It's outdated but ultimately everything is and I think if it ain't broke don't fix it and maybe they should be more open in their intentions. It certainly makes us unique and the power of another party to challenge the ever changing and easily corrupt government is a massive strength even though technically they have no power and are more of a tourist attraction above all else.
I am Scottish which may make someone assume I automatically don't want a monarch but I have to say on the contrary, after teaching myself about the monarchy and just what they do, it comes more down to the King or Queen in power and just what they want done. I really think we are better of with a monarchy as a nation than without one, only once it's gone will people see what is missing.
Honestly the debate of the Monarchy can break up the United Kingdom. If one of the constituent nations likes the monarchy or dislikes it more than the rest, then it could start the demise of the United Kingdom as a political union. Also, with the United States might be problems. The way the new goverment handles relations with the North Americans, because Canada could continue having the monarchy (but in the current scenario is more likely that Canada becomes a Republic before the United Kingdom does, but a thousand times more can be Australia that Republicanism is slightly strong there even tho their national politicians have done terrible jobs with the handling of their nation). Getting back with the North Americans, in the United States their is people who feel identified with the British Monarchy so also it can have a negative impact on the image of England in the World Stage. Also, most politicians would ruin Britain and in the pretext that the money of the monarchy is now of the state they will steal it for themselves. Adding to the pile, the United Kingdom is a Parliamentary Democracy so the change from a monarchy to a republic can have not so much impact on politics EXCEPT in the fact that the Monarchy is supposed to be impartial compared to politicians that are supposedly loyal to their electorate. Honestly it would not be bad for the United Kingdom to take some Republican stands like everybody being equal with the exception of people in political charges, like the monarch, but a Republic in this moments can be very risky, especialy how Britain is right now.
Well you can make your own Scottish head of state, when Scotland becomes independent. If majority of Scottish people want it. If you majority of Scottish people who live in Scotland want a monarchy they have one. I am a Welsh person but I am against monarchy as I don’t believe it should be around in democratic Countries in this day and age. I also want Independence from UK as Welsh person. The excuse we off better together is nonsense because it only benefits England. If all were independent then Wales,Scotland,N.I would definitely be better off. Overseas territories would become English overseas territories. England would also be better off as well as an independent Country but they don’t realise it yet. As Soon as the monarchy is abolished in the UK. It makes all Countries that have it still before it abolished automatically a republican Country’s. All,Countries would then need to vote on new head of state for each individual Country that still had monarchy such as Canada,Australia,New Zealand to name a few.
@@NicholasJH96Uh, no they wouldn’t. Contrary to bullshit ill-informed slop you presumably watch on the Internet, the institutions in each of the Commonwealth realms are legally seperate from yours. The UK becoming a republic would just that and only that, the *UK* becoming one. All other realms have the right to determine their own form of government, independent of what the government of Britain may or may not wish to
The thing about monarchies is they are based on personality. The UK is a hereditary monarchy, so no one voted for the monarch, so the monarchy's legitimacy is largely based on how popular the monarch is. Queen Elizabeth II was immensely popular, King Charles III... not so much. The issues other members of the royal family have been causing doesn't help their position either.
I think it’s mostly a time issue. After Charles and Andrew pass away, you’re pretty much left with only popular royals , inoffensive royals, or minor royals that no one pays attention too. Not to mention with the quickly approaching deaths of the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, the royal family is going to massive shrink in the next few decades.
There are 8 royals who are more popular than the most popular British politician or former politician, and doesn't include the children. I really don't see a situation in which the royal family becomes more unpopular than politicians, so the proposal to replace them is not going to be popular.
@@Fathersonspirit-e2c She never worked as hard as Charles. Charles was and remains the hardest-working royal - 17 hours per week (including travel!) over 30 weeks of the year - let's get real, if we're going to admire and respect people for working hard, there's about 50 million people ahead of the royals we should admire and respect more.
"Even most Labour voters support the Monarchy." - Right, but ask them why. You'll find most 'supporters' are lukewarm, just because 'on balance' people imagine the monarchy is a net positive for the country. A generation or two ago, people would have said the same about the Church of England, nowadays supporters of keeping the CofE the state religion are few and far between. The monarchy is massively harmful to the nation. If people knew the truth about it, support for it would collapse overnight. Support is already in freefall, and that's even with the pervasive propaganda about 'how much money they make' or 'how they protect our democracy'.
It’s the same question when asked for other countries that have a parliamentary monarchy system (Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, etc). It’s not always possible to do this without something being compromised, be it political stability, voter apathy, increased national security; to name but a few. The can of worms goes beyond swapping the monarch for a president, and it’s better not to interfere much.
With Japan (which is also a parlimentary monarchy system), nearly all people have reverence to the Imperial Family, so I can see them lasting into the far future.
@@paolotorres8537 Of course, the Japanese Emperor was worshiped as a god until Japan's defeat before America and America wrote the Japanese Constitution and abolished the worship of the Emperor, but of course some still revere him.
@@mshmsh9313 no, it didn’t abolish worship of the emperor, the whole “humanity declaration” is often misunderstood by foreigners. All it is is to just simply acknowledge that the emoeror’s role is to be the ceremonial symbol of the people and Japanese unity, not so much a denial of divinity. In fact, even way back in the day, Japanese emperors never had so much governing power (the real power rested in the nobles and shoguns), but they were still seen as divine.
@@mshmsh9313To be fair, that was not the result of any decision made by the Japanese monarchy. No Japanese sovereign ever claimed to be a divine figure. They did (and still do) claim descent from the divine, say what you will about that, but no Japanese monarch ever claimed to be a god. And that includes Hirohito.
WHERE IS IT WRITTEN THAT A FAMILY HAS TO RULE OVER MILIONS OF PEOPLE FOR 100 OF YEARS? WITHOUT ACCOUNTING FOR ANYTHING TO THE PEOPLE THEY ARE SUPPOSED "TO SERVE?"AL MONARCHY STARTED WITH BULLIES AND RUTHLESS PEOPLE. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WANT THEM ARE THE HANGOVERS: THE PEOPLE WHO GET THEYR POWER BY HANGING AROUND AND PROTECT THE " ROYALS". IT IS THEYR WAY TO KEEP THE CLASS SOCIATY GOING.BUT AT THE END OF THE METTER: WHY DO PEOPLE HAVE TO BOW TO SOMBODY WHO LIKE EVERYBODYELSE HAS TO GO TO THE TOILET ?😅😅😅
In brazil people are questioning why we let the republic exist in the first place, this debate is deffinitly different around the world. Like for real our republic is a joke, while the empire at least was able to grant stability and somehow a better press freedom then modern brazil 😅😅 oh wait i live here, shit.
More and less Pedro II didn't really care that he was deposed ever since he lost his final son in infancy he grew weary of the relevance of the institution and became disillusioned with it all together which is why he didn't put up much of a resistance to his deposition
@@themcfunnel yes i know He had a problem eith the brazillian parilament because unlike other weatern nations it always refused modernity and since mr Pedro loved traveling during diplomatic missions he loved french, american and british modernity, causing him to lose much will to continue, and he was old asf
@Person11068 The UK is less corrupt than Spain, the UK is less corrupt than Italy, it’s less corrupt than Mexico. There are always exceptions to the rule but the general rule remains true that constitutional monarchies are less corrupt than republics.
@demarcomixon lmao the entire reason bretxit happened besides immigration was because the UK did not want the EU transparency laws, to end fiscal paradise that the UK is.
Charles isn't as incompetent as he is pictured. Still, his mother was perfect in her onstage behavior. Charles is good but not perfect. Add to this the simple fact that the English are less tolerant of their kings than their queens. Throw in the kinds of defferance norms of the 1950s being long gone. I think the monarchy might be gone by 2050.
@user-sp4rl5fd8r That means that large numbers of bitter 3rd world dictators (many of whom are less mature than Donald Trump) would have the final say on our lives. World unity would require a world of stable democracies. We're centuries from that. The UK ditching the monarchy will be a progressive step. But it's only a drop in the bucket of what's needed.
@@thomasdevine867 keep dreaming, mate. UN & their cronies control this world one way or another. It's a grimdark world. So grow up and live it with it.
I really do think the monarchy will de deposed around 2050 as well. I predict throughout the 2030s and 2040s the monarchy will become even more so unpopular and there will be more hostile protests and even assassination attempts on the Royals. The Republicans know that there really isn't a peaceful way to depose the King, so they will have to resort to violence. There will be a coup or violent uprising kicking the Royals out of the UK under either William or George.
I hope so. But I'll be almost 70 by then. I think Scotland has more chance than England of ditching the monarchy. As soon as we're independent, the monarchy will be the next thing on the chopping block. It's not popular here. But one day, it'll be gone for good. It only takes once. And it's increasingly outdated and irrelevant, and more and more people are struggling to make ends meet. Not nice to be reminded that some people are so privileged and are living off of our hard-earned taxes for doing absolutely nothing but wearing a shiny gold hat.
5:24 Honestly dude, some of the worst examples you could’ve cited. Louis XVI was far from the last monarch of France, and there were between 5 and 10 more monarchs after him (depends on who you count and how), with the last monarch not losing his throne until 1870, and he wasn’t even overthrown in a revolution, but deposed in a mixture of a foreign military occupation and a coup d’état Haiti first gained independence as an empire in 1804 that lasted until 1806, became a kingdom in 1811 that lasted until 1820, before becoming an empire again in 1849 that lasted until 1859 Ireland upon independence did not become a republic, it became a Commonwealth realm and remained such until either 1937 or 1949 (some constitutional ambiguities were not resolved until the latter date, it’s a whole thing) And as to Serbia, it was NEVER an independent state as a republic until 2006. Its first gain of independence in 1804, a period that lasted until 1813, didn’t really have a government. It was more of an uprising acting as a state, led by a “Grand Vožd”, a position that was a mixture of monarch and military dictator. The first recognized independent state, the Principality of Serbia, came into being in 1815, became a kingdom in 1882 (during this period the throne flipped between 2 families constantly but there was never a republic), became a founding part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1918, and became a constituent part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1945, existed in a federation with Montenegro from 1992 until 2006 when it FINALLY became just Serbia again in a little less then a hundred years from the time it had existed alone
@@joaocarvalho6316 Not really a valid point considering France has rewritten its constitution 14 times, basically from scratch from the introduction of the first one in 1791. That’s not evolution, because each document was essentially trashed. That even includes the change from the 4th Republic to the 5th, since France went from a parliamentary democracy to a semi-presidential one. As for Serbia, the abolition of the monarchy was illegal, and also done under the auspices of a Yugoslav state. It had to reconstitute itself after the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Again, no evolution, just starting fresh. Haiti has basically followed the same path as France, although unlike France none of its governments have ever actually been functional so whatever its constitution says doesn’t really matter. As for Ireland, that’s fair. But it’s also a result of fairly specific circumstances. If Home Rule had succeeded or any number of different things occurred, Ireland would still be a monarchy today, in union with Britain or otherwise. Hell, there were chances after the creation of the Irish Free State were it could have stayed a monarchy, just with a monarch not from the House of Windsor. Also its transition, unlike France, Haiti or Serbia was a legally sound and legitimate process, not a revolutionary one.
I mean why would they? It is part of their history and like it or not the royal families today represent the nations itself giving how long they have been leading it. Look at Japanese for example, even if they are modern, atheistic and quite liberal society they still have and respect their Emperor. And they are fine with him existing and representing the soul of a nation. So yeah, Charles may be unpopular but he is also very old and will not reign for long. Once his son takes the throne the monarchy will be fine again.
@@haroldboi7 No we don't. And the impression of William is a fabricated one concocted by the British media. God help them if they ever turn on him and reveal all the skeletons in his closet.
If the monarchy was abolished-it will be a political nightmare for us in Canada. The many treaties between the various indigenous nations from the Cree to Inuits to Haudenosaunee all signed treaties to with the Crown. It will be a nightmare if the Crown was abolished because technically those treaties would be void. It means all the cities in Canada, without the Crown, would technically no longer have a right to those lands anymore unless there was a new treaty that transferred those lands from Crown ownership to the new Canadian Republic. But the details of all those treaties will be a huge endeavour in itself.
And you know somebody would try to call something unconstitutional or raise an old dispute and drag it out for years to achieve nothing. It would destory us for nothing. Honestly we should just move the monarchy to Ottawa at that point like Brzil did back in the day if it came down to it.
Actually under Canadian law if the UK abolishes the monarchy that actually does not affect Canada's monarchy. Canada will probably become the new permanent base of the monarchy if they royals are forced to leave Britain...that would leave the position of governor general redundant.
Yes I'm sure the people that would manage this are as dumber than you and have not considered this implication. And seriously now you care about the indigenous people of Canada? How hilarious. Canada has for years treated them like shit.
King Chuck was heckled by Australian Senator Lidia Thorpe during His visit in Australia at Parliament. She bellowed to Him "Your Not My King, You're Not Our King!" She had also accused Him of His Families atrocities committed during Their rule and demanding Treaties.
The question is what would replace the King/Queen as a head of state. The only real alternative is a President. This will either have to be a Executive President or a Ceremonial President. The MP's in the House of Commons will not allow an Executive President as that will mean handing power from the House of Commons to the new Executive President (The same reason as why the house of Lords is not replaced). As for a Ceremonial President what is the difference between a Ceremonial President and what we have now. Would it be worth the turmoil (as described in this video) to change to a Ceremonial President.
very true, but there is a difference between ceremonial president and monarch. Monarch is legally still a monarch, he can disband parliament, choose head of government, declare war etc, in most constitutional monarchies today, there is just informal agreement in societies to not do that, but theoretically all monarchs today can become absolutist rulers like in the past, lol.
@@AmirSattActually, no. They’ve tried, they have, but Parliament simply ignores them when they do. They can’t legally do it, the Bill of Rights 1687 stops them. Kinda crazy.
@@Ben-outdoorsIt could, yes, but in some ways it makes sense to separate them, by doing so it keeps the operations of ceremonial and official actions separate; thus not wasting official time. Just my view, though.
Even if they abolish the monarchy , it will take years of hardship to get back the country in track , just like they first did previously during 1649. It faced many severe challenges and consequences to be ruled under a democratic government , so abolishing of the British monarchy which has been the “heart of English” for many years would not be a good option. Instead , monarchy can flourish with the modern era only if they just try to make many significant and important changes and befit it like the Danish , Norwegian or Dutch monarchies which are currently being loved by their people. I would recommend at first to reduce the mammoth size royal expenditures and their tax issues to be funded by themselves , converting some of the unused royal estates or cottages or castles into something bloody useful like shelter centres or charity organisations and last but not the least , the royals should stop trying being snobbish and be more transparent and accessible with their subjects and citizens
I suppose it is a question of Europeans and some countries of the world, for me something like the Monarchy seems disgusting, that someone has such birth privileges as in the Middle Ages seems absurd to me these days. The worst thing is that some praise and love them, it is difficult for me to understand, in that sense I like the United States better.
@@netero1682 A story about democracy: A farmer asked his son before he died, "Pigs complain about poor feed, cows complain about heavy work, and chickens complain about dirty nests. What should you do?". The son said: "Change to good feed, buy more cows, clean up Chicken coop." The farmer shook his head and said. "No, don't do anything. Let them vote, let them choose you or your wife to take care of them, and let them think they are the boss”. Son’s idea = Chinese democracy Father’s idea = American liberal democracy
I strongly believe that the Monarchy should remain as it is. The UK is already very different without Queen Elizabeth.. it would be worse without the entire Crown.
Fear of the unknown. We are in the era of republican states, and the United Kingdom is already worse off economically. The savings it collected from the colonies are beginning to run out, and the removal of Elizabeth from Barbados is the biggest example.
Well the UK lost its empire under the late queen. Plenty of great Kings throughout all of British history that did not rule over gelded realms nor let their realm become gelded in the first place.
As a Malaysian, (one of the constitutional monarchy in the world) the monarchy is vital to stabilise our political power,which means that we should never abolish it.
I live in the U.S., but I hold deep respect for the Sovereign and whomever sits on its throne. I have done hours of research about the U.K. and it sits among my favorite countries, however I must say I'm only interested in it as a Kingdom. The Monarchy is what gives The United Kingdom its power and influence. It would be foolish to get rid of a millenium of tradition, and culture. The Sovereign has always acted a stabilizing force especially in the world wars. It would be impossible to actually criticize a monarch as I and the rest of the people in my country and the Commonwealth are so utterly beneath a King or Queen, I'd say the monarchy should only take critique from another monarchy or perhaps the God himself. The people of the U.K. are nothing without their King and their Royal traditions. And as long as it was painless I like to think I would give my soul for the Monarchy. Long Live The King.
this is one of the points I feel people miss when they argue against the monarchy, our royal family is about 80% of the UK's current relevance on the world stage and political influence.
@@matthewkent5212 they don't actively take part in politics but they have wide spanning influence and do play a role in international diplomacy. Most British allies are members of the Commonwealth which only exists as long as the monarchy does, America does not really count because they are "Allied" to the entire western world
Trust me, I live in a country which abolished this institution. Has anything turned for better? Not at all. On the contrary having an elected head of state who has a limited years to stay in power makes them use public founds as they want, having immunity makes them even steal on a big scale( imagine that with another one every 4 years). Just for an example, our head of state has a year before a new election is going to be held. In that time he has made several tours in several countries with his family where they spent money on luxurious things, they would not have if not for the function. Because everything is political we do not have that many things to say. The people having the power to vote them out is just a story. Usually homeless and alcoholics are paid so they would vote by the biggest parties and because they win these things which everyone knows about aren't investigated (all parties are doind that, some of them better, who pays more will win) If there is a referendum so the president is to be changed the same, in a society the majority are these unfortunate people who would vote anyone just for 1 L of Vodka or 1 kg of potatoes. Do you really think that this would be better for you? Trust me it wouldn't and when people would want to get rid of them ( these elected lads) you could not because it would already be about party politics. Be aware that even Cromwell after replacing the monarch just made himself a pseudo king, as would all these republicans, do not fall for their valueless propaganda. May the King live, and may we get back our Monarch!
Like he said, basically the crown is the reason to live of the United Kingdom, is the reason than NI, Scotland and Wales are united with England (Specially with Scotland because now the Royal Family have scottish blood), and is one (for not to say the principal) of the reasons of being british, anyone who heard about Brittain thinks inmediatly about the monach. The Crown is the principal national symbol of the UK, maybe i will do the mistake of saying that, but without The Crown there´s no UK
That's nonsense. And also, the union should be scrapped along with the monarchy, for largely the same reason. Scottish people should be making all the decisions in Scotland. Not English lawmakers in London, or English monarchs in Windsor.
I doubt it, but I would mention that it's often forgotten that the royal family is also the royal family of 14 other nations around the world. And while support may not be as high in those countries than the UK , in some of those nations such as Canada, it is not as simple as holding a referendum, in Canada , aside from lack of political will, the process to change the system of government or what the 1982 Constitution Act refers to as "The Office of The Queen", it would require the approval of the House of Commons, the Senate, and all ten provincial parliaments, a task that would be practically impossible for a whole host of reasons. So hypothetically the UK could cease to be a constitutional monarchy, but the monarchy itself would not be "abolished"
And if any member of the royal family were subject to scrutiny like any politician rather than just subject of propaganda, then you wouldn’t want them wielding power either. It’s mostly about the type of coverage received
The point is, YOU should be deciding who our head of state is. It shouldn't be based on who passed out of whose vagina, in one family, and in what order.
6:50 Check your researches. Royal properties are still in the hand of the Royal family. The government gets their revenue currently, but they keep up the cost of the royal family. Which is acctualy an income for the UK and not a cost. But all in all it is it owned by the family of the King.
It's a lie that the royal family bring in more money than they cost. Take their special bank holidays on days like the coronation, for example. That cost the economy several billion quid. The castles would get tourists whether we scrapped the monarchy or not. The French get more visitors than Britain and they abolished theirs' centuries ago. None of the royal sites get as many visitors as places like Chester Zoo. And that's not taking into consideration the hundreds of millions that Charles kept when he inherited his mother's estate, that would have paid in taxes if he was anyone else.
why not just draw a line in the cement about their powers. Do visits to other countries, open parliament with a speech, do the ceremonies/ weddings etc. thats it. in terms of operations: lower public funding for monarchy, take back millions of hectares of public land, turn other royal properties into property/museum. and in terms of ways to separate the two: change names of things named after the king (HMP, HMRC, HMS) etc. change national anthem (nobody knows it or cares anyway), change governement offices so they dont have the crown above their logo etc. and in terms of things the monarchy will not do- not anti democratic things, ie giving royal assent to bills, being commander in chief of army etc.
'lower public funding for the monarchy' The only part of the monarchy that is funded by the public are the costs for Head of State duties and upkeep of the buildings that do not belong to the RF. If you want to lower the funding, the only way to lower it is for no money to be given for the upkeep of the buildings which means the public will either have to fund it another way, or leave them all to rot. If you want to get rid of the RF completely, then the public will still have to fund the costs for a HoS and will still have to pay for the buildings to be maintained. The difference is that Mr Joe Bloggs HoS will not boost the economy to the tune of well over a billion GBP per year as the RF currently does.
The French are obsessed with monarchy. And we can't do it without the aristocracy (not a monarchy) granting a vote in the first place. We are occupied. We need arms to revolt.
@@Ganymede559 yall cant even defend yourselves. you have to outsource your military escapades lol. essentially the uk and most of europe is a bunch of hopelessly entitled and spoiled people who depend on monarchy having global power so that they may continue never having to work or earn anything the same way everyone else outside the imperial core does.
American and Korean here, Korean side says yes, as ours was ineffective and weak. Whilst the American side disagrees, because the Monarchy gives the UK the UK
Then they can remain the the head of the commonwealth even when we scrap the monarchy in Britain. Btw, the king/queen has to be elected to lead the commonwealth, they don't just get it because they're the monarch.
@@leonmorris7862 it's so sad so many people have been conditioned into thinking the only note worthy thing about this country and it's long history is the current monarch
This is just… no true. Support today is at roughly the same area as it was in 2000. Support for the monarchy in 2012 was a historic high point fuelled by the convergence of the diamond jubilee, William and Catherine’s marriage, birth of Prince George, the London Olympics, and an absence of scandals. The decline since has simply returned the monarchy to its historic levels of support
It'll definitely happen. It'll happen in Scotland far sooner. As soon as we get our independence from the UK. The monarchy will be gone shortly after, it's very unpopular here. Only 48% of Scots support the union. Only 35% of Scots support the monarchy.
That's a pure horseshit lie. First, their big events like the coronation, cost the UK economy billions, when they have a bank holiday. We lost hundreds of millions in Charles' inheritance. Anyone else would have had to pay. There are the millions of acres of land that could be put to better use. As for tourism. The French royal palaces get more tourists, and they abolished their monarchy centuries ago. Chester Zoo gets more tourists than Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle combined. And last, democracy is priceless. Our head of state should be a position open to all, not restricted to one family. We shouldn't be scraping our chins on the floor in deference to a work-shy family.
The suggestion that the UK would constitutionally break apart whilst transitioning to Republic is without evidence. Remember that the UK has already had a Republic from 1649-1660 under Oliver Cromwell. There is precedent, and when twice transitioning between various systems the nation(s) didn't fail. The position of 'Head of State' is currently held by a Monarch. Amending this Office to be held by an elected President need not lead to further constitutional changes. If a popular move to become a Republic did lead to other constitutional changes they would likely be in the form of formal amendments set out in advance by Parliament. Clear and deliberate democratic actions taken to ensure the stability of the new system, and the transition towards it. An elected Head of State would still be a politically neutral constitutional defender of the nation. But as an elected official they would have far more legitimacy to weald actual power to do that job. In August 2019 the Queen was forced to accept the PMs suspension of Parliament for 5 weeks (a move the Supreme Court later struck down as illegal). The Queen just said she had no choice but to accept the PMs illegal action, because she had no real power. Ultimately this is held up as an example of the Head of State being unable to defend the constitution. The gradual reduction in the Monarchs effective power over time has become a major constitutional flaw, one that Republicans argue can be rectified by having the Head of State elected with a mandate to act when needed. Ultimately, yes the national symbols might change a bit as a Republic, and yes the UK would have a more perfect democracy, but tbh not much else would change. Keep calm and carry on, really. But a 2nd British Republic is only going to happen if the people want it. Right now no political party stands on a platform of British Republicanism, though Republican MPs are not uncommon. Since Charles became King in 2023 the polls show somewhere between 25-34% of the UK now wants the country to become a Republic. A minority, though seemingly a growing one.
American here: I used to be one of those people who laughed at monarchies and said they were stupid letting an unelected inbred rich person be your head of state. But a year or two ago I changed my mind after listening to so arguments, the best coming from the TH-cam channel UsefulCharts. Monarchy in parliamentary democracy is a symbol rather than an individual person. It keeps elected politics separate from the head of state and creates more political stability. Just look to the U.S. to see how elected heads of state can create issues. Many people in the UK, Canada, Australia may say they could become a republic, but if they did try it they’d probably regret it. Now, since I don’t live in a monarchy all I have is opinions so I can’t change anything, but I guess it’s the thought that counts…
@Person11068 We reached our greatness because of our geographical superiority, not because we’re a democratic republic. Correlation does not equal causation. Besides, us leaving the monarchy also created many hardships such as the continuation of slavery. Those other republics you mentioned haven’t had the smoothest path either. France is on its 5th republic with calls for a 6th.
@Person11068 The US would have been as much of a failed state as latin america if it wasn't for geography. That much space and resources is what allowed the country to grow to be a strong power, that prosperity gave the government relative stability (civil war notwithstanding) to be able to stalemate the brits in 1812, enforce the Monroe doctrine, and beat Mexico for just over 1/4 of the modern US by land area.
As a Brit living on usa ..i like to rub it in about 06 Jan insurrection..sorry..tourist wave😅...that it couldnt happen in old blighty..bc the military pledge allegiance to the monarch..not the pm.I am comforted that The Windsors are the head of state and not thicko liz truss...adhd boris johnson..or the newly elected sir keir stalin.most elected politicians are slime.
The real question is: how will people prevent another Oliver Cromwell from trying to seize power? There definitely would be people who would try to take advantage of the situation after the monarchy is hypothetically abolished
I am an American so my words have no value on this matter but as an opinion that no one asked, tbh I like the monarchy and having English descent myself, like with all people of English descent, early English kings flow in our blood. Despite not being English myself (or maybe, depends on definition of ethnicity you use) The monarchy is why any good laws exist why Britain has a major diaspora through the empire their crown had a contribution in creating the monarchy is the head of the church of England which I used to be an Episcopalian American so I was a member of the Anglican church ran by the king and so fourth. Sometimes I lament that my ancestors stayed in America instead of going to Canada.
@@matthewkent5212 the queen is dead. Non the less this I know. When a citizen dies the will is collected as tax. It exists so that the crusades could be funded. The crusades ended but this law was never repealed. Non the less tax is necessary so that governments can pay for the army for security, or economic infrastructure business projects, spiritual temples, and such. But liberal, secular and progressive minds view each as pointless. Given welfare attitudes and pacifism is the politics. But I believe a strong standing army secures peace and stability security. Lest the lessons in Ukraine be forgotten.
As someone from the Netherlands 🇳🇱, I've always admired the UK's 🇬🇧 monarchy for the status and cultural richness it brings. (Not just to the UK, but also countries like Canada, Saint Lucia, Australia, Jamaica, Antiqua and Barbuda, New Zealand, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Tuvalu, the Bahamas and Belize). Monarchies, like the Kingdom of the Netherland, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not only serve as symbols of national identity but also play crucial roles in diplomacy. The attachment of a monarch to state affairs contributes greatly to international relations. Moreover, their engagement in charitable activities adds a compassionate dimension to governance. The tourism boost from royal palaces, ceremonies, and traditions is remarkable, attracting visitors and showcasing the historical and cultural treasures that make these countries truly unique. It's fascinating how these historical institutions embody continuity, stability, and a sense of shared heritage. Some of these things may also exist in republics, but in monarchies they are truly unique.
So you have No value for Millions of lives that were killed by British Monarchy In India, Ireland, Africa etc? And brutal colonization and exploitation? Absolutely idiotic!! Unbelievable!!
" I,M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH CHRISTIANITY AND CANNOT FORESEE THAT I LL BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN GOVERNORSHIP OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND ONCE I M KING." Prince William ( GB News 29-1-24 with Andrew Pierce and Gavin Ashenden senior royal correspondent.)
It only takes once, so yes, eventually will. Hopefully before I die I'll see Scotland become a republic, whether we're still in this faux union or we're free of it.
I am glad we got rid of the monarchy in the states and are a republic. But I think it's up to the UK to decide what to do- whether they keep their monarchy or not. I do prefer a republican form of government, but I think it's really up to the citizens in each country to decide their fate, to decide which government is best for them.
I am Irish and the last time England has a Republic it came with Oliver Cromwell who proved to be quite unpopular in ireland. So all in all leave well enough alone i think .
How does the monarch make us great? 'Great Britain' is a geographical term, and what makes us grat culturally and historically is the ingenuity of our population. We brough forth the first truly global language, we have Shakespeare, we led the industrial revolution, we have Newton, Darwin, Maxwell. Faraday, Dalton, Dirac, Higgs and Hawking amongst our scientific names, Keynes and Smith as economists, we have football, rugby, cricket, golf and motorsport amongst the sporting contributions we've made, Wren, Jones, Foster amongst the architects... The list goes on and on. What has the monarch ever done for the mass of people in the country besides live off the wealth we produce?
In reality there should be a vote to keep or abolish the monarchy same why you have election . If more people vote for them to be abolished. They should just stop doing what ever it is they do
The Monarchy is a ceremonial role that is largely a cost to the state. It is only held up by traditionalism and people that see some measure of prestige in it. Many countries are fine without kings and lords.
The crown earnings are given to the government...they recieve a out 15% back as the civil list.they are a net contrjbutor to the nations coffers...even more so since KC3 has made such a success of the Duchy of Cornwall.how many others give 85%of their income to their nation.i cant believe how many people dont know this.
It's impressive some monarchies in Europe survived the Enlightenment movement. The 1789 French Revolution and the Independence of the United States of North America are the work of Freemasonry. The United Grand Lodge of England was established in June 24th, 1717. Liberalism and Freemasonry usually prefer the Republic than the Monarchy as secularism favors Freemasonry. Nevertheless, monarchies of Sweden, Spain and the UK became "Enlightened" as Masonry developed within them. At this point, turning the UK into a republic, either federal or centralized, doesn't mean a big change from the ideological point of view. Freemasonry, Liberalism and Progressivism have already quite damaged Christianity.
I’m an American but I have a lot of love for constitutional monarchies and I wish America was a member of the British Commonwealth or had our own monarchy. I know my opinion doesn’t mean much but I think it would be a terrible mistake to abolish the British monarchy. I really want to visit the United Kingdom because it’s a kingdom. Outside of the monarchy I don’t have much interest in the United Kingdom. I’m not interested in the food, music, or culture of the UK except for the monarchy. I want to see a palace where a king lives in not a museum. Being a Kingdom is what makes the UK a special and unique country turning yourself into a republic would be a disaster in my opinion. Ultimately I know the decision is not mines and it ultimately the will of the British people. I just wanted to share the opinion of someone on the outside looking in.
Even during the revolutionary war most were still in favor of the monarchy. I honestly think if an offer similar to the commonwealth setup canada got 100 years later was made, most would have accepted. Home rule, with foreign policy decided by london and a ceremonial governor representing the throne to sign off on laws.
Not an awful lot would change without them, it's a type of Government and the things the Monarch does would continue without them. Ie Government official would still open buildings etc.
That's what the propagandists would have you believe. There's a reason our establishment want you to love the monarchy (which they conflate with the royal family) - the powers it gives them to undermine our democracy are profoundly important to them. Worse, perhaps, is the extent to which it serves to prop up our class system, and perhpas ethically the worst part of it is the way it relegates the royals themselves to no better than zoo exhibits.
@@jeremigawkowski9775like the Americans don't have to pay for their president too or the Canadians for that snake Trudeau making Britain a republic would change nothing but piss off alot of people
@@BritishRepublicsn Like Malaysia. Their sultans only rule for 5 years, and the throne passes into another royal families. They're not elected by the people though.
How about you stop giving them money, take away the land, use the money to fund a proper schoolsystem and build an actual democratic nation? Like, the rest of the civilized world?
I wonder if the power of the British monarch that has been constantly getting less and less with the centuries will one day just exhaust all of itself and England become republic naturally without abolishing or coups?
The Crown Estate is a lot more than a few palaces and other potential tourist traps. The vast majority of the estate is made of of commerical properties producing quite a large annual income. Which is already ceded to the government by the King. And the monarch has no personal ownership of the estate. The monarchy runs its entire annual budget on 12% of the Crown Estate turnover. The rest goes to Parliament to spend. Were the direct costs of the monarchy removed, goverment finances wouldn't really change, since the largest part of the 12% is already spent just on upkeep of the palaces and other public properties. Unless the plan is to bulldoze Buckingham Palace, the government will need to to pay for the upkeep, whether there is a King or not. In fact in some cases the government will need to increase expediture, as the monarch had to personally finance upkeep and repairs in recent years (e.g. the Windsor castle fire). The family is also independently wealthy, and were they dethrowned, they will become (very wealthy) private citizens. There is no legal way to seize their private assets (like Balmoral), since onwership of those properties have no bearing on them being Royalty or not. So it would basically be a wash, unless you take steps to remove all the historic buildings, sell the Crown land and change the face of London.
The question isn't about getting rid of the monarchy it's about what would you replace it with? Do you keep parliament just replace prime minister with a president, do you have a US type presidency, or French or German etc. Then you have to look at every nation in Europe that has got rid of it's monarch, it's led to dictatorship and/or civil war. Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Russia, Germany etc. Then bear in mind Presidents cost more.
Or maybe we can get a parliamentary republic, like Ireland, or Germany (not sure why you called it a presidential Republic?) Or quite a few other republics
Yup. Republicans first have to show that their alternative is better. It's not looking good - The last US President attempted an internal coup to stay in office against the popular vote. The current Russian President changed the constitution to stay in office indefinitely and has unilaterally embarked on a genocidal war against a sovereign neighbour. The last French President has been convicted twice for corruption in office.
The person who leads the Republic group has stated that they wish to keep the role of Head of State separate from that of government, and want a voted in Head of State with a limited serving time. I'm guess we would end up voting someone in every 4 years, as we do with the PM.
@Person11068all your comments are so fucking dumb...but this is the most backwards (American I'm guessing...🙄) The term British comes from Brythonic - i.e. celts
@@TheofficialSirenheadr What does the commonwealth do for us now? We have closer economic ties now with Japan and South Korea than most members of the commonwealth.
@@TheofficialSirenheadr What power and influence? We have cultural ties with Canada, Aus and NZ, besides that? Well, we have a growing Nigerian population, so there's Nigeria, but none of this has anything to do with the commonwealth. The king is just head of the commonwealth because Britain is the leading power in it, and British people are unthinking sycophants, see for example Billy the Baldy and his inept presidency (ironically) of the FA.
I feel like getting rid of the monarchy just removes a large tourism area & a large tax paying rich people as all the money made by the crown is given to the government which is a good deal meaning removing it would cause us to pay more taxes. It also could give more support to a political person & at the moment nobody likes the government in charge. I feel like caring about the monarchy being abolished is focusing on the wrong things as the Monarchy isn't the biggest problem being faced by our country but changing how the system of our democracy works. Our Democracy would be a better thing to improve such as well everything about it. I have no idea what to say here. Edit: also Northern Ireland leaving the UK wouldn't be much changed due to the Monarchy being abolished. As the thing keeping the British part of Northern Ireland as well the protestants don't want to be in a country ruled by Catholics & like there place in the UK so what would cause the whole Northern Ireland leaving stuff would be you know large demographic shift.
You’re right... the money made by the crown is given to the government because the crown is owned by the state, not the royal family. If we became a republic this money would be kept by the government because they’d still own what we now call things like the crown estate, and for example Buckingham palace and the Crown Jewels. The royals would own their personal property, like sandringham and balmoral which they *do not* give any money to the government from.
@@riowhi7 bit surprised at my response as I wouldn't consider myself a monarchist but - The dire straits we're in isn't because of the monarchy - it's categorically because of Brexit. Yes the Windsors may receive more than their fair share - but isn't that true of the Rothschilds, the Trumps, the Kardashians, the rest of the British aristocracy and rich 1% who own 33% of the land? The problem here is the way the Anglosphere. Whether it's our fault from the corruption of the Empire days or America's from the corruption of their entire history/modern hegemony...the fact of the matter is that Anglophone countries are idiots who fall for years like 2016 and the brainwashing that was Trump/Brexit Germany and France (G7) do not have the same disparity and wealth gap either of our countries have, and they don't have the GDP of the US but their taxes and welfare are spent wisely. Meanwhile we have a prime minister from an immigrant family trying to smear our problems on a minute number of war-fleeing refugees to distract us from the level of corruption and money hoarded at the top. The biggggg difference between the US and the UK however is resources, size and hegemony - its no longer the 19th century. It's not Britain's time anymore. And that extra century has provided development beyond belief to keep the US in the place many Brits wish they still were.
@@riowhi7 tourism by things like the coronation bring in far more money than any presidential inauguration. Despite Charles not being the most liked his coronation still brought a lot of money in. Also the money that is given by the state is on a fixed rate that due to inflation over the last few decades or hundred years (not sure how long its been since it was set) they end up paying more to the government. Under the Crown Estate Act 1961. the Crown Estate have a duty "while maintaining the Crown Estate as an estate in land to maintain and enhance its value and the return obtained from it, but with due regard to the requirements of good management" basically the £490.8 million made from it last year go to the government whilst they are paid £37.9 million (with the 2011 up to it) a year there is other things but I am not familiar enough to fully understand these things & work out exact numbers but none that I found would make it larger than almost 500 million. On the 2011 thing you brought up that was done to aid in the whole renovation of Buckingham palace so its set to go back to whatever it was originally after that is done I don't think that grants much different to a group like the state owning the place & having to do the same. Like technically due to the monarch kinda being part of the state & there estate being basically owned by the state you'd just be making a legal headache trying to change the buildings from being owned by the royal family to fully being owned by the government who at the minute is filled with corrupt people like Boris Johnson & idiots like Liz Truss & people who do nothing like Rishi Sunak. Can't wait to see how the next election goes hoping we see the whole lot of Tories lose power & some better party gains power. Democracy usually doesn't work when the people in charge only care for there pockets but I think that's due to capitalism as well it worked well in many places in the past until it was ruined by corruption like in Rome.
Oh no, we lose 0.3% of our tourism revenue **at very best** and 0.01% of our total economy. Big deal. Not only that, tourism and economic arguments have no place in a debate on the monarchy. Tourists should not determine the systems we use. Nor should money. Do you know what would really save money? Not paying our MPs. But that's the wrong thing to do
It might happen one day in the distant future, but sadly not in our lifetime. A way too large chuck of the British population is totally love the royals for whatever strange reasons. Even many royal bootlickers hate Charles, but they are enamored with William & Kate and would love nothing more than Charles to abdicate so that their dream royal couple can take the throne. For the monarchy to end, it would have to come from the King/Queen, but I don`t see them royals ever giving it up. Harry might have if he had become the king. But Charles waited too long for it and William seems to be the kind who loves his role as a royal celebrity.
@@feelmehish8506 They _are_ strange. The aren't even English by DNA, but have occupied England for centuries and descend from the Swiss/Norse, who intermixed with the French.
They will be free to lead natural lives, to do something useful and fulfilling. Something which at present they are not free to do. The French Prince Louis de Broglie helped bring into being the theory of quantum physics. I don't suppose any of our current princes would accomplish anything as great, but that doesn't matter, as long as they can be productive members of society.
It’s not mass compliance. Some of us are capable of wanting a monarchy over politically elected Head of States that don’t seem to have any great advantage in other places.
Republicans first have to show that their alternative is better. It's not looking good - The last US President attempted an internal coup to stay in office against the popular vote. The current Russian President changed the constitution to stay in office indefinitely and has unilaterally embarked on a genocidal war against a sovereign neighbour. The last French President has been convicted twice for corruption in office.
Should the people of the UK abolish their monarchy, they would be well advised not to model their new government structure on that of the United States.
@@detdvr4498 I mostly like the Irish system… though I think the Taoiseach and the Government, like in Britain, have too much control over parliamentary procedure and when bills are voted on etc. Parliament ought to be more independent in both Britain and Ireland. I also think the Presidential Veto could have a bit more weight in Ireland too. But overall yes I agree with you.
@@thorpeaaron1110 1. Brits don’t like it because most see it as polarising, so it can’t be a system for us if people dislike it 2. It, just like the British system to be totally fair to you, Vests full executive power in a single individual 3. It is prone to populism due to the election of the executive being done by a college elected directly for that purpose, though you could argue the British system is also prone because of our first past the post system and many people vote in general elections based on who they want the PM to be rather than who they want their member of parliament to be 4. It is a two party system, our electoral system is the same as yours which is not a good electoral system *but* at least due to regionalism and the weird thing with the south west being liberal vs conservative instead of social democratic vs conservative like the rest of the country… at least we end up with more parties I also think for Britain specifically we are more used to a system with a seperate head of state and head of government, with the head of government being responsive to our representatives. Edit… if you have any more questions feel free to ask, I absolutely love discussing different constitutions and it is very refreshing to be asked a polite question on the internet like this instead of a demand or an angry comment.
@@thorpeaaron1110if your system is sound ..why are people terrified of the orange one being re elected in nov.my yank friends are sh*tting bricks that he will end democracy in america.your system is flawed if one man can unravel it.the irony is..he wants to be an absolute monarch...something we no longer have in UK! Also the 6jan debacle was disturbing.that could not happen in the uk.
Well, they did abolish it once but it was a miserable failure.
Been the same since
It's outdated but ultimately everything is and I think if it ain't broke don't fix it and maybe they should be more open in their intentions. It certainly makes us unique and the power of another party to challenge the ever changing and easily corrupt government is a massive strength even though technically they have no power and are more of a tourist attraction above all else.
Under the Cromwells they were a monarchy in all but name.
*twice
@@nrkgaltas is the US presidency, monarchy in all but name, and elected by the electoral college, not the people
I am Scottish which may make someone assume I automatically don't want a monarch but I have to say on the contrary, after teaching myself about the monarchy and just what they do, it comes more down to the King or Queen in power and just what they want done. I really think we are better of with a monarchy as a nation than without one, only once it's gone will people see what is missing.
Honestly the debate of the Monarchy can break up the United Kingdom. If one of the constituent nations likes the monarchy or dislikes it more than the rest, then it could start the demise of the United Kingdom as a political union.
Also, with the United States might be problems. The way the new goverment handles relations with the North Americans, because Canada could continue having the monarchy (but in the current scenario is more likely that Canada becomes a Republic before the United Kingdom does, but a thousand times more can be Australia that Republicanism is slightly strong there even tho their national politicians have done terrible jobs with the handling of their nation). Getting back with the North Americans, in the United States their is people who feel identified with the British Monarchy so also it can have a negative impact on the image of England in the World Stage.
Also, most politicians would ruin Britain and in the pretext that the money of the monarchy is now of the state they will steal it for themselves.
Adding to the pile, the United Kingdom is a Parliamentary Democracy so the change from a monarchy to a republic can have not so much impact on politics EXCEPT in the fact that the Monarchy is supposed to be impartial compared to politicians that are supposedly loyal to their electorate.
Honestly it would not be bad for the United Kingdom to take some Republican stands like everybody being equal with the exception of people in political charges, like the monarch, but a Republic in this moments can be very risky, especialy how Britain is right now.
No
@@Addsy Wow, what a detailed response.
Well you can make your own Scottish head of state, when Scotland becomes independent. If majority of Scottish people want it. If you majority of Scottish people who live in Scotland want a monarchy they have one. I am a Welsh person but I am against monarchy as I don’t believe it should be around in democratic Countries in this day and age. I also want Independence from UK as Welsh person. The excuse we off better together is nonsense because it only benefits England. If all were independent then Wales,Scotland,N.I would definitely be better off. Overseas territories would become English overseas territories. England would also be better off as well as an independent Country but they don’t realise it yet. As Soon as the monarchy is abolished in the UK. It makes all Countries that have it still before it abolished automatically a republican Country’s. All,Countries would then need to vote on new head of state for each individual Country that still had monarchy such as Canada,Australia,New Zealand to name a few.
@@NicholasJH96Uh, no they wouldn’t. Contrary to bullshit ill-informed slop you presumably watch on the Internet, the institutions in each of the Commonwealth realms are legally seperate from yours. The UK becoming a republic would just that and only that, the *UK* becoming one. All other realms have the right to determine their own form of government, independent of what the government of Britain may or may not wish to
The thing about monarchies is they are based on personality. The UK is a hereditary monarchy, so no one voted for the monarch, so the monarchy's legitimacy is largely based on how popular the monarch is. Queen Elizabeth II was immensely popular, King Charles III... not so much. The issues other members of the royal family have been causing doesn't help their position either.
He’s still fairly popular
He's fairly popular and Prince William is really popular.
I think it’s mostly a time issue. After Charles and Andrew pass away, you’re pretty much left with only popular royals , inoffensive royals, or minor royals that no one pays attention too. Not to mention with the quickly approaching deaths of the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, the royal family is going to massive shrink in the next few decades.
There are 8 royals who are more popular than the most popular British politician or former politician, and doesn't include the children. I really don't see a situation in which the royal family becomes more unpopular than politicians, so the proposal to replace them is not going to be popular.
He’s more popular now than before really. Ultimately people just get used to the new monarch.
The reality: Even most Labour voters support the Monarchy. Even a Labour electoral victory won't result in immediate abolition of the Monarchy.
Almost all political parties in the UK are loyal to the Monarchy.
@Person11068 Also God Rest Queen Elizabeth a truly magnificent woman.
@Person11068she was a hard working woman and I respect that. Of course, everyone make mistakes. But she is hard working.
@@Fathersonspirit-e2c She never worked as hard as Charles. Charles was and remains the hardest-working royal - 17 hours per week (including travel!) over 30 weeks of the year - let's get real, if we're going to admire and respect people for working hard, there's about 50 million people ahead of the royals we should admire and respect more.
"Even most Labour voters support the Monarchy." - Right, but ask them why. You'll find most 'supporters' are lukewarm, just because 'on balance' people imagine the monarchy is a net positive for the country. A generation or two ago, people would have said the same about the Church of England, nowadays supporters of keeping the CofE the state religion are few and far between.
The monarchy is massively harmful to the nation. If people knew the truth about it, support for it would collapse overnight. Support is already in freefall, and that's even with the pervasive propaganda about 'how much money they make' or 'how they protect our democracy'.
Cap their funding and make them pay their taxes, problem solved.
It’s the same question when asked for other countries that have a parliamentary monarchy system (Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, etc). It’s not always possible to do this without something being compromised, be it political stability, voter apathy, increased national security; to name but a few. The can of worms goes beyond swapping the monarch for a president, and it’s better not to interfere much.
With Japan (which is also a parlimentary monarchy system), nearly all people have reverence to the Imperial Family, so I can see them lasting into the far future.
@@paolotorres8537 Of course, the Japanese Emperor was worshiped as a god until Japan's defeat before America and America wrote the Japanese Constitution and abolished the worship of the Emperor, but of course some still revere him.
@@mshmsh9313 no, it didn’t abolish worship of the emperor, the whole “humanity declaration” is often misunderstood by foreigners. All it is is to just simply acknowledge that the emoeror’s role is to be the ceremonial symbol of the people and Japanese unity, not so much a denial of divinity. In fact, even way back in the day, Japanese emperors never had so much governing power (the real power rested in the nobles and shoguns), but they were still seen as divine.
@@mshmsh9313To be fair, that was not the result of any decision made by the Japanese monarchy. No Japanese sovereign ever claimed to be a divine figure. They did (and still do) claim descent from the divine, say what you will about that, but no Japanese monarch ever claimed to be a god. And that includes Hirohito.
WHERE IS IT WRITTEN THAT A FAMILY HAS TO RULE OVER MILIONS OF PEOPLE FOR 100 OF YEARS? WITHOUT ACCOUNTING FOR ANYTHING TO THE PEOPLE THEY ARE SUPPOSED "TO SERVE?"AL MONARCHY STARTED WITH BULLIES AND RUTHLESS PEOPLE. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WANT THEM ARE THE HANGOVERS: THE PEOPLE WHO GET THEYR POWER BY HANGING AROUND AND PROTECT THE " ROYALS". IT IS THEYR WAY TO KEEP THE CLASS SOCIATY GOING.BUT AT THE END OF THE METTER: WHY DO PEOPLE HAVE TO BOW TO SOMBODY WHO LIKE EVERYBODYELSE HAS TO GO TO THE TOILET ?😅😅😅
In brazil people are questioning why we let the republic exist in the first place, this debate is deffinitly different around the world.
Like for real our republic is a joke, while the empire at least was able to grant stability and somehow a better press freedom then modern brazil 😅😅 oh wait i live here, shit.
The truth is constitutional monarchies are more stable and less corrupt than constitutional republics.
More and less Pedro II didn't really care that he was deposed ever since he lost his final son in infancy he grew weary of the relevance of the institution and became disillusioned with it all together which is why he didn't put up much of a resistance to his deposition
@@themcfunnel yes i know
He had a problem eith the brazillian parilament because unlike other weatern nations it always refused modernity and since mr Pedro loved traveling during diplomatic missions he loved french, american and british modernity, causing him to lose much will to continue, and he was old asf
@Person11068 The UK is less corrupt than Spain, the UK is less corrupt than Italy, it’s less corrupt than Mexico. There are always exceptions to the rule but the general rule remains true that constitutional monarchies are less corrupt than republics.
@demarcomixon lmao the entire reason bretxit happened besides immigration was because the UK did not want the EU transparency laws, to end fiscal paradise that the UK is.
Charles isn't as incompetent as he is pictured. Still, his mother was perfect in her onstage behavior. Charles is good but not perfect. Add to this the simple fact that the English are less tolerant of their kings than their queens. Throw in the kinds of defferance norms of the 1950s being long gone. I think the monarchy might be gone by 2050.
By 2050, the UN will rule the world. Huzzah!
@user-sp4rl5fd8r That means that large numbers of bitter 3rd world dictators (many of whom are less mature than Donald Trump) would have the final say on our lives. World unity would require a world of stable democracies. We're centuries from that.
The UK ditching the monarchy will be a progressive step. But it's only a drop in the bucket of what's needed.
@@thomasdevine867 keep dreaming, mate. UN & their cronies control this world one way or another.
It's a grimdark world. So grow up and live it with it.
I really do think the monarchy will de deposed around 2050 as well. I predict throughout the 2030s and 2040s the monarchy will become even more so unpopular and there will be more hostile protests and even assassination attempts on the Royals. The Republicans know that there really isn't a peaceful way to depose the King, so they will have to resort to violence. There will be a coup or violent uprising kicking the Royals out of the UK under either William or George.
I hope so. But I'll be almost 70 by then. I think Scotland has more chance than England of ditching the monarchy. As soon as we're independent, the monarchy will be the next thing on the chopping block. It's not popular here. But one day, it'll be gone for good. It only takes once. And it's increasingly outdated and irrelevant, and more and more people are struggling to make ends meet. Not nice to be reminded that some people are so privileged and are living off of our hard-earned taxes for doing absolutely nothing but wearing a shiny gold hat.
5:24 Honestly dude, some of the worst examples you could’ve cited.
Louis XVI was far from the last monarch of France, and there were between 5 and 10 more monarchs after him (depends on who you count and how), with the last monarch not losing his throne until 1870, and he wasn’t even overthrown in a revolution, but deposed in a mixture of a foreign military occupation and a coup d’état
Haiti first gained independence as an empire in 1804 that lasted until 1806, became a kingdom in 1811 that lasted until 1820, before becoming an empire again in 1849 that lasted until 1859
Ireland upon independence did not become a republic, it became a Commonwealth realm and remained such until either 1937 or 1949 (some constitutional ambiguities were not resolved until the latter date, it’s a whole thing)
And as to Serbia, it was NEVER an independent state as a republic until 2006. Its first gain of independence in 1804, a period that lasted until 1813, didn’t really have a government. It was more of an uprising acting as a state, led by a “Grand Vožd”, a position that was a mixture of monarch and military dictator. The first recognized independent state, the Principality of Serbia, came into being in 1815, became a kingdom in 1882 (during this period the throne flipped between 2 families constantly but there was never a republic), became a founding part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1918, and became a constituent part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1945, existed in a federation with Montenegro from 1992 until 2006 when it FINALLY became just Serbia again in a little less then a hundred years from the time it had existed alone
His point was that these countries had to overhaul their constitutions away from a monarchy, not that this change was permanent or led to a republic.
@@joaocarvalho6316 Not really a valid point considering France has rewritten its constitution 14 times, basically from scratch from the introduction of the first one in 1791. That’s not evolution, because each document was essentially trashed. That even includes the change from the 4th Republic to the 5th, since France went from a parliamentary democracy to a semi-presidential one.
As for Serbia, the abolition of the monarchy was illegal, and also done under the auspices of a Yugoslav state. It had to reconstitute itself after the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Again, no evolution, just starting fresh.
Haiti has basically followed the same path as France, although unlike France none of its governments have ever actually been functional so whatever its constitution says doesn’t really matter.
As for Ireland, that’s fair. But it’s also a result of fairly specific circumstances. If Home Rule had succeeded or any number of different things occurred, Ireland would still be a monarchy today, in union with Britain or otherwise. Hell, there were chances after the creation of the Irish Free State were it could have stayed a monarchy, just with a monarch not from the House of Windsor. Also its transition, unlike France, Haiti or Serbia was a legally sound and legitimate process, not a revolutionary one.
I mean why would they? It is part of their history and like it or not the royal families today represent the nations itself giving how long they have been leading it.
Look at Japanese for example, even if they are modern, atheistic and quite liberal society they still have and respect their Emperor. And they are fine with him existing and representing the soul of a nation.
So yeah, Charles may be unpopular but he is also very old and will not reign for long. Once his son takes the throne the monarchy will be fine again.
Japan isn't atheistic and certainly not liberal.
aye, majority of people I know have a positive opinion of William
@@haroldboi7 No we don't. And the impression of William is a fabricated one concocted by the British media. God help them if they ever turn on him and reveal all the skeletons in his closet.
If the monarchy was abolished-it will be a political nightmare for us in Canada.
The many treaties between the various indigenous nations from the Cree to Inuits to Haudenosaunee all signed treaties to with the Crown. It will be a nightmare if the Crown was abolished because technically those treaties would be void. It means all the cities in Canada, without the Crown, would technically no longer have a right to those lands anymore unless there was a new treaty that transferred those lands from Crown ownership to the new Canadian Republic. But the details of all those treaties will be a huge endeavour in itself.
And you know somebody would try to call something unconstitutional or raise an old dispute and drag it out for years to achieve nothing. It would destory us for nothing. Honestly we should just move the monarchy to Ottawa at that point like Brzil did back in the day if it came down to it.
Actually under Canadian law if the UK abolishes the monarchy that actually does not affect Canada's monarchy. Canada will probably become the new permanent base of the monarchy if they royals are forced to leave Britain...that would leave the position of governor general redundant.
Actually if the monarchy were abolished in the Uk it would still technically remain in place until the Canadians decided to abolish it as well.
Fearmongering
Yes I'm sure the people that would manage this are as dumber than you and have not considered this implication. And seriously now you care about the indigenous people of Canada? How hilarious. Canada has for years treated them like shit.
King Chuck was heckled by Australian Senator Lidia Thorpe during His visit in Australia at Parliament. She bellowed to Him "Your Not My King, You're Not Our King!" She had also accused Him of His Families atrocities committed during Their rule and demanding Treaties.
God Save The King!
Loyal monarchist from Australia
GOD SAVE THE KING
loyal supporter of a family who got rich by exploiting people
@@tibodeclercq2131just dont be poor 😂
@@evandputra8628 in case of the monarchy: by exploiting and oppressing people, yup.
@@tibodeclercq2131you inherited a society built on that ssme foundation
The question is what would replace the King/Queen as a head of state. The only real alternative is a President. This will either have to be a Executive President or a Ceremonial President. The MP's in the House of Commons will not allow an Executive President as that will mean handing power from the House of Commons to the new Executive President (The same reason as why the house of Lords is not replaced). As for a Ceremonial President what is the difference between a Ceremonial President and what we have now. Would it be worth the turmoil (as described in this video) to change to a Ceremonial President.
very true, but there is a difference between ceremonial president and monarch. Monarch is legally still a monarch, he can disband parliament, choose head of government, declare war etc, in most constitutional monarchies today, there is just informal agreement in societies to not do that, but theoretically all monarchs today can become absolutist rulers like in the past, lol.
Wouldn’t the title of Head of State just go to your Prime Minister? It’s mostly ceremonial anyways right?
@@AmirSattActually, no. They’ve tried, they have, but Parliament simply ignores them when they do. They can’t legally do it, the Bill of Rights 1687 stops them. Kinda crazy.
@@Ben-outdoorsIt could, yes, but in some ways it makes sense to separate them, by doing so it keeps the operations of ceremonial and official actions separate; thus not wasting official time. Just my view, though.
@@TheDrumstickEmpireI meant around the world, not only UK
Even if they abolish the monarchy , it will take years of hardship to get back the country in track , just like they first did previously during 1649. It faced many severe challenges and consequences to be ruled under a democratic government , so abolishing of the British monarchy which has been the “heart of English” for many years would not be a good option. Instead , monarchy can flourish with the modern era only if they just try to make many significant and important changes and befit it like the Danish , Norwegian or Dutch monarchies which are currently being loved by their people. I would recommend at first to reduce the mammoth size royal expenditures and their tax issues to be funded by themselves , converting some of the unused royal estates or cottages or castles into something bloody useful like shelter centres or charity organisations and last but not the least , the royals should stop trying being snobbish and be more transparent and accessible with their subjects and citizens
Cromwell is a dictator act like a King. imagine today if that happens.
I suppose it is a question of Europeans and some countries of the world, for me something like the Monarchy seems disgusting, that someone has such birth privileges as in the Middle Ages seems absurd to me these days. The worst thing is that some praise and love them, it is difficult for me to understand, in that sense I like the United States better.
For the country to get back on track it would need to ungeld itself and stop being feminized.
@@netero1682 A story about democracy:
A farmer asked his son before he died, "Pigs complain about poor feed, cows complain about heavy work, and chickens complain about dirty nests. What should you do?". The son said: "Change to good feed, buy more cows, clean up Chicken coop." The farmer shook his head and said. "No, don't do anything. Let them vote, let them choose you or your wife to take care of them, and let them think they are the boss”.
Son’s idea = Chinese democracy
Father’s idea = American liberal democracy
@@familyseed1555i don't understand please elaborate?
I strongly believe that the Monarchy should remain as it is. The UK is already very different without Queen Elizabeth.. it would be worse without the entire Crown.
Fear of the unknown. We are in the era of republican states, and the United Kingdom is already worse off economically. The savings it collected from the colonies are beginning to run out, and the removal of Elizabeth from Barbados is the biggest example.
Well the UK lost its empire under the late queen. Plenty of great Kings throughout all of British history that did not rule over gelded realms nor let their realm become gelded in the first place.
'The Crown' is not the monarchy. british sovereignty will simply pass to the people upon abolition of the monarchy, in other words, where it belongs.
@@mshmsh9313 What rule said all Monarchy must become republican?
@@Fordnan british sovereignty will not pass to the people. I will give in the hand of worst people.
This is the first time I've ever seen the word "disestablishmentarianism" actually used in context.
Not as good a word as "antidisestablishmentarianism"
@@MoeSzyslak20hey I’m one of them
Essentially, its a game of who (parliament or the monarch) can screw up the least for the longest time.
Even Blair, who once had more popularity than the Crown, ended up failing in his bid to transform the monarchy.
I strongly believe it must be abolished for once and for all.
As a Malaysian, (one of the constitutional monarchy in the world) the monarchy is vital to stabilise our political power,which means that we should never abolish it.
how lucky you are bali and jakarta used to be monarchies but our king is dead because of the European settlement state. 😢
😂😂
Nothing lasts forever bro
Malaysia isn't even stable though lol
A country definitely doesn't need 9,425 royal families.
@@maximumtrollmagic its 9 you arse
I live in the U.S., but I hold deep respect for the Sovereign and whomever sits on its throne. I have done hours of research about the U.K. and it sits among my favorite countries, however I must say I'm only interested in it as a Kingdom. The Monarchy is what gives The United Kingdom its power and influence. It would be foolish to get rid of a millenium of tradition, and culture. The Sovereign has always acted a stabilizing force especially in the world wars. It would be impossible to actually criticize a monarch as I and the rest of the people in my country and the Commonwealth are so utterly beneath a King or Queen, I'd say the monarchy should only take critique from another monarchy or perhaps the God himself. The people of the U.K. are nothing without their King and their Royal traditions. And as long as it was painless I like to think I would give my soul for the Monarchy.
Long Live The King.
this is one of the points I feel people miss when they argue against the monarchy, our royal family is about 80% of the UK's current relevance on the world stage and political influence.
@@lawrencerutherford4260 Wrong the royal family play no role in the UK's politics.
The royal family play no part in British politics.
@@matthewkent5212 they don't actively take part in politics but they have wide spanning influence and do play a role in international diplomacy. Most British allies are members of the Commonwealth which only exists as long as the monarchy does, America does not really count because they are "Allied" to the entire western world
You must really hate the UK if you're diminishing it down to the monarchy
Trust me, I live in a country which abolished this institution. Has anything turned for better? Not at all. On the contrary having an elected head of state who has a limited years to stay in power makes them use public founds as they want, having immunity makes them even steal on a big scale( imagine that with another one every 4 years).
Just for an example, our head of state has a year before a new election is going to be held. In that time he has made several tours in several countries with his family where they spent money on luxurious things, they would not have if not for the function. Because everything is political we do not have that many things to say.
The people having the power to vote them out is just a story. Usually homeless and alcoholics are paid so they would vote by the biggest parties and because they win these things which everyone knows about aren't investigated (all parties are doind that, some of them better, who pays more will win)
If there is a referendum so the president is to be changed the same, in a society the majority are these unfortunate people who would vote anyone just for 1 L of Vodka or 1 kg of potatoes.
Do you really think that this would be better for you? Trust me it wouldn't and when people would want to get rid of them ( these elected lads) you could not because it would already be about party politics.
Be aware that even Cromwell after replacing the monarch just made himself a pseudo king, as would all these republicans, do not fall for their valueless propaganda.
May the King live, and may we get back our Monarch!
Right, so corruption exists in democracy, so let's abandon the whole idea...
No wonder your country's gone to the dogs.
Well said!History repeats or at least rhymes!look at america..in november the orange messiah may well become an orange king😮.
They already have abolished it they just brought it back
Will the name of the UK change? Without a monarchy, there will be no kingdom, so I’ve wondered that a bit.
Maybe just to Britian or Great Britain
If the UK becomes a republic it will just be known as Britain.
The name would definitely change, probably to something like the Republic of Great Britain.
They would have to change the names of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force too!
@@chesterdonnelly1212 Oh non 😭
*WHEN PEOPLE ACTUALLY GET A VOTE*
It is much plausible to have another Glorious Revolution than to abolished the Monarchy due to the popularity of the current prince of wales
prince of Wales??? who king Charles, Willam his son ( prince of Wales)
@@JOHNSMITH-if9jr the current Prince of Wales is William.
@@JOHNSMITH-if9jrsince Queen Elizabeth II passed in 2022, Prince William took his father Charles' title as Prince of Wales.
@@MrCreeperYT_Official yes I know that. I did say king Charles's son William prince of Wales
I'm british and i want them gone...
I don't get what they do....
People slag off people on the dole... there the biggest dollies about!!
Like he said, basically the crown is the reason to live of the United Kingdom, is the reason than NI, Scotland and Wales are united with England (Specially with Scotland because now the Royal Family have scottish blood), and is one (for not to say the principal) of the reasons of being british, anyone who heard about Brittain thinks inmediatly about the monach. The Crown is the principal national symbol of the UK, maybe i will do the mistake of saying that, but without The Crown there´s no UK
'The Crown' just symbolises the state and its sovereignty. Nobody is saying dismantle the state or surrender its sovereignty.
That's nonsense. And also, the union should be scrapped along with the monarchy, for largely the same reason.
Scottish people should be making all the decisions in Scotland. Not English lawmakers in London, or English monarchs in Windsor.
I doubt it, but I would mention that it's often forgotten that the royal family is also the royal family of 14 other nations around the world. And while support may not be as high in those countries than the UK , in some of those nations such as Canada, it is not as simple as holding a referendum, in Canada , aside from lack of political will, the process to change the system of government or what the 1982 Constitution Act refers to as "The Office of The Queen", it would require the approval of the House of Commons, the Senate, and all ten provincial parliaments, a task that would be practically impossible for a whole host of reasons. So hypothetically the UK could cease to be a constitutional monarchy, but the monarchy itself would not be "abolished"
I think we can all agree, that there are not a lot of good British politicians that I would want to have as President.
I would rather have monarchs keeping things in check than having politicians fucking up the country with their cronies
They would elect a Muslim, Chinese or Indian as president then uk would lose its identity
What about you tho you can one day become a president why don’t you want that future for yourself
And if any member of the royal family were subject to scrutiny like any politician rather than just subject of propaganda, then you wouldn’t want them wielding power either.
It’s mostly about the type of coverage received
The point is, YOU should be deciding who our head of state is. It shouldn't be based on who passed out of whose vagina, in one family, and in what order.
4:19 ngl this pic goes hard 🔥🔥
Pic of him thinking that if he were on the toilet NOW, he’d finally be able to poo
Throneshot
IMO removing the monarchy will make the political situation even worse so they better keep it
6:50 Check your researches.
Royal properties are still in the hand of the Royal family.
The government gets their revenue currently, but they keep up the cost of the royal family. Which is acctualy an income for the UK and not a cost.
But all in all it is it owned by the family of the King.
It's a lie that the royal family bring in more money than they cost. Take their special bank holidays on days like the coronation, for example. That cost the economy several billion quid. The castles would get tourists whether we scrapped the monarchy or not. The French get more visitors than Britain and they abolished theirs' centuries ago.
None of the royal sites get as many visitors as places like Chester Zoo. And that's not taking into consideration the hundreds of millions that Charles kept when he inherited his mother's estate, that would have paid in taxes if he was anyone else.
why not just draw a line in the cement about their powers. Do visits to other countries, open parliament with a speech, do the ceremonies/ weddings etc. thats it. in terms of operations: lower public funding for monarchy, take back millions of hectares of public land, turn other royal properties into property/museum. and in terms of ways to separate the two: change names of things named after the king (HMP, HMRC, HMS) etc. change national anthem (nobody knows it or cares anyway), change governement offices so they dont have the crown above their logo etc. and in terms of things the monarchy will not do- not anti democratic things, ie giving royal assent to bills, being commander in chief of army etc.
'lower public funding for the monarchy'
The only part of the monarchy that is funded by the public are the costs for Head of State duties and upkeep of the buildings that do not belong to the RF. If you want to lower the funding, the only way to lower it is for no money to be given for the upkeep of the buildings which means the public will either have to fund it another way, or leave them all to rot.
If you want to get rid of the RF completely, then the public will still have to fund the costs for a HoS and will still have to pay for the buildings to be maintained. The difference is that Mr Joe Bloggs HoS will not boost the economy to the tune of well over a billion GBP per year as the RF currently does.
*Americans, Irish, and French:* "Do it!"
The French are obsessed with monarchy. And we can't do it without the aristocracy (not a monarchy) granting a vote in the first place. We are occupied. We need arms to revolt.
Agree. Abolish the monarch
@@Ganymede559 yall cant even defend yourselves. you have to outsource your military escapades lol. essentially the uk and most of europe is a bunch of hopelessly entitled and spoiled people who depend on monarchy having global power so that they may continue never having to work or earn anything the same way everyone else outside the imperial core does.
@@Ganymede559 they are obsessed with separating their heads and bodies.
American and Korean here, Korean side says yes, as ours was ineffective and weak. Whilst the American side disagrees, because the Monarchy gives the UK the UK
the monarchy is just a figurehead and tourist attraction at this point. part of British culture. personally, I think they should not be abolished
They also keep unity in the United Kingdom. Without them I can see the U.K. going downhill very fast
The monarchy teaches disrespect for those not born into wealth
Unfortunately its not up to only the UK. The monarchy has the Commonwealth to answer to as well.
Then they can remain the the head of the commonwealth even when we scrap the monarchy in Britain. Btw, the king/queen has to be elected to lead the commonwealth, they don't just get it because they're the monarch.
GOD SAVE THE KING!
WEF king
GOD SAVE THE KING!
Support has been decreasing by double digit percentages every decade. It's a matter of when, not if.
without the monarchy, the uk is nothing
@@leonmorris7862 it's so sad so many people have been conditioned into thinking the only note worthy thing about this country and it's long history is the current monarch
that has been going up and down for centuries... it was going down in the late 20th century then it soared in the early 2010s
@@David-qp9bqI quite agree with you. That’s all I really have to say... just want to let my fellow Republicans know they aren’t alone.
This is just… no true. Support today is at roughly the same area as it was in 2000. Support for the monarchy in 2012 was a historic high point fuelled by the convergence of the diamond jubilee, William and Catherine’s marriage, birth of Prince George, the London Olympics, and an absence of scandals. The decline since has simply returned the monarchy to its historic levels of support
Yeah I really doubt this will ever happen, at least not for another 40 years.
Might be sooner. Never say never. Nothing last forever.
Don’t be so negative
It'll definitely happen. It'll happen in Scotland far sooner. As soon as we get our independence from the UK. The monarchy will be gone shortly after, it's very unpopular here. Only 48% of Scots support the union. Only 35% of Scots support the monarchy.
Should there be a referendum given the Prince Andrew scandal and other controversies?
It sure is weird it still exists. Still I didnt watch the Coronation nor have interest in them. A troubled family
Good video!
Give it a generation or 2
Loyal monarchist from (you'd never guess where unless you look at my pfp) the UK (im also a gen a so...).
well, the royal family MAKES 7 times as much as they spend for the country. SO even from a purely money point of view its worth it to keep
You just made that up.
That's a pure horseshit lie.
First, their big events like the coronation, cost the UK economy billions, when they have a bank holiday. We lost hundreds of millions in Charles' inheritance. Anyone else would have had to pay. There are the millions of acres of land that could be put to better use. As for tourism. The French royal palaces get more tourists, and they abolished their monarchy centuries ago.
Chester Zoo gets more tourists than Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle combined.
And last, democracy is priceless. Our head of state should be a position open to all, not restricted to one family. We shouldn't be scraping our chins on the floor in deference to a work-shy family.
@@carlpierce2486nah he didn't, you can Google it if you want
The suggestion that the UK would constitutionally break apart whilst transitioning to Republic is without evidence.
Remember that the UK has already had a Republic from 1649-1660 under Oliver Cromwell. There is precedent, and when twice transitioning between various systems the nation(s) didn't fail.
The position of 'Head of State' is currently held by a Monarch. Amending this Office to be held by an elected President need not lead to further constitutional changes.
If a popular move to become a Republic did lead to other constitutional changes they would likely be in the form of formal amendments set out in advance by Parliament. Clear and deliberate democratic actions taken to ensure the stability of the new system, and the transition towards it.
An elected Head of State would still be a politically neutral constitutional defender of the nation. But as an elected official they would have far more legitimacy to weald actual power to do that job.
In August 2019 the Queen was forced to accept the PMs suspension of Parliament for 5 weeks (a move the Supreme Court later struck down as illegal). The Queen just said she had no choice but to accept the PMs illegal action, because she had no real power. Ultimately this is held up as an example of the Head of State being unable to defend the constitution. The gradual reduction in the Monarchs effective power over time has become a major constitutional flaw, one that Republicans argue can be rectified by having the Head of State elected with a mandate to act when needed.
Ultimately, yes the national symbols might change a bit as a Republic, and yes the UK would have a more perfect democracy, but tbh not much else would change.
Keep calm and carry on, really.
But a 2nd British Republic is only going to happen if the people want it. Right now no political party stands on a platform of British Republicanism, though Republican MPs are not uncommon.
Since Charles became King in 2023 the polls show somewhere between 25-34% of the UK now wants the country to become a Republic. A minority, though seemingly a growing one.
No!
In jail I saw someone from Barbados say china helps more
American here: I used to be one of those people who laughed at monarchies and said they were stupid letting an unelected inbred rich person be your head of state. But a year or two ago I changed my mind after listening to so arguments, the best coming from the TH-cam channel UsefulCharts. Monarchy in parliamentary democracy is a symbol rather than an individual person. It keeps elected politics separate from the head of state and creates more political stability. Just look to the U.S. to see how elected heads of state can create issues. Many people in the UK, Canada, Australia may say they could become a republic, but if they did try it they’d probably regret it. Now, since I don’t live in a monarchy all I have is opinions so I can’t change anything, but I guess it’s the thought that counts…
@Person11068
We reached our greatness because of our geographical superiority, not because we’re a democratic republic. Correlation does not equal causation. Besides, us leaving the monarchy also created many hardships such as the continuation of slavery. Those other republics you mentioned haven’t had the smoothest path either. France is on its 5th republic with calls for a 6th.
@Person11068 republic???! bruh the US is nothing. More then a corporate oligarchy pretending to be a republic
@Person11068 The US would have been as much of a failed state as latin america if it wasn't for geography. That much space and resources is what allowed the country to grow to be a strong power, that prosperity gave the government relative stability (civil war notwithstanding) to be able to stalemate the brits in 1812, enforce the Monroe doctrine, and beat Mexico for just over 1/4 of the modern US by land area.
@@kingofhearts3185🤓
As a Brit living on usa ..i like to rub it in about 06 Jan insurrection..sorry..tourist wave😅...that it couldnt happen in old blighty..bc the military pledge allegiance to the monarch..not the pm.I am comforted that The Windsors are the head of state and not thicko liz truss...adhd boris johnson..or the newly elected sir keir stalin.most elected politicians are slime.
Dude I hope so
The real question is: how will people prevent another Oliver Cromwell from trying to seize power? There definitely would be people who would try to take advantage of the situation after the monarchy is hypothetically abolished
I am an American so my words have no value on this matter but as an opinion that no one asked, tbh I like the monarchy and having English descent myself, like with all people of English descent, early English kings flow in our blood. Despite not being English myself (or maybe, depends on definition of ethnicity you use)
The monarchy is why any good laws exist why Britain has a major diaspora through the empire their crown had a contribution in creating the monarchy is the head of the church of England which I used to be an Episcopalian American so I was a member of the Anglican church ran by the king and so fourth. Sometimes I lament that my ancestors stayed in America instead of going to Canada.
I'm.British and if you die without a will all your money goes to the Queen.
@@matthewkent5212 the queen is dead.
Non the less this I know.
When a citizen dies the will is collected as tax. It exists so that the crusades could be funded. The crusades ended but this law was never repealed.
Non the less tax is necessary so that governments can pay for the army for security, or economic infrastructure business projects, spiritual temples, and such.
But liberal, secular and progressive minds view each as pointless. Given welfare attitudes and pacifism is the politics.
But I believe a strong standing army secures peace and stability security.
Lest the lessons in Ukraine be forgotten.
@@matthewkent5212then write a goddamn will
As someone from the Netherlands 🇳🇱, I've always admired the UK's 🇬🇧 monarchy for the status and cultural richness it brings. (Not just to the UK, but also countries like Canada, Saint Lucia, Australia, Jamaica, Antiqua and Barbuda, New Zealand, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Tuvalu, the Bahamas and Belize). Monarchies, like the Kingdom of the Netherland, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not only serve as symbols of national identity but also play crucial roles in diplomacy. The attachment of a monarch to state affairs contributes greatly to international relations. Moreover, their engagement in charitable activities adds a compassionate dimension to governance. The tourism boost from royal palaces, ceremonies, and traditions is remarkable, attracting visitors and showcasing the historical and cultural treasures that make these countries truly unique. It's fascinating how these historical institutions embody continuity, stability, and a sense of shared heritage. Some of these things may also exist in republics, but in monarchies they are truly unique.
So you have No value for Millions of lives that were killed by British Monarchy In India, Ireland, Africa etc? And brutal colonization and exploitation? Absolutely idiotic!! Unbelievable!!
" I,M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH CHRISTIANITY AND CANNOT FORESEE THAT I LL BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN GOVERNORSHIP OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND ONCE I M KING." Prince William ( GB News 29-1-24 with Andrew Pierce and Gavin Ashenden senior royal correspondent.)
It only takes once, so yes, eventually will. Hopefully before I die I'll see Scotland become a republic, whether we're still in this faux union or we're free of it.
It would open up politicians to more corruptions where they are there for the lobbyists £'s
At least those politicians had to earn that power. They had to win votes and can be voted out.
Good luck doing that to Jimmy Saville's best pal.
I am glad we got rid of the monarchy in the states and are a republic. But I think it's up to the UK to decide what to do- whether they keep their monarchy or not. I do prefer a republican form of government, but I think it's really up to the citizens in each country to decide their fate, to decide which government is best for them.
Make the monarchy pay taxes.
They do voluntary
I am Irish and the last time England has a Republic it came with Oliver Cromwell who proved to be quite unpopular in ireland. So all in all leave well enough alone i think .
Great logic!
Fun fact...Cromwell had irish ancestry.
The British can keep it as far as I'm concerned, but as a Canadian, I think Canada should dump-it, we don't need a foreign king as aour head of state.
Canadians speak English (mostly) so monarch is not foreign. Canada was built by British Empire.
Decolonized Canada sent all the white back to Europe
You can have Prince Harry 😂
@@chesterdonnelly1212 Nooooooooo 😱😱😱
Glad someone has a SPINE and a BRAVE HEART for FREEDOM! SMELL and FEELING of FREEDOM is different!!
God save the King!👑🇬🇧
Great Britain without a monarch, is not a great.
It wouldn't be Britain at all.
How does the monarch make us great? 'Great Britain' is a geographical term, and what makes us grat culturally and historically is the ingenuity of our population. We brough forth the first truly global language, we have Shakespeare, we led the industrial revolution, we have Newton, Darwin, Maxwell. Faraday, Dalton, Dirac, Higgs and Hawking amongst our scientific names, Keynes and Smith as economists, we have football, rugby, cricket, golf and motorsport amongst the sporting contributions we've made, Wren, Jones, Foster amongst the architects... The list goes on and on. What has the monarch ever done for the mass of people in the country besides live off the wealth we produce?
In reality there should be a vote to keep or abolish the monarchy same why you have election . If more people vote for them to be abolished. They should just stop doing what ever it is they do
The Monarchy is a ceremonial role that is largely a cost to the state. It is only held up by traditionalism and people that see some measure of prestige in it.
Many countries are fine without kings and lords.
As someone without a monarchy like the UK,no,we don't.
The crown earnings are given to the government...they recieve a out 15% back as the civil list.they are a net contrjbutor to the nations coffers...even more so since KC3 has made such a success of the Duchy of Cornwall.how many others give 85%of their income to their nation.i cant believe how many people dont know this.
It's impressive some monarchies in Europe survived the Enlightenment movement. The 1789 French Revolution and the Independence of the United States of North America are the work of Freemasonry. The United Grand Lodge of England was established in June 24th, 1717. Liberalism and Freemasonry usually prefer the Republic than the Monarchy as secularism favors Freemasonry. Nevertheless, monarchies of Sweden, Spain and the UK became "Enlightened" as Masonry developed within them. At this point, turning the UK into a republic, either federal or centralized, doesn't mean a big change from the ideological point of view. Freemasonry, Liberalism and Progressivism have already quite damaged Christianity.
I’m an American but I have a lot of love for constitutional monarchies and I wish America was a member of the British Commonwealth or had our own monarchy. I know my opinion doesn’t mean much but I think it would be a terrible mistake to abolish the British monarchy. I really want to visit the United Kingdom because it’s a kingdom. Outside of the monarchy I don’t have much interest in the United Kingdom. I’m not interested in the food, music, or culture of the UK except for the monarchy. I want to see a palace where a king lives in not a museum. Being a Kingdom is what makes the UK a special and unique country turning yourself into a republic would be a disaster in my opinion. Ultimately I know the decision is not mines and it ultimately the will of the British people. I just wanted to share the opinion of someone on the outside looking in.
Long Live The King!
@@2345mat Seriously though
If America were part of the Commonwealth it would take part in the Commonwealth games every 4 years.
Even during the revolutionary war most were still in favor of the monarchy. I honestly think if an offer similar to the commonwealth setup canada got 100 years later was made, most would have accepted. Home rule, with foreign policy decided by london and a ceremonial governor representing the throne to sign off on laws.
@@kingofhearts3185 In the revolutionary war there was no tv so how did people stay loyal to a king they had never seen before?
I certainly hope not, God Save the King!
He is a globalist sock puppet.
The king of Spain and the king of Sweden are related to King Charles so I don't know how that would turn out
So is the German emperor, who doesn't exist. That's how that would turn out.
How many long time monarchies were in Europe being replaced by republic - so it is possible…
They did 400 years ago an brought it back after 10 years…
Never. God save the King. 🇬🇧
@Person11068 the UK will recover, it always has done
Not an awful lot would change without them, it's a type of Government and the things the Monarch does would continue without them. Ie Government official would still open buildings etc.
That's what the propagandists would have you believe. There's a reason our establishment want you to love the monarchy (which they conflate with the royal family) - the powers it gives them to undermine our democracy are profoundly important to them.
Worse, perhaps, is the extent to which it serves to prop up our class system, and perhpas ethically the worst part of it is the way it relegates the royals themselves to no better than zoo exhibits.
UK monarchy is very positive for the UK, why you wanna abolish everything good.
brits have to pay for thier monarchs quite a lot
@@jeremigawkowski9775Brits barely pay for the winstors
@@jeremigawkowski9775like the Americans don't have to pay for their president too or the Canadians for that snake Trudeau making Britain a republic would change nothing but piss off alot of people
Never, the only way for that to happen would be for the conditions in 1848 being met.
Kind of a crazy idea, but could you have an elected monarchy? They would stay in power for 10-20 years for example.
So..a republic but we still use King and Queen?
@@BritishRepublicsn Like Malaysia. Their sultans only rule for 5 years, and the throne passes into another royal families. They're not elected by the people though.
How about you stop giving them money, take away the land, use the money to fund a proper schoolsystem and build an actual democratic nation? Like, the rest of the civilized world?
I wonder if the power of the British monarch that has been constantly getting less and less with the centuries will one day just exhaust all of itself and England become republic naturally without abolishing or coups?
The Crown Estate is a lot more than a few palaces and other potential tourist traps. The vast majority of the estate is made of of commerical properties producing quite a large annual income. Which is already ceded to the government by the King. And the monarch has no personal ownership of the estate. The monarchy runs its entire annual budget on 12% of the Crown Estate turnover. The rest goes to Parliament to spend. Were the direct costs of the monarchy removed, goverment finances wouldn't really change, since the largest part of the 12% is already spent just on upkeep of the palaces and other public properties. Unless the plan is to bulldoze Buckingham Palace, the government will need to to pay for the upkeep, whether there is a King or not. In fact in some cases the government will need to increase expediture, as the monarch had to personally finance upkeep and repairs in recent years (e.g. the Windsor castle fire). The family is also independently wealthy, and were they dethrowned, they will become (very wealthy) private citizens. There is no legal way to seize their private assets (like Balmoral), since onwership of those properties have no bearing on them being Royalty or not. So it would basically be a wash, unless you take steps to remove all the historic buildings, sell the Crown land and change the face of London.
The question isn't about getting rid of the monarchy it's about what would you replace it with? Do you keep parliament just replace prime minister with a president, do you have a US type presidency, or French or German etc. Then you have to look at every nation in Europe that has got rid of it's monarch, it's led to dictatorship and/or civil war. Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Russia, Germany etc. Then bear in mind Presidents cost more.
Or maybe we can get a parliamentary republic, like Ireland, or Germany (not sure why you called it a presidential Republic?) Or quite a few other republics
Yup. Republicans first have to show that their alternative is better. It's not looking good -
The last US President attempted an internal coup to stay in office against the popular vote. The current Russian President changed the constitution to stay in office indefinitely and has unilaterally embarked on a genocidal war against a sovereign neighbour. The last French President has been convicted twice for corruption in office.
The person who leads the Republic group has stated that they wish to keep the role of Head of State separate from that of government, and want a voted in Head of State with a limited serving time. I'm guess we would end up voting someone in every 4 years, as we do with the PM.
Without kings, no kingdoms, including the United one!
Now we’ll have to change every mention of UK on GitHub and anything else into British Republic and the monarchy is always the symbol of the country
@Person11068all your comments are so fucking dumb...but this is the most backwards (American I'm guessing...🙄)
The term British comes from Brythonic - i.e. celts
@Person11068 under the Romans it was Britannia. British includes the Celts.
No king, No kingdom, no United Kingdom, whatever power Britain has today would disappear.
What? The name would have to change, how would that lose us anything?
@@Fordnan The commonwealth and union would have to be changed or it would disintegrate.
@@TheofficialSirenheadr What does the commonwealth do for us now? We have closer economic ties now with Japan and South Korea than most members of the commonwealth.
@@Fordnan it gives Britain some power and influence and helps it keep that influence.
@@TheofficialSirenheadr What power and influence? We have cultural ties with Canada, Aus and NZ, besides that? Well, we have a growing Nigerian population, so there's Nigeria, but none of this has anything to do with the commonwealth. The king is just head of the commonwealth because Britain is the leading power in it, and British people are unthinking sycophants, see for example Billy the Baldy and his inept presidency (ironically) of the FA.
GOD SAVE THE KING AND HIS BEAUTIFUL QUEEN
Beautiful? If anyone needs the personification of the royalist's obsessive delusion, here it is.
I hope so😊
I like the idea of abolishing the monarchy 👍
Dream on
Along with QWERTY, The Electoral College, 1-900 Numbers, and our educational system, The British Monarchy is an example of social inertia.
I really hope not.
Who would vote for President Sunak or Starmer?
Noone ig, so they'd never become president. Did you even think that through? We could get a King Sunak or a King Starmer and have no control over it
I feel like getting rid of the monarchy just removes a large tourism area & a large tax paying rich people as all the money made by the crown is given to the government which is a good deal meaning removing it would cause us to pay more taxes. It also could give more support to a political person & at the moment nobody likes the government in charge. I feel like caring about the monarchy being abolished is focusing on the wrong things as the Monarchy isn't the biggest problem being faced by our country but changing how the system of our democracy works. Our Democracy would be a better thing to improve such as well everything about it. I have no idea what to say here.
Edit: also Northern Ireland leaving the UK wouldn't be much changed due to the Monarchy being abolished. As the thing keeping the British part of Northern Ireland as well the protestants don't want to be in a country ruled by Catholics & like there place in the UK so what would cause the whole Northern Ireland leaving stuff would be you know large demographic shift.
You’re right... the money made by the crown is given to the government because the crown is owned by the state, not the royal family. If we became a republic this money would be kept by the government because they’d still own what we now call things like the crown estate, and for example Buckingham palace and the Crown Jewels. The royals would own their personal property, like sandringham and balmoral which they *do not* give any money to the government from.
@@riowhi7 your arguments seem pretty good to me. I am a Republican so im probably a bit biased but I am a brit and I’ve done a bit of research on it.
@@riowhi7 bit surprised at my response as I wouldn't consider myself a monarchist but -
The dire straits we're in isn't because of the monarchy - it's categorically because of Brexit.
Yes the Windsors may receive more than their fair share - but isn't that true of the Rothschilds, the Trumps, the Kardashians, the rest of the British aristocracy and rich 1% who own 33% of the land?
The problem here is the way the Anglosphere. Whether it's our fault from the corruption of the Empire days or America's from the corruption of their entire history/modern hegemony...the fact of the matter is that Anglophone countries are idiots who fall for years like 2016 and the brainwashing that was Trump/Brexit
Germany and France (G7) do not have the same disparity and wealth gap either of our countries have, and they don't have the GDP of the US but their taxes and welfare are spent wisely. Meanwhile we have a prime minister from an immigrant family trying to smear our problems on a minute number of war-fleeing refugees to distract us from the level of corruption and money hoarded at the top.
The biggggg difference between the US and the UK however is resources, size and hegemony - its no longer the 19th century. It's not Britain's time anymore.
And that extra century has provided development beyond belief to keep the US in the place many Brits wish they still were.
@@riowhi7 tourism by things like the coronation bring in far more money than any presidential inauguration. Despite Charles not being the most liked his coronation still brought a lot of money in. Also the money that is given by the state is on a fixed rate that due to inflation over the last few decades or hundred years (not sure how long its been since it was set) they end up paying more to the government. Under the Crown Estate Act 1961. the Crown Estate have a duty "while maintaining the Crown Estate as an estate in land to maintain and enhance its value and the return obtained from it, but with due regard to the requirements of good management" basically the £490.8 million made from it last year go to the government whilst they are paid £37.9 million (with the 2011 up to it) a year there is other things but I am not familiar enough to fully understand these things & work out exact numbers but none that I found would make it larger than almost 500 million.
On the 2011 thing you brought up that was done to aid in the whole renovation of Buckingham palace so its set to go back to whatever it was originally after that is done I don't think that grants much different to a group like the state owning the place & having to do the same. Like technically due to the monarch kinda being part of the state & there estate being basically owned by the state you'd just be making a legal headache trying to change the buildings from being owned by the royal family to fully being owned by the government who at the minute is filled with corrupt people like Boris Johnson & idiots like Liz Truss & people who do nothing like Rishi Sunak. Can't wait to see how the next election goes hoping we see the whole lot of Tories lose power & some better party gains power. Democracy usually doesn't work when the people in charge only care for there pockets but I think that's due to capitalism as well it worked well in many places in the past until it was ruined by corruption like in Rome.
Oh no, we lose 0.3% of our tourism revenue **at very best** and 0.01% of our total economy. Big deal.
Not only that, tourism and economic arguments have no place in a debate on the monarchy. Tourists should not determine the systems we use. Nor should money. Do you know what would really save money? Not paying our MPs. But that's the wrong thing to do
Bring in tourists and american dollars as they dont have one
Thanks to the 1776 revolt
Also makes interesting tv series!
Thankfully this is never happening 🏴
What do you think, Versed, that the United Kingdom would be called if no longer a kingdom-like monarchy?
Who cares? It's not about the name, is it?
Short answer: No. There are a lot of people who love the monarchy for strange reason.
Strange to you because you have never read a book in your life.
It might happen one day in the distant future, but sadly not in our lifetime. A way too large chuck of the British population is totally love the royals for whatever strange reasons. Even many royal bootlickers hate Charles, but they are enamored with William & Kate and would love nothing more than Charles to abdicate so that their dream royal couple can take the throne. For the monarchy to end, it would have to come from the King/Queen, but I don`t see them royals ever giving it up. Harry might have if he had become the king. But Charles waited too long for it and William seems to be the kind who loves his role as a royal celebrity.
What do you mean by strange? strange how?
No there aren't. Don't believe all the Lefty echo chambers on Quora. Germanic Englishmen want the aristocracy abolished. They are an occupier.
@@feelmehish8506 They _are_ strange. The aren't even English by DNA, but have occupied England for centuries and descend from the Swiss/Norse, who intermixed with the French.
What would possibly happened to royal family once they turn into ordinary citizen of UK
They will be free to lead natural lives, to do something useful and fulfilling. Something which at present they are not free to do. The French Prince Louis de Broglie helped bring into being the theory of quantum physics. I don't suppose any of our current princes would accomplish anything as great, but that doesn't matter, as long as they can be productive members of society.
so the uk would become better in evey way? alright then
😂😂
No
No, quite the opposite.
I hope they don’t. I kinda like the idea of being born into a made situation even if it’ll never apply to me.
Not sure I'm allowed to say this on youtube, but down with the monarchy!
You're allowed to on TH-cam, just don't do it on the streets.
@@Fordnan oh Im british, and you can do it anywhere in the uk, so there. Iev done it plenty. F the monarchy and F rich people.
@@ElectroMotokoWell, we were arrested before the funeral and before the coronation. I'll see you at the barricades.
I was this video’s 10,000th view!
It's just a silly tradition, very few people actually care.
4.1 billion people who watch the Queens funeral
@@historiamilitaris5161 I watched it, does it mean I care? No.
@@historiamilitaris5161that is such a bogus figure. Could I get a source?
No tradition is silly if it bring meaning to the people.
Modernity is silly and ugly.
@@DorotheaAntonio what if it doesn't bring meaning to the people?
It’s not mass compliance. Some of us are capable of wanting a monarchy over politically elected Head of States that don’t seem to have any great advantage in other places.
Republicans first have to show that their alternative is better. It's not looking good -
The last US President attempted an internal coup to stay in office against the popular vote. The current Russian President changed the constitution to stay in office indefinitely and has unilaterally embarked on a genocidal war against a sovereign neighbour.
The last French President has been convicted twice for corruption in office.
Should the people of the UK abolish their monarchy, they would be well advised not to model their new government structure on that of the United States.
As a Republican I quite agree with you on that... we ought to use a parliamentary model.
@@detdvr4498 I mostly like the Irish system… though I think the Taoiseach and the Government, like in Britain, have too much control over parliamentary procedure and when bills are voted on etc. Parliament ought to be more independent in both Britain and Ireland.
I also think the Presidential Veto could have a bit more weight in Ireland too.
But overall yes I agree with you.
@@tobeytransport2802 what's wrong with our system coming from an American?
@@thorpeaaron1110
1. Brits don’t like it because most see it as polarising, so it can’t be a system for us if people dislike it
2. It, just like the British system to be totally fair to you, Vests full executive power in a single individual
3. It is prone to populism due to the election of the executive being done by a college elected directly for that purpose, though you could argue the British system is also prone because of our first past the post system and many people vote in general elections based on who they want the PM to be rather than who they want their member of parliament to be
4. It is a two party system, our electoral system is the same as yours which is not a good electoral system *but* at least due to regionalism and the weird thing with the south west being liberal vs conservative instead of social democratic vs conservative like the rest of the country… at least we end up with more parties
I also think for Britain specifically we are more used to a system with a seperate head of state and head of government, with the head of government being responsive to our representatives.
Edit… if you have any more questions feel free to ask, I absolutely love discussing different constitutions and it is very refreshing to be asked a polite question on the internet like this instead of a demand or an angry comment.
@@thorpeaaron1110if your system is sound ..why are people terrified of the orange one being re elected in nov.my yank friends are sh*tting bricks that he will end democracy in america.your system is flawed if one man can unravel it.the irony is..he wants to be an absolute monarch...something we no longer have in UK! Also the 6jan debacle was disturbing.that could not happen in the uk.