Imagine being born the most powerful person in the greatest empire the world had ever seen and then just allowing it to be pissed away over the next 50 years.
She doesn't have any power, She is merely a well paid figurehead that doesn't have to pay taxes and doesn't Vote in elections. She signs any law put before her that is voted for in Parliament.
@@simongarthwaite7695 while i agree with her there its also a double edge sword, just as much as it is leading it. In that i blame the masses for the want of something exciting to do. The masses want war . shes seen plenty and im sure shes sick of the euphoria of war.
@@roan2288 I'm as right wing as anyone just don't want to see probably the last great tradition this country has thrown out so we can have Peter Mandelsen or someone as head of state.
@@roan2288 id love it if she did but I respect that she sees herself above the political fray at the end of the day its for the British people to wake up and get people into Westminster and local politics who really can make a difference.
What's striking is what not on it. No mention of the great wars, no military landmark like Waterloo and no mention of Henry 8 break from the church and its in time legal effects.
That would be the Act of Supremacy - wonder if the name troubled them?! Also no Statute of Westminster, kind of relevant given HM is head of the Commonwealth.
@@weltschmerz88 the queen cannot enter the City of London without permission (different from London City). The City of London is separate from the UK, like Washingtom DC is separate from the USA and the Vatican separate from Italy. They are the financial, military and religious centres of the West
You're right AA, As a South African myself I also got a knee-jerk reaction when it came to the SA Constitution. What did the crown do here? As far as I know it was a joint effort between the NP and ANC at the CODESA. It's like they completely erasing the history of the boers and make the impression that SA only got independence in 1990s? what about the Statute of Westminster, 1931? The union in 1910? this is quite a WTF moment?
I'm sure Anti-racist Baby would be included if they laid that pavement today. That's the sort of thing that has become important in the Britain Liz 2 has left us. When she was crowned Britain was 99.?% British; she reigned over the loss of colonises and the colonisation of the homeland.
All recent installations in London seem to, to a greater or lesser extent, have a dark, sinister undertone. Swilliamism's channel has some great content about it.
I won't comment on what she stands for, but it's telling that a largely Tory set of backers couldn't resist a little virtue signal by including those things on the timeline.
If you think the British royals are bad the Norwegian royal family are even worse while Elisabeth II avoids politics the current king of Norway is open and outspoken and its currently more left leaning than the pm. His successors are just as bad and his daughter Martha Loius competes with Harry as worse current royal.
The Swedish Royals had some of their crown jewels stolen by a refugee they took in. He pawned some but threw the rest in the river when he realised no-one would buy them and they've never been found
I asked Dutton this in Nov 2019, he wasn't having it back then: "Looking at South Africa as an example of the civilisational collapse you predict for western societies can it be thought of as a grand experiment?"
I mean it's not like we can't observe it in real time. Also, it's more of a shitshow with a touch of circus... or the other way around depending on who you ask.
I think the American declaration and communist manifesto are there because they both reference the magna carta as a source of inspiration. I don't know why the south African constitution is there but perhaps it's the same reason.
You said “signed in 2015” but you meant 1215. As for why the Declaration of Independence is listed, I should imagine it’s because it marked both the first great rift of the British Empire and the English People (the colonies were essentially an outpost of the English Nation at the time) and the fact the American Revolutionaries laid claim to the principles of the Magna Carta as part of their justification for their revolt. As for the communist manifesto... well. That’s a touchier subject still. To say it as carefully as I can, it’s because communism at its core has always been about revolution against tradition, order, and Monarchy. It has always been seditious and entropic, and every revolution to date has had anti-God seditionists pulling the strings and levers. (Including the American Revolution) And yes, I’m an American that has ancestry traced back to the original Colonies. It’s a bitter pill to swallow for me.
With all due respect, AA, in the eyes of English law, Americans are just another type of Englishmen who broke away and formed their own parallel country (same, imagine, as if they were in Ireland or Normandy), who also use the same common law practices (even the same cases establishing precedence before the separation).
For a minute there I thought you meant Separation of Powers - but that has ended with statutes of parliament that are not Constitutional and destroy the principal of equality before the common law . Mrs Windsor is above the law and detention without trial is common . However US law is totally Corrupted far more than English law . The Common law heritage is in bad shape both sides of the pond
I particularly like Article 28 Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. The one in particular that needs a careful coat of looking at in the UK is "1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
You've missed Starkey's most important governance point old boy... Namely she is a constitutional monarchy yet acts as if merely a ceremonial one. Huge difference and she promised to rule like her father ie constitutionally (in my simple terms not a player in the game but trying to meditate and represent the people when the politicians are stuck or losing the plot). In cases such as Brexit and Covid she failed spectacularly or in the latter case sided outrageously with neoliberalism pushing the vaccine. Also to another of your points Starkey mentioned some egg on face re Douglas Home that I never bothered to look up. Tried to act in the political arena and had fingers burned. So backed away from that and in the end was more focused on family. Which gives as interesting light to reassess QE1 who deliberately remained unmarried.
Interesting comment , and something that i hadn't heard put in such a way before. I'd also add that she's made no effort to address the complete demographic displacement of her native subjects as well.
The only justification I could think of for including the communist manefesto was because some may say it lead in part to ww2. However neither of the world wars were on the paving stones.
To destroy a society, destroy the families. WW1 produced so many widows, spinsters and fatherless children; seriously damaging the transmission of cultural mores. WW2 did the same to the following generation. "The cream of western manhood died in WW1" and WW2 compounded that.
In studying law I've been introduced to the South African Constitution as the 'Rolls-Royce' of written constitutions, perhaps it is included here because it is held in such lofty regard by the world of UK legal academia, the avowed pinnacle of legal development flowing from Magna Carta. A view I do not endorse, I hasten to add.
Standing for nothing and not having a identity leads to chaos, but forcing those who already disagree also leads to chaos. There really is no winning. My question is why cant people agree to independent states. What is so hard about letting the lands being separated, why cant we we just separate along ideological lines . the melting pot doest work and killing the opposition will only create civil war. So why not peaceful separation.
@@bubblegumgun3292 I'm sure you can figure it out, but self righteous people on a moral crusade will not stop at any boarder because their conscience simply won't let them.
@@bubblegumgun3292 The chief and principal role of the sovereign is to lead the nation in war, so let the sovereign lead the nation in war and crush dissent by the sword. The realm suffers far worse today than it would under civil war, I don't see why it is to be feared.
The timeline seems to mostly include events that directly relate to Britain or have involved British interests. They seem to offer influence on constitution, law or political philosophy. Therefore on this basis, it is alarming to see the inclusion of the Communist Manifesto. Because it implies it has had the same influence of significance.
Perseverance and survival. While she is not as active as I wish she would be, she at least manages to keep her head up and pull her family through any scandal. Above that, she represents our ongoing traditions - which are a key part of our national identity.
Cope. She has failed her oaths. Merely sitting on the throne isn't an excuse and it never was in times gone by. Many a failed monarch has been replaced.
@The Websters Art Inc 'Fides et Justitia' I don't care what she is like on a personal level. She holds the highest position in the realm and she screwed it - that is what we are discussing here.
She thought that serving the left would have preserved the monarchy probably poorly advised she should know that the last king of Portugal did the same (bending to the left) and look what that brought him. This is if we give her the benefit of the doubt. We also need to think that had she attempted to do a stunt like one of her predecessors (asserting power)that the powers that be wouldn't allow that and she'll go down like Nicholas II or forced to abdicate like Wilhelm ii. During the early parts of her reign liberalism was at all time high so its probably not a black e white scenario. But her heirs on the other hand theyre inexcusable and are completely on board with whatever the overlords come up with.
@The Websters Art Inc 'Fides et Justitia' we are a Constitutional Monarchy, the fact that she acts as a mascot is her own choice. She has powers which she doesn't use out of choice. Don't peddle mistruths.
Elizabeth II has overseen the dissolution and breakup of the British Empire and the ensuing decline of British morality and culture. She has done nothing to hinder the progress of this course, which should be her duty as monarch. As those on the left would say, silence is compliance; and, therefore, Elizabeth II is complicit in what has happened to the United Kingdom during her reign.
Came here from a Tweet of yours today. Elizabeth II's legacy is actually pretty abysmal. If she'd gone toe-to-toe with Blair (as she was entitled to do) and if she'd not been focussed on the irrelevancy (at best) that is the Commonwealth, who knows where Britain would be today? I can't celebrate her, I'm afraid.
I think the reason the Communist Manifesto is included is because the monuments are showing a whig theory of history, meaning gradual emancipation. They are trying to show that the British values are about freedom and emancipation. That is why Burke and other Conservative thinkers are not included, since they emphasise order, duties and adherence to the past. So this is a very liberal take on the monarchy and what the monarchy and Britain stands for.
Interesting to see the Sommersett v Steuart trial of 1772 followed seven years later by America's independence. On the same slab, it makes me think that America didn't like the outcome of that case or the growing whispers coming from Britain, at that time, about ending slavery. Another reason for independence?
I thought when you started walking down the history pavement it would have dates for women’s lib, gay rights and the nazis. As that’s all they teach in school about our history.
@@tommyhill7645 By that token, Marx was German, and should, therefore, also have nothing to do with this monument. Although French, Bastiat was anti-authoritarian and "The Law" was written to demonstrate that Laws become the weapons of those in power to remedy their grievances, which leads to a succession of those out of power repeating once they get their day to be in charge as an act of retribution leading to vicious cycles in which The Laws become unjust. Principles of Liberty and the Individual (the ultimate minority to which we all belong universally) should be our Northstar.
She is the original tiger rider. Britain's empire was lost, all she has done is make sure her family doesn't go down with it. Notice how the family never offers an opinion on anything by decree. Isn't that what an evolian tiger rider would do when confronted with leftist lunacy? Could she have fought off the tiger and won? If she could have, since she is one of the few people on earth with that power, then that would make her a coward, neglecting her responsibility to protect her country and empire. Which version do you prefer? Wise tiger rider, or cowardly pacifist? Did she really have the power to reverse the decline, or was the decline already in God's hands?
Perfect follow-up question for AA to muddle over. I'd enjoy a discussion along these lines. It seems to me there was and is no stopping it (black pilled, I know). By the time one can see the leviathan crashing down upon the West, by the time it really comes into terrible focus, it's far too late. But I suppose the question does remain, would a proactive Queen have had the foresight and power to do something about it?
I don't think a sovereign can be put in the same category as the rest of us in this regard. She has spent nearly 70 years as head of state and command-in-chief of the armed forces, she has had both time and opportunity to get loyal men into key positions in the military, to gain the support of the people, and to prepare for war to seize power from parliament. In her case, it is either cowardice or complicity, but her position is almost entirely unique in the west.
She shouldn't have signed the no deal, no leave bill. Curious, significant omissions : Civil War & Commonwealth period. 'Glorious' revolution, and the Bank of England which soon followed. Liz 2 signing off the abolition of one government can't tie the hands of successive governments to join the EU, and the switch from the legal status of subject of the crown, to citizen of the EU.
The father of my children is rural Sardinian and extremely ancient. A migrant swordsman. I conceived, birthed and paid for a son and daughter up until adulthood. Every single night I would ask him to tell us a story, a story is all I need. And every night for 15 years he would slam the door and 'go out. Once I had a fever so high that I could not open my eyes, my daughter Eva who was 6 months was zipped up with me in a large jacket and my son Francesco, yes its Francesco not Francisco. Francesco was tied to me with a rope. I pleaded with the father to stay but he slammed the door. Some pretty interesting poetry came from that
*What Does Queen Elizabeth II Stand For?* A tad fanciful, but with her eventual passing will bookend a period of English nationalism beginning with one Elizabeth and ending with another. The ultimate midwit aim is to see the Royal Family go the way of the Swedish one - that the Windsors will retain their titles but slip more or less quietly into FTSE 100 boardrooms and/or NGOs. The next Monarch will absolutely be head of Oxfam or Women's Aid or whatever.
I'd wager that the U.S. Declaration of Independence was added not to appease American tourists, but because of the fairly common argument that the American revolution was a restoration of common law traditions that the colonists believed they had the right to as Englishmen. Now, regardless of the merits of thay argument, various versions of it remain popular, to the point where Carl Benjamin has put it forward on multiple occasions. Being charitable, I could see that the Indian and South African constitutions could potentially be a continuation of this, but I admit to knowing nothing about either of those, other than those nations being part of the old commonwealth. That said, I have absolutely no idea why the communist manifesto is there. Without meaning to sound hyperbolic, I can't think of a reason that isn't sinister.
Ancient Egypt's recorded history records no defeats, and depicts it winning closer and closer to home. The British approach to history for the past two centuries has been the complete opposite, to focus almost entirely on its own defeats and failings.
I swore allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and I will maintain that until she departs this life or I do. After that and as far as the rest of them are concerned all bets are of. They have to date failed to display any great loyalty to my people or their interests , they have consistently served their own best interests.
You swore to her and all her heirs RI Ranger. I know because I did as well. I too hold your sentiment. Respect is earned not given & Charles just doesn’t cut the mustard.
Loyalty when it is convenient to oneself is not loyalty at all. When one swears upon an oath you stand by it even if your counterpart spits upon it. Of course renewing such an oath to the vile descendants of those who failed you would be foolish.
It is clear you understand the oath obligation , I ment it when I swore it , some of my friend died preserving it, it doesn’t mean I lost my reason , I think it’s called integrity. Thank for your comment.
Elizabeth II Once stood for all I Loved now she stands for all I Hate! I'm now a Rebel Soldier my home has been destroyed by Elected Custodians that this Woman heads, She has another Enemy in me
Frankly, Mill's _On Liberty_ shouldn't be there either. That book is the most deceptively titled work in the entire history of political thought because it actually has nothing to do with "liberty" as a classical liberal would have understood that term. Prior to Mill, the focus of liberals was on private property rights, abolition of state-backed privileges, lower taxation, freedom of trade, and so on. But Mill spends his work championing "freedom of expression" and so-called "experiments in living." Mill's main target is the so-called "tyranny" of social mores. And it is because of his completely outsized and undeserved influence that liberalism became associated with what amounts to a declaration of war against normality and against civil society. The French liberals of Mill's time, like Charles Comte of Charles Dunoyer, were not harping on about such things. Anyone who reads Mill's private correspondence, especially his correspondence with Auguste Comte, will swiftly learn that he was no liberal. In fact, he was a proto-socialist, and like Comte, he had dreams of replacing Christianity with a "religion of humanity." To the extent that Mill appeared to favor toleration of unorthodox opinions, this was only as a rhetorical tactic to allow him and those like him to criticize and erode Christianity. Once Mill's preferred society and religion were established, he was quite clear that further criticism would be unnecessary and would not be tolerated because it was "irrational." Mill, and especially _On Liberty,_ was what is ultimately responsible for the transformation of liberalism into socialism. It's what eventually led to "liberals" in the US favoring extensive state intervention in economic affairs. And because of the utterly dishonest rhetorical posture that it adopts, I'd say that _On Liberty_ was ultimately a more dangerous and more corrosive document than even the _Communist Manifesto._ At least the communists were honest about what they really wanted.
@@sh-hg4eg Nonsense, they'd been expelled in 1290 or thereabouts and weren't permitted to return until 1665 or thereabouts when they were needed to run the finances of the new East India Company established to get some of the spice trade away from the Dutch monopoly thereon; quinine in particular.
@@jessicali8594 After a day of being dragged around by three children in the blazing sun, i had somehow mistakenly muddled up Victoria and Elizabeth. You're quite right to correct me.
@@sh-hg4eg Oh yes indeed Vicky liked Disraeli and certainly preferred him to Gladstone. I must get round to looking up when Catholics and Jews were permitted to study at Oxbridge.
In my opinion, as an outsider looking in and a huge anglophilic history reader, the queen represents over 1000 years of constitutional monarchy and tradition and is a symbol of its and British cultures perseverance. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a filthy colonial.
@@jessicali8594 you are correct. I was taking magna carta into account since it can interpreted as a kind of early constitution that laid down rights, like property rights for example, and certain restrictions on the king in relation to his vassals. Not to discount the falls into absolute monarchy of course.
@@thegentlemanfish7504 Most of the clauses are about the barons and their fiefdoms, nothing to do with human rights, an unknown concept even in the 1600s. Democracy is always followed by tyranny as the 2020s are revealing.
Don't think she stands for much other than trying to preserve her family's status while letting everything else about the country be pissed away on her watch.
There is one day in the year, only one when the Italians will submit and that is on Good Friday, complete balls on the fire, one should not let this go to waste
We should remember that this monument is ultimately a propaganda piece designed to present a narrative. Perhaps the creators included the communist manifesto because his ideals have such a strong influence on modern politics in the UK? The USA declaration of independence and constitutions of South Africa and India would then make a bit more sense in this context because they represent the failure of colonial rule and the dissolution of the old British order, both things with Communism firmly opposes. They also act as success stories of decolonisation efforts spearheaded by revolutionaries.
Who was it that said "England isn't great because it's laws are great. England's laws are great because England is great."? It seems like the statue should stand for the latter perspective, among other things.
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( มะมะมะหมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4noyAoMa7bQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Got to admire your replication of 1990’s FMV / Myst style movement.
@@bigajoo Yeah, just needs that slight audio hiss and a little crackle at the end of each audio segment to complete that early CD-ROM aesthetic.
Damn I loved that game!
Imagine being born the most powerful person in the greatest empire the world had ever seen and then just allowing it to be pissed away over the next 50 years.
Either that or the crown already lost too much power and was afraid of a revolution. Britain was the only big monarchy power in the Allies.
... over the following 70 years.
@@Sunlight91 WW1 was about the lizard people destroying monarchies and replacing them with socialist regimes.
She doesn't have any power,
She is merely a well paid figurehead that doesn't have to pay taxes and doesn't Vote in elections.
She signs any law put before her that is voted for in Parliament.
@@NPC-st7zv She does have A power however; being revered as she is, she could sway politics easily by having any firm stance.
She stands for managed decline.
I'm sure her private views are more right than left its not her job to determine the future direction of the Country and she knows it.
@@simongarthwaite7695 while i agree with her there its also a double edge sword, just as much as it is leading it. In that i blame the masses for the want of something exciting to do. The masses want war . shes seen plenty and im sure shes sick of the euphoria of war.
@@roan2288 I'm as right wing as anyone just don't want to see probably the last great tradition this country has thrown out so we can have Peter Mandelsen or someone as head of state.
@@roan2288 id love it if she did but I respect that she sees herself above the political fray at the end of the day its for the British people to wake up and get people into Westminster and local politics who really can make a difference.
@@simongarthwaite7695 She managed to make sure Seat Belt laws did not apply to her private estates
What's striking is what not on it. No mention of the great wars, no military landmark like Waterloo and no mention of Henry 8 break from the church and its in time legal effects.
Similarly, if supposedly seminal works of Econ, political or moral philosophy are eligible, why not the Wealth of Nations?
@@stu1701E you would think Tim Berners-Lee and the Internet would make it. Safe and agreeable to all
@@pbh81 Yeah, that's a good one.
Well noted.
Education is not just about the information they want to prescribe, but even more about what they withhold.
That would be the Act of Supremacy - wonder if the name troubled them?! Also no Statute of Westminster, kind of relevant given HM is head of the Commonwealth.
"Human Rights" without human duties is probably the most dangerous idea.
Your rights are everyone else's duty. That's why human rights should only be defined negatively.
She is a daily reminder that Amsterdam merchants decided how our country should be run 330 years ago
She has to ask to enter the city.
It's blatant.
@@ThunderChunky101 cab you elaborate please?
@@weltschmerz88 the queen cannot enter the City of London without permission (different from London City). The City of London is separate from the UK, like Washingtom DC is separate from the USA and the Vatican separate from Italy.
They are the financial, military and religious centres of the West
DC is not seperate from the US, only from the state of Maryland from which it was partitioned; it is under federal and city jurisdiction only
Let's get high and bang hookers while the English do all the work is the greatest geo-political master-stoke in history.
passively watched the country die, but at least she outlived it right?
You're right AA, As a South African myself I also got a knee-jerk reaction when it came to the SA Constitution. What did the crown do here? As far as I know it was a joint effort between the NP and ANC at the CODESA. It's like they completely erasing the history of the boers and make the impression that SA only got independence in 1990s? what about the Statute of Westminster, 1931? The union in 1910? this is quite a WTF moment?
Christ, what a rotten timeline. There's 1000 other more poignant dates they could've put on there - from Runnymede to John O'Groats.
She doesn't stand for anything.
She sits and waves 👋.
“So this is how Empire dies, with thunderous sitting and waving.”
@@LiquidSwan The Empire never dies mate...
God bless the queen, communist manifesto, UN, and Nelson Mandella. It's all as English as tea and cookies, my good chap!
*Biscuits.
@@RiflemanMoore we found him! Go get the anglo cage, boys!
Tea and cookies is not English. Maybe that's American irony.
@@jwadaow A valid theory, I fear my rage temporarily blinded me.
@@RiflemanMoore understandable.
I'm sure Anti-racist Baby would be included if they laid that pavement today. That's the sort of thing that has become important in the Britain Liz 2 has left us. When she was crowned Britain was 99.?% British; she reigned over the loss of colonises and the colonisation of the homeland.
Exactly
All recent installations in London seem to, to a greater or lesser extent, have a dark, sinister undertone. Swilliamism's channel has some great content about it.
Shame he hasn't uploaded in a while. Can't be doing much tour guide work these days. He was an early influence in my red pilling.
I lost my old account and have been trying to think of that guys name for ages. Thank you!
I won't comment on what she stands for, but it's telling that a largely Tory set of backers couldn't resist a little virtue signal by including those things on the timeline.
Make some videos you!
@@Patrick-vh5nr Eventually; I see no reason to invest in TH-cam right now (I'd get nuked in 2m flat), kinda waiting for another platform to emerge :D
If you think the British royals are bad the Norwegian royal family are even worse while Elisabeth II avoids politics the current king of Norway is open and outspoken and its currently more left leaning than the pm. His successors are just as bad and his daughter Martha Loius competes with Harry as worse current royal.
All royals around the world ought to be homeschooled.
The Swedish Royals had some of their crown jewels stolen by a refugee they took in. He pawned some but threw the rest in the river when he realised no-one would buy them and they've never been found
@@maverickstclare3756 tragic karma.
My Boomer parents just started watching The Crown yesterday and love it.
What a coincidence.
What is the crown, my normie gf recommended it to me?
@@skipper4606 Netflix series about the Queen.
@@hungerthedyemerchant I know but is it based or pozzed
@@skipper4606 honestly don't know. Produced by Netflix is enough for me to judge
@@hungerthedyemerchant agreed lol
They should have added the Edict of Expulsion of 1290...
... and the permit to return in 1665 or thereabouts to do the finance work of the new East India Company.
Oof
She falls for anything....
I asked Dutton this in Nov 2019, he wasn't having it back then:
"Looking at South Africa as an example of the civilisational collapse you predict for western societies can it be thought of as a grand experiment?"
I mean it's not like we can't observe it in real time. Also, it's more of a shitshow with a touch of circus... or the other way around depending on who you ask.
I think the American declaration and communist manifesto are there because they both reference the magna carta as a source of inspiration. I don't know why the south African constitution is there but perhaps it's the same reason.
She stands only for herself. Maintaining her nominal power, influence and wealth. That is all
You said “signed in 2015” but you meant 1215. As for why the Declaration of Independence is listed, I should imagine it’s because it marked both the first great rift of the British Empire and the English People (the colonies were essentially an outpost of the English Nation at the time) and the fact the American Revolutionaries laid claim to the principles of the Magna Carta as part of their justification for their revolt.
As for the communist manifesto... well. That’s a touchier subject still. To say it as carefully as I can, it’s because communism at its core has always been about revolution against tradition, order, and Monarchy. It has always been seditious and entropic, and every revolution to date has had anti-God seditionists pulling the strings and levers. (Including the American Revolution) And yes, I’m an American that has ancestry traced back to the original Colonies. It’s a bitter pill to swallow for me.
🇬🇧🇺🇸
Interesting how the timeline left out the Acts of Union.
Miscegenation if her family is any indication. At least she had the dignity to use a car crash the first time.
Philip was involved, Elizabeth wasn't.
Yes that is the idea. First a global South Africa, then A global Zimbabwe. @14:47
What a horrifying prospect.
With all due respect, AA, in the eyes of English law, Americans are just another type of Englishmen who broke away and formed their own parallel country (same, imagine, as if they were in Ireland or Normandy), who also use the same common law practices (even the same cases establishing precedence before the separation).
For a minute there I thought you meant Separation of Powers - but that has ended with statutes of parliament that are not Constitutional and destroy the principal of equality before the common law . Mrs Windsor is above the law and detention without trial is common . However US law is totally Corrupted far more than English law . The Common law heritage is in bad shape both sides of the pond
I particularly like Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
The one in particular that needs a careful coat of looking at in the UK is "1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
Big yikes, as they say.
1776
@@dirtypure2023 you mean big bikes...
You've missed Starkey's most important governance point old boy... Namely she is a constitutional monarchy yet acts as if merely a ceremonial one. Huge difference and she promised to rule like her father ie constitutionally (in my simple terms not a player in the game
but trying to meditate and represent the people when the politicians are stuck or losing the plot). In cases such as Brexit and Covid she failed spectacularly or in the latter case sided outrageously with neoliberalism pushing the vaccine.
Also to another of your points Starkey mentioned some egg on face re Douglas Home that I never bothered to look up. Tried to act in the political arena and had fingers burned. So backed away from that and in the end was more focused on family. Which gives as interesting light to reassess QE1 who deliberately remained unmarried.
Interesting comment , and something that i hadn't heard put in such a way before. I'd also add that she's made no effort to address the complete demographic displacement of her native subjects as well.
"A pasta lipstick Majesty"
The only justification I could think of for including the communist manefesto was because some may say it lead in part to ww2. However neither of the world wars were on the paving stones.
To destroy a society, destroy the families. WW1 produced so many widows, spinsters and fatherless children; seriously damaging the transmission of cultural mores. WW2 did the same to the following generation. "The cream of western manhood died in WW1" and WW2 compounded that.
Magna Carta: 15 June 2015.
A date to remember...
I'd call her influence sedating rather than "streadying".
In studying law I've been introduced to the South African Constitution as the 'Rolls-Royce' of written constitutions, perhaps it is included here because it is held in such lofty regard by the world of UK legal academia, the avowed pinnacle of legal development flowing from Magna Carta. A view I do not endorse, I hasten to add.
What's the justification for it? What makes it such a good constitution? Serious question.
She stands for nothing. The worst has happened on her watch...
Standing for nothing and not having a identity leads to chaos, but forcing those who already disagree also leads to chaos. There really is no winning.
My question is why cant people agree to independent states. What is so hard about letting the lands being separated, why cant we we just separate along ideological lines . the melting pot doest work and killing the opposition will only create civil war.
So why not peaceful separation.
@@bubblegumgun3292 that's ..... cute.
@@bubblegumgun3292 I'm sure you can figure it out, but self righteous people on a moral crusade will not stop at any boarder because their conscience simply won't let them.
@@bubblegumgun3292 Why? Because our ideological opposition are absolutist. It's all or nothing for them.
@@bubblegumgun3292 The chief and principal role of the sovereign is to lead the nation in war, so let the sovereign lead the nation in war and crush dissent by the sword. The realm suffers far worse today than it would under civil war, I don't see why it is to be feared.
The timeline seems to mostly include events that directly relate to Britain or have involved British interests. They seem to offer influence on constitution, law or political philosophy.
Therefore on this basis, it is alarming to see the inclusion of the Communist Manifesto. Because it implies it has had the same influence of significance.
She has stood for nothing since the day of her Coronation. She has utterly failed to stand by her Cironation Oath in any way shape or kind.
Perseverance and survival. While she is not as active as I wish she would be, she at least manages to keep her head up and pull her family through any scandal. Above that, she represents our ongoing traditions - which are a key part of our national identity.
Cope. She has failed her oaths. Merely sitting on the throne isn't an excuse and it never was in times gone by. Many a failed monarch has been replaced.
@The Websters Art Inc 'Fides et Justitia' I don't care what she is like on a personal level. She holds the highest position in the realm and she screwed it - that is what we are discussing here.
She thought that serving the left would have preserved the monarchy probably poorly advised she should know that the last king of Portugal did the same (bending to the left) and look what that brought him. This is if we give her the benefit of the doubt.
We also need to think that had she attempted to do a stunt like one of her predecessors (asserting power)that the powers that be wouldn't allow that and she'll go down like Nicholas II or forced to abdicate like Wilhelm ii. During the early parts of her reign liberalism was at all time high so its probably not a black e white scenario.
But her heirs on the other hand theyre inexcusable and are completely on board with whatever the overlords come up with.
@The Websters Art Inc 'Fides et Justitia' we are a Constitutional Monarchy, the fact that she acts as a mascot is her own choice. She has powers which she doesn't use out of choice. Don't peddle mistruths.
@The Websters Art Inc 'Fides et Justitia' She's failed her oaths. End of story. Anything else is an excuse.
Elizabeth II has overseen the dissolution and breakup of the British Empire and the ensuing decline of British morality and culture. She has done nothing to hinder the progress of this course, which should be her duty as monarch. As those on the left would say, silence is compliance; and, therefore, Elizabeth II is complicit in what has happened to the United Kingdom during her reign.
it appears AA doesnt know how deep the rabithole really goes.
remember the blue hat with stars.
She represents dignity. She embodies "Keep calm and carry on."
Carry on doing what exactly?
@@lokenontherange your duty. Go see a Gilbert and Sullivan if you're not clear on Duty.
@@captainmaim while the house burns down...
@@dibdap2373 This is fine...
@@lokenontherange moving money to Panama
Came here from a Tweet of yours today. Elizabeth II's legacy is actually pretty abysmal. If she'd gone toe-to-toe with Blair (as she was entitled to do) and if she'd not been focussed on the irrelevancy (at best) that is the Commonwealth, who knows where Britain would be today? I can't celebrate her, I'm afraid.
I get why the colonies breaking away would be there but why no statute of Westminster? No love for Canada?
The Statute of Westminster covered all the Dominions, not just Canada.
@@jessicali8594 Oh, i had no idea. My history teacher sucked
"first day proper of spring" he says... 70F yesterday, snowing today!!! (nice wet snow that im gonna have to shovel)
Where the hell are you? It was 20 degrees today in SW England
@@Rabmcm32 a friend of mine has told me the NE is expecting snow on Monday, lol.
@@Rabmcm32 colorado USA
@@X-11 Ah ok. ! Greetings
@@Rabmcm32 good afternoon
"this passed into law on fifteenth of June, two-thousand and fifteen" absolutely based
The Queen is an amazing mascot for the UK, will be sad when she goes.
I think those are the major political tides that have affected the empire ? (remember she isn't just the queen of the UK)
I think the reason the Communist Manifesto is included is because the monuments are showing a whig theory of history, meaning gradual emancipation.
They are trying to show that the British values are about freedom and emancipation. That is why Burke and other Conservative thinkers are not included, since they emphasise order, duties and adherence to the past.
So this is a very liberal take on the monarchy and what the monarchy and Britain stands for.
Runnymede is lovely
Ambassador for the Tanking cartel ( oops, a spelling mistake ) - check Antony C. Sutton for a different slant on history...
Interesting to see the Sommersett v Steuart trial of 1772 followed seven years later by America's independence. On the same slab, it makes me think that America didn't like the outcome of that case or the growing whispers coming from Britain, at that time, about ending slavery. Another reason for independence?
I thought when you started walking down the history pavement it would have dates for women’s lib, gay rights and the nazis. As that’s all they teach in school about our history.
Lol Alex Masters has the same painting behind him as to how and where the children of Narnia escaped.
And why not Bastiat's, "The Law"?
It was effectively a response to Marx and to the Manifesto.
Because that's french and has nothing to do with us
@@tommyhill7645 By that token, Marx was German, and should, therefore, also have nothing to do with this monument.
Although French, Bastiat was anti-authoritarian and "The Law" was written to demonstrate that Laws become the weapons of those in power to remedy their grievances, which leads to a succession of those out of power repeating once they get their day to be in charge as an act of retribution leading to vicious cycles in which The Laws become unjust.
Principles of Liberty and the Individual (the ultimate minority to which we all belong universally) should be our Northstar.
She is the original tiger rider. Britain's empire was lost, all she has done is make sure her family doesn't go down with it. Notice how the family never offers an opinion on anything by decree. Isn't that what an evolian tiger rider would do when confronted with leftist lunacy?
Could she have fought off the tiger and won? If she could have, since she is one of the few people on earth with that power, then that would make her a coward, neglecting her responsibility to protect her country and empire.
Which version do you prefer? Wise tiger rider, or cowardly pacifist? Did she really have the power to reverse the decline, or was the decline already in God's hands?
Perfect follow-up question for AA to muddle over. I'd enjoy a discussion along these lines. It seems to me there was and is no stopping it (black pilled, I know). By the time one can see the leviathan crashing down upon the West, by the time it really comes into terrible focus, it's far too late. But I suppose the question does remain, would a proactive Queen have had the foresight and power to do something about it?
I don't think a sovereign can be put in the same category as the rest of us in this regard. She has spent nearly 70 years as head of state and command-in-chief of the armed forces, she has had both time and opportunity to get loyal men into key positions in the military, to gain the support of the people, and to prepare for war to seize power from parliament. In her case, it is either cowardice or complicity, but her position is almost entirely unique in the west.
The symbolism of riding the tiger and losing a country which actually has them is almost too on the nose.
She shouldn't have signed the no deal, no leave bill. Curious, significant omissions : Civil War & Commonwealth period. 'Glorious' revolution, and the Bank of England which soon followed. Liz 2 signing off the abolition of one government can't tie the hands of successive governments to join the EU, and the switch from the legal status of subject of the crown, to citizen of the EU.
"This passed into law on 15 June 2015" I wish
I always thought Elizabeth II was England's most unique tourist attraction.
The father of my children is rural Sardinian and extremely ancient. A migrant swordsman. I conceived, birthed and paid for a son and daughter up until adulthood. Every single night I would ask him to tell us a story, a story is all I need. And every night for 15 years he would slam the door and 'go out. Once I had a fever so high that I could not open my eyes, my daughter Eva who was 6 months was zipped up with me in a large jacket and my son Francesco, yes its Francesco not Francisco. Francesco was tied to me with a rope. I pleaded with the father to stay but he slammed the door. Some pretty interesting poetry came from that
One night after the deliverance of a few dead soldiers (wine bottles) he told me a story, I think it was worth it
Would advise people to reverse her stamp on letters - used to be illegal .
*What Does Queen Elizabeth II Stand For?* A tad fanciful, but with her eventual passing will bookend a period of English nationalism beginning with one Elizabeth and ending with another. The ultimate midwit aim is to see the Royal Family go the way of the Swedish one - that the Windsors will retain their titles but slip more or less quietly into FTSE 100 boardrooms and/or NGOs. The next Monarch will absolutely be head of Oxfam or Women's Aid or whatever.
I'd wager that the U.S. Declaration of Independence was added not to appease American tourists, but because of the fairly common argument that the American revolution was a restoration of common law traditions that the colonists believed they had the right to as Englishmen. Now, regardless of the merits of thay argument, various versions of it remain popular, to the point where Carl Benjamin has put it forward on multiple occasions. Being charitable, I could see that the Indian and South African constitutions could potentially be a continuation of this, but I admit to knowing nothing about either of those, other than those nations being part of the old commonwealth. That said, I have absolutely no idea why the communist manifesto is there. Without meaning to sound hyperbolic, I can't think of a reason that isn't sinister.
Ancient Egypt's recorded history records no defeats, and depicts it winning closer and closer to home. The British approach to history for the past two centuries has been the complete opposite, to focus almost entirely on its own defeats and failings.
Including South Africa was both cringeworthy and alarming.
I swore allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and I will maintain that until she departs this life or I do. After that and as far as the rest of them are concerned all bets are of. They have to date failed to display any great loyalty to my people or their interests , they have consistently served their own best interests.
You swore to her and all her heirs RI Ranger. I know because I did as well. I too hold your sentiment. Respect is earned not given & Charles just doesn’t cut the mustard.
I find it very sad that they have forced me into this position.
You swore allegiance to a woman who broke her own oaths. You're a fool if you stand by that allegiance.
Loyalty when it is convenient to oneself is not loyalty at all. When one swears upon an oath you stand by it even if your counterpart spits upon it.
Of course renewing such an oath to the vile descendants of those who failed you would be foolish.
It is clear you understand the oath obligation , I ment it when I swore it , some of my friend died preserving it, it doesn’t mean I lost my reason , I think it’s called integrity. Thank for your comment.
A list of failures to commemorate the royal families decline, an appropriate tribute
Tea and biscuits
Engles was English and Marx lived in London during some of his life I believe.
Pac Man sponsors the Queen.
Elizabeth II Once stood for all I Loved now she stands for all I Hate!
I'm now a Rebel Soldier my home has been destroyed by Elected Custodians that this Woman heads,
She has another Enemy in me
The Magna Carta only applied to free men. The government now determines who is free. Guess I was wrong in thinking it has been suspended.
Excellent video. Look for a book by Prof. Koos Malan - "There is no Supreme Constitution: A Critique of Statist-Individualist Constitutionalism".
AA irl video. Amazing
Should’ve included the coronation oath of Edward I.
I didn't know the magna carta was signed in 2015! Maybe there is hope XDD
Frankly, Mill's _On Liberty_ shouldn't be there either. That book is the most deceptively titled work in the entire history of political thought because it actually has nothing to do with "liberty" as a classical liberal would have understood that term. Prior to Mill, the focus of liberals was on private property rights, abolition of state-backed privileges, lower taxation, freedom of trade, and so on. But Mill spends his work championing "freedom of expression" and so-called "experiments in living."
Mill's main target is the so-called "tyranny" of social mores. And it is because of his completely outsized and undeserved influence that liberalism became associated with what amounts to a declaration of war against normality and against civil society. The French liberals of Mill's time, like Charles Comte of Charles Dunoyer, were not harping on about such things.
Anyone who reads Mill's private correspondence, especially his correspondence with Auguste Comte, will swiftly learn that he was no liberal. In fact, he was a proto-socialist, and like Comte, he had dreams of replacing Christianity with a "religion of humanity." To the extent that Mill appeared to favor toleration of unorthodox opinions, this was only as a rhetorical tactic to allow him and those like him to criticize and erode Christianity. Once Mill's preferred society and religion were established, he was quite clear that further criticism would be unnecessary and would not be tolerated because it was "irrational."
Mill, and especially _On Liberty,_ was what is ultimately responsible for the transformation of liberalism into socialism. It's what eventually led to "liberals" in the US favoring extensive state intervention in economic affairs. And because of the utterly dishonest rhetorical posture that it adopts, I'd say that _On Liberty_ was ultimately a more dangerous and more corrosive document than even the _Communist Manifesto._ At least the communists were honest about what they really wanted.
sequels are never as good as the originals, Lizzy I was better
Charles III will be like Ghostbusters: Answer the Call
@@sh-hg4eg Nonsense, they'd been expelled in 1290 or thereabouts and weren't permitted to return until 1665 or thereabouts when they were needed to run the finances of the new East India Company established to get some of the spice trade away from the Dutch monopoly thereon; quinine in particular.
@@jessicali8594 After a day of being dragged around by three children in the blazing sun, i had somehow mistakenly muddled up Victoria and Elizabeth. You're quite right to correct me.
@@sh-hg4eg Oh yes indeed Vicky liked Disraeli and certainly preferred him to Gladstone.
I must get round to looking up when Catholics and Jews were permitted to study at Oxbridge.
@@sh-hg4eg : Are you in the tropics ?
Both hemispheres are currently in mid-seasons, no blazing sun in either.
The UK will be very cold over Easter.
Fabulous rumination
Granny Britain!
She was also was the regent who sat on the throne as Britain was quite literally destroyed forever. It's gone and it's never coming back.
In my opinion, as an outsider looking in and a huge anglophilic history reader, the queen represents over 1000 years of constitutional monarchy and tradition and is a symbol of its and British cultures perseverance. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a filthy colonial.
1000 years of monarchy, but only about 350 years of constitutional monarchy. There were certainly centuries of absolute monarchy in the millenium.
@@jessicali8594 you are correct. I was taking magna carta into account since it can interpreted as a kind of early constitution that laid down rights, like property rights for example, and certain restrictions on the king in relation to his vassals. Not to discount the falls into absolute monarchy of course.
@@thegentlemanfish7504
Most of the clauses are about the barons and their fiefdoms, nothing to do with human rights, an unknown concept even in the 1600s. Democracy is always followed by tyranny as the 2020s are revealing.
@@jessicali8594 yes, that is a rather sad notion
8:30 Correction Magna Carta was published in english in 1534 sounds like you said 1584 which is wrong had me double checking.
The Monarchy has been going down hill since king Canute
As an American when I hear Elizabeth II, I immediately think the "independence of the poo n the loos".
'Like you I am ignored and abused'.
Don't think she stands for much other than trying to preserve her family's status while letting everything else about the country be pissed away on her watch.
She stands for David lammy
The other question is why isn't the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 on there.
There is one day in the year, only one when the Italians will submit and that is on Good Friday, complete balls on the fire, one should not let this go to waste
We should remember that this monument is ultimately a propaganda piece designed to present a narrative. Perhaps the creators included the communist manifesto because his ideals have such a strong influence on modern politics in the UK? The USA declaration of independence and constitutions of South Africa and India would then make a bit more sense in this context because they represent the failure of colonial rule and the dissolution of the old British order, both things with Communism firmly opposes. They also act as success stories of decolonisation efforts spearheaded by revolutionaries.
She stands for whatever the parliament stands for.
For a political system in need of serious reform.
Well I'm from the USA and we generally are not very fond of hereditary rulers.
No mention of Ireland leaving UK either
Rebellion, negotiation, agreement. Washington, Canberra, Pretoria - see Angel of the North. Thus the Queen is aligned with her dominions.
it was passed into law in 1215 not in 2015.
The name of the prime minister when queen victoria was in charge was Benjamin Disraeli
for god's sake isnt it obvious?
How did you escape the open prison of Welsh Wales?
Who was it that said "England isn't great because it's laws are great. England's laws are great because England is great."?
It seems like the statue should stand for the latter perspective, among other things.
Ah POE Stall lick
banana
paperclip
twig
drum
wheel