality, specifically of the systematic kind (which regardless of how bad one would want to argue American neoliberal economics represents systematic oppression, is clearly not as blatantly direct if anything as that of monarchy), is a key issue our society must face going forward, then the abolition of monarchy would provide a step in that direction. Regardless of the great extent that the American 1% represents income inequality so much more drastically than, say, the British monarchy, as you have conceded the point the royal family is _still no less_ part of the problem. After all, the question on the table is "should monarchy exist", not "is monarchy the absolutely worst, no-good, ugliest form of government available".
If the argument is "Monarchies should only exist if they are popular", why rely on polling and not regular elections to measure that? Sounds like that's an argument in favor of having the head of state be democratically chosen
It's a very bad argument, because both polling and elections are open and somewhat easy to fake.
And honestly, popularity is a bad metric, because people are ignorant and very easy to manipulate when they don't know enough, and so can get sold things that is long-term bad
One of the big points is that any elected head of state would be politically connected to some party or group, displaying their political leanings and ending any pretence of neutrality. Whereas a constitutional monarch would be trained their whole lives NOT to express any opnion on politics.
@@henrikkjuus90 All I'm saying is that instead of saying 80% of people support a monarchy according to Pew, maybe hold an election for that 80% number so it's more legit
I can't speak for others but I am from Belgium and our first king has literrally nothing to do with my country he was just crowned because the brits didn't want him anymore and we needed a king because no one wanted us to be a republic bcz of the Napokeonic wars. But if I look to the king of the netherlands their king helped them free their country from the spanish opressor. So that is just historically and culturally possible.
Here’s the argument I think both these videos left out that needs to be addressed. A politicians investment in the political system, because of the enticement of economic gain/support for their agenda, is made for their own personal interests. And this needs to be a part of any political system in order to have some level of reform and change and debate and freedom. However a monarchs position in a country is entirely based upon the existence of said country. Their only interest is the preservation of the state and therefore they are better for Heads of State because they have no other goals that may corrupt them, and cannot achieve political power enough to support any ideology. This is the better argument for monarchy then “approval ratings” or “cause god said so”.
It's a dumb argument though, because monarchies can still be as corrupt as any other politicians. In an absolute monarchy, corruption is basically just the order of business, since the state exists to serve the needs of the monarch. Things that we think of as corruption (like embezzling state money, or doing favours for friends and family) are just how the state is supposed to work.
Even in a constitutional monarchy though, there is nothing to intrinsically prevent monarchs from being corrupt.
@@krombopulos_michael Yes there is. Constitutional monarchy had a natural checks and balances between the democratic institutions and the monarch. Since neither want to see the other overstep it’s boundaries. Like I said corruption has two reasons. Either ideological or money. Well the monarch can’t get more money because the state sees all of its finances not to mention that there’s no reason why since the state takes care of them. And because their constitutional power is so limited they wouldn’t be able to do it based on ideology. And in reality this checks out. Most of the least corrupt countries have constitutional monarchs.