Abolish the Monarchy! - A response to CGP Grey
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 พ.ย. 2018
- I give Jen no direction, with regards to the thumbnails. She just does whatever.
Contact:
/ shaun_vids
/ shaunfromyoutube
CGP Grey channel:
/ @cgpgrey
The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained:
• The True Cost of the R...
CGP Grey on gerrymandering:
• Gerrymandering Explained - บันเทิง
![ขายสมบัติ Ferrari 488 ลูกรักก!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pwF1Il1Uevw/mqdefault.jpg)
abolish the monarchy, but not the guys that stand there with the fuzzy hats. they can stay
Use some of the money we get from abolishing the royals to fill those hats with candy
The Marge Simpson gaurds should be allowed to rule.
Fun running into you here. Where is that songified Shaun video!
! schmoyoho is a Shaun fan!
Holy shit!
They weren't going anywhere anyway tho
Why do Americans visit England more than France? Oh boy, I sure do wonder what language most Americans speak
Not just France, apparently even New Zealand, Australia and basically mostly anglophone countries.
Speaking another language must be hell for them
@@chankahms6271 Lmao who told you that 😂
@@wrestlinganime4life288 Pretty sure it's the same for England. English is a global language, meaning that you can get by knowing just it. Most of the world uses English to a degree - you can't say the same about the slew of European languages, making learning a second language - English - a rather attractive proposition. there just isn't any practical reason to learn any of the European or Asian languages, aside from narrow use cases such as work in the specific country that language is spoken is.
@@MyVanir Are you high? Spanish is spoken across an entire continent, a dozen countries dotted around the place, is among the most common second languages and is so similar to both Italian and Portuguese that becoming fluent in either becomes easy. Heck, they can usually have basic conversations using their own languages.
French, Arabic and mandarin are also incredibly widely spoken around the world.
@@alexjames7144 And outside the hispanic parts of the world, no one gives a fuck about it. Same with French, Arabic and mandarin. What is it with you nationalistic types that prevents you from acknowledging objective facts - that one language is simply more universally useful than others?
Americans typically go to England rather than France because they prefer to go to other English speaking countries (also including: Ireland, Scotland, Australia, New Zealand).
Exactly. The places where no extra effort is required of us, despite us constantly snapping at tourists and citizens in our own country to “speak English! This is ‘MURICA!”
@@maggieallen5985 the land of the free
@@wellshit9489 muh liberties
That's because - and I say that with a lot of love for them as I lived in the US for a few years - Americans are too fucking lazy to learn any other languages.
American tourists are the worst, sorry to say. I live in NZ and used to work in retail in a tourist-y location where a lot of my coworkers were either Indian immigrants or second generation, and US tourists were horrific to them. Had an occasion where one of my coworkers said something to another coworker (both of whom were on break mind you) something that was (gasp!) not in English! And some random tourist who wasn't even shopping in the store but just passing by started going off to the person they were with about how "rude" it was to speak another language in front of a "customer" and how they should be fired. Apparently thought that my coworkers couldn't speak English, because they said all this right in front of them too
Nothing that Shaun said, is changed by the Queen's death, except that maybe the monarchy will have a harder time keeping itself together without her.
She was about the only one with any sense of grace and humility to hold the role. She was the last link between a Britain in its heyday and the divided nation we are today. The backbone of support for the Royal family is the older generation, as they die off, the monarchy grows ever more fragile, and I can't wait for the day it's gone.
Countries are going to start peeling off from the commonwealth. Jamaica seems to be seriously considering it now.
@@personmcpersonface8415 As people get older they change their views and become more conservative. And even most young people don’t want to abolish it. Long live the King!
@@oliver206 I honestly don't know a single royalist. Not a single one. And this state and media enforced period of mourning is only driving more people into republicanism. And age is no excuse for being a Tory.
@@oliver206 hmm, interesting. I just keep going further left as I get older.
Shaun being outraged:
*stern face and slightly elevated tone of voice*
"This is quite bad"
Hahaha true
th-cam.com/channels/bUJ4bSI5LGysuouybbGA7g.html
English phlegmatic at its finest
@@nomore9004 Why did you link a fascist TH-cam channel
His takedowns are so gd English it hurts. But in like, a dry, off-hand kind of way. Dude is my favorite Tuber so far.
As a French person, just pausing the video to comment on the tourism and Versaille, one of the point of not having royalty anymore is that people can actually visit the palace ! Not just stand outside and watching the royal guard making their show... well for free ^^
Getting back to the video now !
In Norway you can actually get a tour of the palace when the royals aren’t there. England should also open up some of their castle’s
@@banger2998 See but then the common people might be allowed into Royal areas, and we can't have that.
iirc it's the same in Russia
@@banger2998 You mean like visiting Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, yeah, they are already open to the public. Buck House for the summer season and Wndsor Castle whenever official events allow, which is most of the time. The royal palaces which aren't residences are open, Hampton Court Palace has been open to the public since 1838.
@@calitaliarepublic6753 based
Well we fired the Queen the other day. So that's something
*god fired the queen
@@Red_Schuhart Y’all was takin too long so God stepped in
@@Red_Schuhart no. I don't think you understand. *We.* fired. The Queen.
@@ekkovaan2261 no we didn't, she died and we still have a monarchy. God fired her from existence
@@Red_Schuhart you're half right. *You* didn't fire the queen. God didn't either. *We* fired her.
Shaun: Abolish the royals because *gives real facts and evidence*
Me: Abolish the royal family because I'm tired of hearing about them in the press
Just abolish the press at that rate
Gurl unrealated but mo dao zu shi 👀?
Especially after all the meghan markle debacle
I like both answers, but a solution would be to stop idolizing celebrities and the people who run our government. The idolizing culture needs to stop everywhere, in Britain mainly with the royals, if your an American like me, it needs to stop with mainly the presidents (especially in recent years), and with Hollywood celebrities.
@@aychinhlathao7767 YESSS
Oh man, but I like the royals, I think they're cute.
"That's a clip from the state opening of parliament 2016, where the queen read out a pro-austerity speech while sitting in a golden throne and wearing a hat with 2,900 precious gems in it."
Ok, you convinced me.
The speech is written by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. The Queen or King has actually little say in that. They are not even able to decline reading it.
@@AldanFerrox Yes they are. Like just don't move your lips what are they going to do?
@@ThePepperskate Attach strings to her frail old lady lips and pretend she's speaking. That's what they can do.
While they still have little control over it, the fact that they're the ones reading out does give further legitimacy for passed policy.
Maybe not her personally, but I think one of your kings or princes or whatever is big on homeopathy and causing a stir in that dimension.
Also you can always not say a thing. Are they really going to fire her for not saying a speech?
Saying we shouldn't reduce fossil fuels because people will lose jobs is like saying we should keep on having wars so soldiers aren't out of work.
@RadTheLad In the u.s. that is up to the national guard rather than the military or all the other branches funded by the murder budget. If there isn't a war they don't have to or really even do help out with natural disasters or help the world in any way.
@@haruhirogrimgar6047 We help the world by keeping the oil in a safe place
Haruhiro Grimgar the national guard are soldiers
@@caleab3280 I know they technically are but I try to separate them out for occasionally helping society rather than just signing up for murder.
Not really. There are plenty of countries with militaries that don't go to war, it's called self-defense. The best example is the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. Despite common criticisms, fossil fuels provide tremendous value. They're energy-dense, cheap resources and provide the world with the comforts and amenities of modern life. I wouldn't be typing this if it weren't for fossil fuels, and I live in a country with 100% renewable energy coming through the wall sockets.
It's really interesting to see the American obsession with the royal family. Go to any American supermarket and look at the celebrity magazines they put up near the checkout counter, and you'll likely see pictures of the royal family. Americans literally fought a war to escape the influence of the British monarchy, and now we idolize that same monarchy. It's bizarre.
I've even gotten into arguments with Americans about the British monarchy. You'd be surprised how many Americans will respond to criticism of the monarchy with the "tourism" argument.
As an American I can say that I haven’t seen anyone give a shit about the monarchy other than in cartoon shows and I guess a 1 month update on them on the news. Maybe it’s because I’m from New England, where the hatred really stemmed from.
What can I say? We Americans are a rum bunch.
As an American, I couldn't tell you a single thing about the Royal Family outside of a couple names and the source of Queen Elizabeth's eternal life. It's a one Mephistopheles, by the way. She gave up her self-awareness for eternal life. That's why she was able to say that "living within the means" shit with a straight face.
As an american, just want to add I have yet to witness someone actually pick up and purchase a magazine in the checkout aisle. I dont think those magazines subjects are necessarily representative of the interests of most americans.
@@zz8az
Except for boomers.
"reality is not turn-based" is such a hilarious refutation of the way some people "debate" these kinds of topics. They treat complicated and nuanced modern problems like a high school debate club
We covered complicated and nuanced modern problems like this in middle school debate club, debate clubs are great, formative and informative. The issue is with ignoramuses like Grey who think they know shit about a topic and they embarrass themselves. People who actually debate know that debates are an exception to and a reflection of the reality of any given situation. In a true debate, you can step back and see the topic more clearly than if you were just arguing like ignoramuses. I entirely agree with you, just don't knock a good debate club with smart people (leftists) in it.
Wow and I thought "welfare queens" were a myth
I burst out laughing
Play me out Paul!
OOOOOOH SNAP
*rimshot*
(softly) don't
i luv the royal family of france they are so quiet i never c them on tv or anywhere
Truly the best approach to dealing with the monarchy.
Free of controversy
"The perfect royal family doesn't exis-"
In Russia, we never see our monarchs on tv aswell. Weird, isn't it?
Neither in America. Don’t know where they went.
Regardless of the financial calculus, “the monarchy is a tourist attraction” has always seemed a bizarre argument, because the people making it are then venerating that person they’ve themselves described as a tourist attraction
Some majority percentage of Canada is classified as crown land. (Golly gee, colonialism is alive and thriving.) I'd love to see the power or 'ownership' of this crown land transferred back to Canada's indigenous peoples. Would be really great for reconciliation.
That'd be a mess. Much of that land is far from civilization so some tribes could get 100000 kilometers² while other's get 350. Also some of their governments are shady af with election fraud (allegedly) so I wouldn't trust some of them to manage the land better than the federal government. I'd be okay with some instances of giving away crown land not for the grand reason of "Indians owned this land in the past therefore their descendants should own it now"
P.S. I'd wager most of the crown land wasn't use by native people when colonisers claimed it so saying it was originally First Nation property is debatable.
Didn't even think of that but very true.
I mean, if we go there, Canada should also transfer lands that aren't crown lands to the indigenous people.
Well you didn't quite tell the whole story .
89% of Canada that is Crown Land - but this is actually a method of holding it in trust for ALL the Canadian Public so it won't get sold off and privatized .
The Inuit already regulate about 40% of Canada's land mass from settlements agreements .
Over $50 billion a year is transferred to Canada's indigenous population .
.
Crown just means government owned. Much of it is leased out for logging and other uses, so it brings in money for the country as a whole.
it just struck me that this is the first time i've heard the queens voice....
And on this roast!
.... Me.... Wow me too how did I not realize
So posh ent she
Same actually
I was thinking the same thing.
Nah, the tower of london isn’t cool bc of the the queen, it’s cool bc of the guys in hats
Nah, it's cool 'cause of the ravens. Fun fact: the legend about them dying? Yeah, look into that. It already happened.
Those hats are cool. And the Ravens. Ravens are cool
But the guys in hats are there to protect the queen! If the queen weren't there, they'd feel rather silly guarding a vacant tower now wouldn't they?
Shir Deutch then they'd become fancy security guards for the Crown Jewels. I mean, they're basically that already.
Despite detecting comedic tones, I will be serious for a moment. it's actually the architecture that makes the Tower of London cool. Medieval structures like Castles are beautiful and amongst gorgeous modern buildings are fascinating to behold 🕵🏾♂️
Living in Denmark, another constitutional monarchy, I used to be ambivalent about maintaining the monarchy but not long ago she stated in an interview that we shouldn't panic about climate change and generally questioned whether it is anthropogenic. This isn't surprising since she is old and out of touch with the real world but I foolishly thought that there was an unspoken rule that the royals shouldn't share politically loaded opinions
She is highly regarded by a large portion of the population and these statements does sway opinions. In my opinion this negates all the minimal good she might have done through out her rule.
I'm from Spain
If you haven't heard,the previous king decided that doing nothing and being rich was not enough for him and decided to do tax fraud on the side
The worst thing is that due to how the constitution is made,he basically has a ticket to freedom because apparently the rule of law is based on the head of state being untouchable by any legal power
Så modsiger hun konstant sig selv. Under nytårstalen udtrykte hun bekymring for klimaet... En uge senere kom det frem at hun har anskaffet sig en spritny lastbil af en Bently SUV... Bravo Magrethe!
I want to like your comment, but I have a legal obligation not to because it already has 69 likes.
In Norway, the crown princess and her staff showed themselves to be completely incompetent when she in the years 2011-2013 became friends with Jeffrey Epstein - at a time when a brief skim through Wikipedia would have revealed his criminal history (a couple of years later, the crown prince and his family was lent a luxury yacht registered in the Cayman Islands from an undisclosed friend, whom it is commonly suspected would be Epstein). This would have been a death sentence for any politician, even though very few have the resources for clearance checks that the royal family has.
Well do I have good news for you: after watching Borgen a few years back I got a very serious fever that made me the queen of Denmark for a while, so actually you may accept me, a half-spanish half-dutch woman, as your queen if you so wish. I am not a climate denier and I must say I have way better options and views than I used to when this all happened in 2014 or so
Making a response video 7 years later is the level of pettiness I can truly admire.
This is r/pettyrevenge levels and I am totally here for it.
what is the video?
@@SAINTDIOHThe one he's replying to is in the video description. I can't copy/paste the link because of the app I'm using.
@@bobafettjr85 Ok
CGP might be worse, literally copyright striking critics, although that isn't admirable.
"hard work is rewarded" *the crowd snickers, the queen struggles to keep a straight face* "shut up you guys shut up i'm reading..."
It's not easy being royalty. Now let me cut welfare, will you?
That would be communism, Britain would never do such a good thing
@@ceoofantifa6245 Hard work being rewarded isn't communism...
@@EugeneVDebs-bt5pd yes it is
@@sirius1696 Its literally not
Hearing Shaun read “they’ll see. they’ll all see.” In his trademark monotone is humor in and of itself.
One of my biggest questions with that CGP Grey video had been "why would anti-monarchists feel obligated to honor the property rights of the people they want to depose," and I greatly appreciate you addressing that. It's also been a while since I watched Grey's video, but seeing the clips you shared about tourism, I got a strong sense of "yes, make all of your decisions based on the whims of American tourists, that's a sound strategy. Now, tear down that historically significant ruin to put in a McDonald's!"
Also, even if you do honor their property rights, most of that land doesn't actually belong to them. Most of it belongs to The Crown, a legal entity that is part of the government, which is controlled by the reigning monarch. Abolishing the monarchy would quite reasonably include making the controller of that legal entity be the nation's government, effectively meaning it's public land.
They do have private property that actually belongs to them personally rather than The Crown, most notably the Balmoral Estate. Honoring those property rights would take most of "their" land while still leaving them quite wealthy.
Why honor any property rights at all then? British royal family is by far not the richest entity in UK.
@@van-hieuvo8208 said many many people over the course of the 20th century, just before their government was overthrown in a revolution. don't make the mistake of believing history is something that used to happen but doesn't anymore
that's a weird thing to say! American tourists of McDonalds at home: they came for the historically significant ruins.
@@amandadube156 mmm no. i mean, sure, plenty of people (including Americans) genuinely travel to experience and learn about new cultures, but plenty (especially Americans) go for the same reason they go to Disneyland or on a cruise: a new(-ish) environment where they can sit back and enjoy the comforts most familiar to them. it is very much not unprecedented for people to travel to a new country and then decide, "ehh, I don't want to eat this weird crap, where's a Mickey D's" or "ehh, why go to some dusty old church when i can just stay in the hotel room and watch TV"
As an American tourist and later part time resident in the UK I really resent my money being lumped in with "people who wanted to see a real queen" I'm cerian the Tower of London and the raven would be just fine without her.
Also, Queen Elizabeth, no matter if she’s Queen of England, is still head of the Anglican Church. So if the monarchy was abolished, Old Bess would be downgraded from figurehead of a sovereign nation to...head of a major world religion
L K I mean, she’s also only formally queen of England
Also, quite possibly still figurehead of these (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm ) other sovereign nations!
Isn’t that funny!
She would still be the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, and several other countries. They’re separate monarchies that just happen to have the same Queen. So, if she was removed in the UK, she could just move to Canada or something.
@@oba3397 no other nations take the queen as the legitimate leader of the UK in a political sense. That's the prime minister. The queen is a symbolic figurehead with little actual power. She's no Kim Jong Un. She's decoration to make the British public feel nostalgic.
But if we don't have the Monarchy then who will build the roads?
The corgis
You live!
People
Something something private roads something something free market.
the ancaps
I'm Dutch and the thing that got me off the proverbial fence is that there was an article on how our king turned one of his properties into a national park, but he didn't actually have to follow the rules of national parks.
It's that utterly casual corruption born from extreme power and privilige that I oppose.
I'm still shocked how CGP messed up so bad and presented Ile Mont Saint Michel as a British Castle😂😂
I'm still shocked at how many people Shaun has suckered - he never explained anything about Constitutional issues .
... and Shaun said they were English Castles . The Normans and Plantagenet ruled over the English and Welsh for 300 years .. The Normans and Plantagenets built the Castles in England Wales .
.
@@landsea7332 ...what constitutional issues?
@@nekozombie The Monarchy holds a small amount of executive authority . They sign off on topics before they discussed in the HoC . The Monarch and PM are required to meet each week in a confidential meeting called an audience . If only we could hear what QEII said to Thatcher . The Monarch signs off on all legislation in order for it to become law . Technically , the Monarch is head of the military so theoretically they could stop a dictator from taking over . The king of Norway tried to stop the nazi's from taking over , using this in April 1940 . It seems Shaun forgot to mention this .
Britain is a stronger democracy today because the Monarchy holds this executive authority .
Billions in assets are held in trust for the public in the name of the crown so they won't be sold off and privatized . Shaun forgot to mention this part too .
The issue in Britain is that Thatcher phased out Keynesian economics ( government regulated ) introduced neo liberal economics which has created the massive wealth inequality in the country today .
.
Neo liberals are trying to destroy Britain's national identity in order to run a corporate globalist agenda .
.
@@landsea7332 "Britian is a stronger democracy today because the Monarchy holds this Executive authority." You know how dumb this is, right? I'm desperately begging you to confirm that you are aware of how dumb that is. There's no way you don't know how dumb that is. Unless you are truly deranged, most assuredly, you *must* know how dumb that is.
@@landsea7332if Thatcher was just wholly able to meet with an unelected head of a nation who has to rubber stamp any austerity horseshit she introduced then you're not describing democracy so much as ceremony. A democracy wouldn't have such a figurehead in the first place.
You criticise neoliberals and yet you fall into the exact same trap of only arguing a moral framework within the confines of a current legal system. We don't need executive authority to present a legal loophole to a dictator to resist fascism and we don't need the name of an authority in public finance to be called "The Crown" or "His Majesty's whatever" for these institutions to have legitimacy and power.
Imagine if the monarchy is abolished right as Charles becomes king.
Charles becoming king is a good reason to abolish the monarchy.
Imagine if he croaks before the Queen. You know how fucking sturdy the women in that line are.
I would finally and proudly move to The United Republics of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland
+vaiyt Yes... “women”...
“Human women”...
@@jacintovski : Also, stop saying Great. Why not simply, say the Republic of Britain and Ireland and leave it there. No need to keep great in the title at all, and continue to be so obnoxious about it.
My Best. Out.
@@ivanj.conway9919 you know what... You're absolutely right
"They inherited it from someone who inherited it from someone who claimed ownership by killing anyone who disagreed with them."
So, a fairly typical private property chain of ownership.
Just yesterday I had to slay a car dealer in a sword fight just to get a used Skoda.
So inheriting is wrong? If so why? It might me wrong for royals but then again, what should be the conditions for expropriation? How many thimes does something need to be inhereted for, to be subjected to expropriation? Is it ok to keep ownership over my grandmothers house?
@@ytbaccount5513
I said nothing about whether inheriting is right or wrong. I only not that what the author objects to in the monarchy is pretty standard fare for property ownership. Sometimes there are purchases in the chain as well. But if you go back far enough, somebody took the property by force.
@@PvblivsAelivs And if someone took property by force X years ago it is wrong because? If A was killed by B, no matter what youre going to do to person B will not make justice for person A, because he is dead, full stop. The same thing applies here, if someone took something by force and I inhereted it: 1. You cannot make justice for the person who lost property, because theyre dead. And 2. You cannot blame me because i had no part in that act.
I reallt dont understand when socialistis make this argument: all private property was at one point in history taken by force so it is illegitimate. Why? You cannot make justice for that person by taking whats mine and giving it to some people just as a means of compensation. I really want to hear your response.
@@ytbaccount5513
"And if someone took property by force X years ago it is wrong because?"
I still said nothing about right or wrong. I only said that it is typical. The author is holding the monarchy to a different standard than the one he (apparently) holds for everyone else.
"I reallt dont understand when socialistis make this argument:"
Well, given that you are trying to shoehorn in an argument I didn't make, it is easy for me to believe that you really don't understand.
The monarchy situation overall reminds me of that one american newspaper comic that goes something like:
Monopoly man: Hey you! Straggler get off my land!
Straggler: why is it your land?
MM: Because I got it from my father
S: well where'd he get it from
MM: From his father
S: and where'd he get it from
MM: Well he fought for it
S: I'll fight you for it
This is really the crux of the issue with monarchy. Claiming ownership of an entire land as well as moral high ground all the while disenfranchising those they think inferior to them and segregating themselves, believing they alone are rightful in ruling over people because God made them special while later on we find that they are not necessarily better as human beings than any of us. Better yet, as time went on, they (as well as a lot of other rich people as well) become out of touch with the working class, not really understanding the kinds of hardship most people deal every day because they actually do n't have a true incentive to really care about it. They're already rich, so whatever us people will do about it, they are protected with millions of money they can use to pay whatever it is necessary to stay in power.
That is not to say that we are completely powerless or all of the charity work done by them are not based on good will and great generosity in their part, but eventually, they are commanders of an army that can really crush public dissent if they want to and even when they claim they are simply trying to do provide as much people as possible, the inequality is still there right? If they really claim so, why not really make the numerous, humongous castles that they own as homes for the weak and deprived? Why do they spend millions in palace renovations that only seem to benefit their standing and lavish ceremonies in the middle of the cost of living crisis? Again, because they are better?
As an American it’s pretty obvious why more Americans visit England: they speak English! Relatively few Americans speak a second language (compared to our OECD peers), so visiting England means being able to fluently communicate with locals on your vacation.
But do Americans really speak English and can they really fluently communicate with those in England? Australians communicate more effectively in English than Americans.
@@toast99bubbles Demonstrably incorrect, on a global level American English is considered the most easily understood, outside the local dialect of the region in question.. Our media is exported around the world far more frequently, so it's typically the one most people are most familiar with (outside their local dialect.) On a technical level, it can also be argued that some of us speak it more properly, as regions of the US south have the closest surviving accent to Shakespearen English.
Sure, grammar wise England could be considered the most correct, but only if you just consider any changes they make to the language to be the new "correct." Even England's English is changing constantly and wildly.
@@maromania7 Not really. American English has a lot of changes to spellings that are ridiculous.
@@toast99bubbles Like what?
@@marshmellowmoon7990 like spelling "idiot" as "conservative", completely ridiculous
Also.... I am pretty sure americans come to the uk more than france because the uk is primarily english speaking and france is not. Also a lot of americans would have english, scottish or irish heritage.
I'm an American, and if I was going to visit one of those countries, I'd pick the one where I can easily communicate with the locals.
Javier Benez
Then go to Paris, you'll get by in English just fine. Plus, Paris is nicer than London, just saying.
Actually slightly fewer than have German ancestry (I learned this recently and find it interesting--Germans are the largest single ancestral ethnic group in the United States), but yes, obviously still plenty of us.
(My own ancestry is predominantly German-American, but one branch is supposedly 'Scotch-Irish', though in all honesty I still don't fully understand what the actual fuck that phrase is really supposed to mean.)
@@McDeus fair, I was largely making presumptions based on my own experience as an Australian and what I had heard from Americans. I have some german ansestry, but I have met very few others who do.
Go to Stockholm. It's nicer than Both London or Paris, and pretty much everyone there speaks English. And, contrary to popular belief, it's saver, too.
As somebody who has been a tourist in the UK, I can say I'd be way more likely to come again if I could actually see the many buildings the royals own from the inside, even more so if they'd be turned into cool museums.
I live here and still haven't traveled London but I'm pretty sure you can go into Buckingham palace with some tour guides
@@K_ingh16 yeah it's only open at certain times of year tho
@Vibery u do realize that the english royals have removed many years of history of other country’s… that’s like the majority of english history… and the english hav refused to return any of it or make amends, hav u ever visited a british museum?
@Vibery also, turning something into a museum is the exact opposite of “getting rid of history” it’s making history more accessible and well known
@Vibery oh so ur like not even trying to hide the fact that ur racist
I was going to compare the English monarchy to the Kardashians (rich people whose high school drama people care about for some reason), but then I realized the Kardashians are actually funding their own. The English monarchy is like if Americans collectively decided we were going to pay for the Kardashians.
The queens been real quite since this dropped
Quiet
@@puppieslovies qeiut
Well she’s in a box
"reality is not turn based" i swear some people genuinely think it is
Nick Fuentes believes in the technology tree, it's starting to add up...
Tell the monarchists to stop playing Pokemon, and start playing Xenoblade.
I wish it was, maybe I’d make a good decision for once with more time to think.
@@honey-hunterslimefanno.3257 😭same tho
Maybe it is, we currently don't know if time flows in discrete steps or not. Hmm I guess it still wouldn't be turn based, we'd only have figured the frame rate.
Abolish the Monarchy and make a TV show "Keeping up with the Windsor's" and everyone can stay happy.
HAHA !! That will be more fun ..cuz they already become celebrity
given how old most of them are, wouldn't it be more like, leisurely strolling past the Windsors
You’ve gotta keep the alliteration. More like “What’s up With the Windsor’s”
not me
That would more interesting that The Crown.
The nasty bit of racism when describing Americans visiting Mexico didn’t win any points for CGP Grey with me
I thought that too, but you know what, that was ten years ago. There was still a lot of “edgy” humor back then, even for seemingly innocuous videos. If he said something like that today though, yea fuck him.
It's the truth
Ngl it was funny
As an American who has visited London, I can honestly say that the royal family had nothing to do with my visit. Sure, we took the time to see the "changing of the guard". But we saw it because it was there. We didn't go there to see it. Also, I didn't really consider anything I saw in England to be a castle. I much preferred the castles in Germany and France and Austria. The city of London itself is amazing. It's maybe the most opulent place I've ever seen. The Parliament building in particular left me literally speechless. We were driving by in a cab having a conversation and we all just stopped talking and stared, because it's that amazing. The pictures just don't do it justice. But none of that has anything to do with the royal family.
It always amazes me to hear that tourists are stunned by London.
For a lot of us who live here London is a filthy, overcrowded (I can not describe how horrific it is to have to drive around London on a regular basis), overpriced, crime ridden mess to be avoided at all costs.
It's an okay place to visit, what with all the museums and historical places and such, but I've always been put off by the crowding and the filth even just visiting.
Yeah I'm a Canadian tourist and I saw some of the royal stuff but I mostly went there for the Beatles, the accents, the scenery, Harry Potter, Jack the Ripper and Shakespeare.
Same. I walked around Buckingham Pakace but it was just a big buildinģ. I had a much better time at the National Gallery, Westminster Abbey, and just generally wandering around the theater district.
And on the whole I had more fun in Edinburough than London anyway sooo....
So you much prefer castles built after the age when castles were at all usefull to be castles. Because the only real castles in europe are in britain. Most castles in germany and austria are about as authentic as disneyland.
It's simple: Reinterpret "Crown" to mean the crown itself, not the one wearing it.
I swore loyalty to the shiny hat.
I want the shiny hate
Hell even if it's an exact replica that is worth basically nothing I want one lol
The crown is actually the name of a legal entity that's controlled by the Monarch, but not synonymous with the person of the Monarch.
You could even keep the crown (with its lands) but abolish the Monarch.
@@abc68130 Today I learned.
If someone steals the jewels on the crown, does the crown command less authority? Or would soldiers have to swear a new vow of allegiance to the "new" crown?
Is this a Ship of Theseus situation?
Hungary (on paper a republic) did pretty much that. We got rid of the last monarch in the 1920s and till 1945 it was a kingdom without an actual king. Nowadays we are (I repeat) a republic, but the crown is part of the state emblem, it is displayed in the Paliament alongside other royal jewels, and disrespecting the Saint Crown is a punishable offense. Better than an actual king, but I don't like it.
Shaun and Contrapoints on the same day?? Right after Lindsay Ellis and Dan Olson??
Come on HBomb where ya at
New HBomb is supposed to come out soon, apparently
Don't forget the recent Innuendo Studios, Jack Saint, and Peter Coffin videos !!
New Peter Coffin and LackingSaint, too. Absolutely everyone.
Include Todd in the Shadows!
I'm pretty sure it's some monthly Patreon-related thing; I've noticed they came out at the same time in the past, and also notice that it's December 1st.
"UK castles are so awesome" *shows a picture of Mont Saint-Michel... in France*
Now is a good time to rewatch this content.
Prince Andrew kinda just made the argument for itself
Yep We have to pay for that globe-trotting stot` the ba` .
Yeah but how?
If the queen was president would Andrew still get punishment?
Don’t forget Charles’ ‘friendship’ with Saville
@@Ben-ek1fz you missed my point
@@Ben-ek1fz Ok, I realise (and this isn’t condescending) my point may not have been as clear as I would’ve liked. So I’m just going to try to simplify it
John Caker has just been elected president of the US, however his son, Mike Caker has been involved in a sex scandal.
Would Mike be punished?
"Reality isn't turn based" Fantastic. I'm going to have to remember that one
Poor bard
As an Austrian, the "tourism needs a living monarch" argument is pretty ridiculous to me 😂
I'm watching this in preparation for the one thousand arguments im gonna have to have today
and france got "all choppy with their royal family" lmao
So did we remember? Then we got a guilt trip and fucked it up
my favorite part
Ah, he has a way with words, doesn't he? 😍-
To be honest, England get all choppy with their king a century before us. And then they get a Restauration, just like us, the main difference is they don't fire their king with a new revolution (who didn't chop the last king's head, though ^^).
Krankar Volund I must say the only thing I admire about you unclean and diseased frogs is your steadfast refusal to adequately learn the inane babble called ‘English’. Your comment was a fine display. I particularly liked ‘Restauration’.
>Reality isn't turn based however we can support and do multiple things at the same time
You and I both know that the english government can only ever do 1/10th of something at a time, come on.
Conflict1914
England doesn’t have a separate government.
@@boggisthecat UK government then, I mean the same thing. Who cares about the semantics.
@@Conflict-ff5pi Non-English Brits most definitely care about what you seem to consider semantical minutiae.
The rest of the United Kingdom elects MP's and their devolved assemblies/parliaments are de facto integrated parts of Britain's constitutional set up.
Calling the UK "England" isn't a trivial mistake. It's very significant and problematic.
@@Conflict-ff5pi
It's like referring to the US as Texas.
Half of the country is now displeased.
You forgot that British people humorously believe that there are multiple, separate ethnic kinds of British people.
That's why it's called the Greatly United Kingdom of Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Northern England instead of just Great Scotland.
See, because the English live in England, the Scots live in Scotland, and the Irish live in Ireland, but the English and Scots are British because they live on Britain while some but not all of the Irish are British even though British Ireland is not part of Britain. But British Ireland is part of Great Britain because Britain and Great Britain are not the same thing.
So the British Irish are not part of England or Britain, but they are British--though not English--because they're part of Great Britain despite not being part of just-Britain Britain.
Irish Ireland is not part of either Britain or Great Britain, so unlike the Irish who are also British because they live in the British part of Ireland, the other Irish are not British, just Irish.
And now I've given myself a headache trying to remember all of this information which is basically irrelevant to me.
Now that the whole queen's consent thing has come out the royals *do* have political power
Yep it may be limited but it’s there soooo bust out the Guillotine bois
I mean the royal families influence is Avery strong
Thankfully a French doctor found the cure for this disease some time ago
I'm French, and I find laughable the popular belief that our country is not attractive to tourism. And... in France, we're not exactly ... confortable, I will say, with the monarchy ideology. We look at it with interest sometimes cause it's like fairy tale but it's not like we visit the castle, or the museum, or any monument, places or spectacles with an ardent desire to see the Queen.
I admire France. You guys got choppy with your monarchs after forming a fully-fledged republic, and ending religious domination of people's lives. All while being attacked by the rest of Europe.
"If tomorrow all the royals fell off the Earth or something, the land would still exist."
I don't think you can count on land existing from one moment to the next if people start suddenly falling off the Earth.
Do you not... Do you not have seaside cliffs where you're from?
The royals already look semiaquatic, so why can't they leave the earth for the sea?
There's more of it, and we've already choked out the Atlantians with poison, oil, and plastic. I'd quite enjoy a royal sea people to pollute as well.
@@carlg7994 I guess you could say that ut's time for them to...
Rule the waves.
@@carlg7994 your seaside cliff goes off the earth?
Would be pretty cool if all monarchs were absorbed by their homes, though. Imagine the Buckingham palace just opens a crack, devours the old hag, closes it and just keeps going
“It’s not a lame historical re-enactment”
Alright... but isn’t it though?
It's like taking active duty soldiers and putting them in uniforms from 200 years ago. It's reenacting with a dash of authenticity.
Ealdy There is no authenticity because we already agreed that the power to govern comes from the will of the people. While the monarchy physically exists in Britain monarchism is a defunct political theory. They are fake sovereigns.
Shots fired.
It is still reenactment. It does not matter that the reenactors are related to original kings and queens. What we see here is a meaningless reenactment of clowns pretending to be kings, but they have zero power.
@@TorianTammas They have some power. Though not anywhere near what the monarchs have only 100 years ago, the money they are BORN into is power.
I really wonder why this video appeared on my TH-cam homepage, on 12 September 2022. Such a conundrum
When a percentage of a country's money is spent effectively on nostalgia, especially when such money could go to education, healthcare and public utility, arguing that they "bring in the tourists" sounds like keeping the tapeworm in your gut cos you've gotten "attached" to the little fella, and that you sometimes wave around the tapeworm's ultrasound to start a conversation.
There are lonely people on the 'net that claim they keep intestinal parasites as pets, you know...
@@willbe3043 I can't believe i keep discovering new depths of the internet after all this time. It's a depressing experience every single time, too.
Doesn't England have socialized medicine, public utilities, and public education? Your American is showing.
@@azzwort The UK has the NHS (National Health Service), yes, but it's critically underfunded, just like the rest of our public services.
in fairness i understand the want for national identity, especially the fear of britain just becoming the unofficial 52nd state. that said i don't think our national identity should be based around any one person or group of people, for me personally, our national identity is tea, pubs, and fish and chips
I'm so glad you posted this!!!
You should still be ashamed for the AC vs Templars video, its factually wrong.
Yes it seems democrazy aka brexit is working purfectly for ya lads. IMHO you can't pay these people enough who are forced to do this horrible job from birth on.
You are such a fanboy of Shaun aren't you?
Like me, of course
THIS IS LEFT UNITY. I LOVE YOU ALL.
I am glad people don't live in fear of the monarchy, in a book it said she owns 25% of the earth which is absurd, which means that on paper people allow one group of people to have 25% of the land rights, the idea of a monarch is absurd, that would be like allowing someone to be dictator but with limited powers, absurd still. i love this video most people are too scared to criticize the crown, it is weird when you have to acknowledge the crown in law like we live in some psuedo democracy/republic or something.
The royal family it’s the worlds most expensive and boring sitcom.
Well they do some good for example some do charity work
Propop pop though they do live of the charity of unwilling donations...
That comedy called the Royal family was great though
They make 2X the money that they cost.
No, that's the _royle_ family.
Whom else has returned after the death of Lizzy?
10:39 as an American i feel you just described fox news’ entire argument and strategy against renewable energy. That was not an exaggeration, not even a slight exaggeration.
Right? For a second, I thought I was watching Tucker Carlson 🤣
Idk what fox news is, but it was a TVP move
*is holding a leash, barely able to control my guillotine* "woah, woah! easy girl, easy"
2 of your comments right next to each other lol
I think this is my all time fave youtube comment
"Reality isn't turn based" aww but I bought so many card games on the assumption
😔 R.I.P.
Me : Okay I tap 6 mana and play "Abolish the monarchy"
Monarchy *Play an instant spell*
Me: Shiiiiiit !!!
If your spawn suck you just respawn lol
...but often disappointing
LIZZIE'S IN A BOX
LIZZIE'S IN A BOX
LIZZIE'S IN A BOX
LIZZIE'S IN A BOX
Here to rewatch this after Twitter made Shaun remove an anti-monarchist tweet
They did? What happened?
@@jessehammer123 The queen died and lots of organisations put a temporary moratorium on anti-monarcy stuff.
@@JohnCooper-gm6mn But Twitter isn’t even British. I guess I could see a British institution doing that, but Twitter isn’t British.
@@jessehammer123 It happened before Elon took over.
Although Twitter hasn't exactly been a place void of animosity and vitriol, they have shown a small modicum of decency and sensitive in the past.
While conversations around the purpose and possible removal of the monarchy from British society are important ones to be had, and have always been freely carried out here, to have them during a time when a large proportion of the nation is in mourning is in incredibly bad taste.
Twitter, along with a number of other organisations, thankfully chose to respect that.
I'm confident that, were Shaun to make the same post now, regardless of Elon's ownership, it would have been allowed to stand. It was just, not the right time for a call to arms.
@@JohnCooper-gm6mn Personally, the idea that a monarch's death has to be respected by suppressed speech to be disgusting, and it's disgusting to defend. If you support speech being suppressed in such a situation where it is extremely important to be exercised, then you are against the concept of free speech. Cut and dry.
I also find the idea that talks of abolishing the monarchy being 'in incredibly bad taste' when the monarch dies is quite convenient for the monarchy and the status quo. It goes like this...
"Well, then the queen dies, maybe we can abolish the monarchy then, but now is not the time for it."
*queen kicks the bucket* "Okay, can we abolish the monarchy now. It's only downhill from her, let's be real. We can just not have another take the throne. It would be easiest to do right now."
"SSHHHH NO! It's indecent to discuss these things when the nation is in mourning. Let's talk about this at a more decent time, like well into the next monarch's rule when their position is solidified and viewed as normal again."
Loving a monarch and expecting people to be loyal to them is already bootlicking. But it's even worse when the monarch dies, because that bootlicking protects the monarchy and the transition of power for the next rich guy to take the throne. If you mourned the queen's death, you're doing what they taught you to do, and they taught you to do it because it benefits them. Please, you can find a better waifu.
Apparently state-controlled redistribution of wealth stops being socialism when you give it to the rich.
(Yes, I know that's not what socialism actually is.)
Socialism is stateless redistribution. Khazarian communism is state capitalism redistribution.
@@LK-ho1dg do keep in mind the world has never actually seen communism.
Only dictatorships pretending to be communism
@@LK-ho1dg first, what original comment?
Second, I'd say Capitalism is pretty accurate. Its horrifically abuseable, but it still does exactly what it claims in the way it claims too.
Monarchies too. Plenty of ideologies exist that we have seen accurate representations of.
Communism just isn't one of them
Solution: Give poor people fancy titles and hats.
@@LK-ho1dg
It's an overloaded term. A communist society is stateless. A communist person or a communist party might very well support a totalitarian state.
For example the USSR was a socialist society ruled by a communist party.
1:55 Isn't that "Kohinoor" diamond that those people stole from India lol
"Where work is rewarded" ok lmao
Another benefit to abolishing the monarchy would be that its a great excuse to finally give the Kohinoor back to India!
Kind of difficult one, because Pakistan, Afghanistan and India all have legitimate claims to the diamond
Blood diamond from Africa as well
Royal Ruby from Burma.
Wasn’t it Cameron who said something along the lines of "they’re not getting that thing back!!!!" When asked if the UK would ever give back the diamond to India?
Phase one of the plan has been completed moving on successfully to phase 1.5
The “reality isn’t turned based” line gets me every time I watch this
This a great video, but that line will be my real takeaway.
What about the corgis?! Would you damn Communists think of the corgis?!!!
Excellent video as always. Shame this needed to be said in the first place though.
Didn't the last Corgi die a couple of months ago?
The corgis are all dead.
Just replace the queen and her family with Corgis! Simple. Britain would probably get more tourism to see the royal corgis
I read "orgies".
seize the means of corgi cuddles
As an American, I found Versailles to be way cooler than places like Buckingham or Windsor
Been to both but Versailles was too busy for my liking.
I've only been to Ireland, with all old abandoned castles, and they're still pretty.
@@Gwestytears Ireland is a republic now just like france i guess
Never been inside Buckingham but I thought Windsor was cool. My favorite part of Versailles was the gardens.
@@nocturnaldivision I would wear shorts in that weather. But that's coming from a Scot.
interesting day to have this video in my recommended.
absolutely HILARIOUS that there are people in this comment section telling you to watch the video you're talking about
Hmmm I wonder why an English-speaking society would prefer to visit a European country that primarily speaks English over one that primarily speaks French.
🔥🔥🔥
Russ Gallagher Lmao okay
Russ Gallagher
I sure hope so.
@@DemagogueBibleStudy why tho ?
If the royal family didn't live in the Buckingham Palace anymore, than tourists would be able to visit that place even more ... or am I not getting something
zipZIP The palace of Versailles says you're wrong and also an idiot.
@zipZIP i see youve never heard of the concept of tourist attractions before
Exactly, the revenue would likely go up as the opening times would extend and it'd be available all year round.
No the idea that a reigning monarch lives in Buckingham palace makes it feel more real than it is, it’s the same reason why people prefer the real thing than a replica. A buckingham palace without anyone living in it would just feel like some ruins.
@zipZIP Your argument still isn't strong enough. All the places you've mentioned still interest a LOT of people every year and a LOT of people travel from all over the world to visit them, no matter how many photos are available online. I can see every inch of the Mona Lisa online, but I still wanna go and see the painting in real life. I even know its selling point -- that it's fucking tiny. Still wanna go see it. There's absolutely no mystery to the Mona Lisa, only extreme historical value. The royal family holds no mystery to me at all, I know everything I want to know about them and don't care about the rest. But I'd be really fucking interested in seeing all those rooms in person. Hell, even online. Just because you wouldn't be interested in Buckingham Palace anymore if you could see every inch of it, doesn't mean millions of people feel the same way.
That tourism bit was really shameful of Grey. He purposefully only talked about American tourism in order to trick people into agreeing with him.
And even then American tourists go to the UK so that they don't have to learn baguette speak.
Not Proud American here. I think a ton of them think of the UK as “fancier, less badass America.” “With tea and crumpets and crowns and stuff.”
I’m also willing to bet that a not insignificant portion of them probably go to smugly think to themselves, “see, the Brits had all this, and we still kicked their asses in the Revolution.” Because we are nothing if not secure and humble about our heritage.
Heard the same argument made by CGP Grey on a French public radio today, with that same condescending tone to it. I also learned that everybody, even the most fervent republican, loved the queen. I hate that this stupid admiration and nostalgia for monarchs is so contagious. Came back to listen to this. Have a good one Shaun!
Let's be honest: a whole lot of people could give less of a damn old Lizzy kicked the bucket. It's just that expressing any sort of criticism on the royal family or the monarchy as an institution right now will get you downright murdered by the whipped-up outrage created by overwhelmingly right-wing press. We all know how capable British media is in manufacturing carreer-ending false narratives about progressive politicians and movements: imagine what they'll do if you don't express your love for old Lizzy, let alone criticize her in any way.
None of those republicans loved the queen. It's just that it's suicide to say so.
Also, I’m pretty sure Americans are tourists to the Uk more than France because they speak English in the UK officially. I’m pretty sure that draws more people than the queen
the qoulyv no language doesn’t matter the only interesting think about the UK is the royal family
best thing about the UK is all the art y'all stole, whilst you were conquering and pillaging and raping and laying groundwork for genocide and racism and slavery, and refuse to give back even when asked.
The French get plenty of tourists without a monarch
the qoulyv America.. The UK's sister land. Colonised by the British before given independence by the British government. I think the British Monarchy has played the biggest part in the US and that's what attracts them here. If they had to pay as much tax on everything like us, they would fuck the Monarchy off themselves.
KJ Mercer well said. Totally agree with you.
"The more I see of the moneyed classes, the more I understand the guillotine."
- George Bernard Shaw, Letter, 25 Sept. 1899, in Collected Letters, vol.2, in The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations, p. 791
Ark Newman because in its totality, moneyed classes have dominated most of human history and has produced near immeasurable amounts of pain against members of your own kind while it could have always been avoided but wasn’t because of hegemony and “national interests” whenever they may have been
People are self serving. We're all guilty of it.
@@andrewthen8998 There is no such thing as moneyed class. People get richer and people get poorer. Most rich people's ancestors weren't rich.
Harshit Madan the literal definition of a fortune
Andrew Then “I’ve been a rich man and I’ve been a poor man. There’s no honor in being poor.”
'They'd be "forced" to take all the revenue from the crown lands',, or they could get a real job ffs
Congratulations to Madame Tussauds, the queen’s statue now also matches the temperature of the original.
You stole this, I want you to know that I know o___-
@@RikerLovesWorf not really, came to my mind, but now I’m curious to know who else thought of it :)
(Believe it or not, of course, it’s just a pretty mean joke)
I saw this same thing on Twitter. Small world.
CGP Grey's "still their land" argument is an example of what I like to call a "falsely limited scope of proposed change" argument. Wherein someone argues that if you only change X thing (in this case, if you only stop paying the royal family's salaries) then this change will not work. But their opponent is in reality arguing for a much wider scope of change than just that. Those defending capitalism make these kinds of arguments all the time against anticapitalism.
It's usually a matter of not understanding that a shift in paradigm is what's actually proposed. "False limit of scope" is a great way to convey that. Gonna use that from now on.
Garrett
ZOMG you’re back!!! This is amazing!!!
Miss you, Garrett!
Normally i really like these videos but this worst argument I've seen him make. He's basically giving 2 points here. A: The royal wealth and power is hereditary (and that is bad). B: getting rid of the royals and taking all their money would save the uk money. There's a small problem with this argument. I could give this exact same argument for literally everyone who has inherented anything from their family ever. It would be a lot better for my taxes if we just said "when you die everything to owned becomes the property of the state, inheritance does not exist". Until that becomes law what he is advocating is just straight up theft. Not even in the "taxation is theft" bs you hear from libratearians. It's just straight up theft. It's their lands.
Michael Thurau mmm no, I’m pretty sure he would distinguish between personal property (their golden encrusted toothbrush) and their private property (the privately-owned means of production - the estates). This is in fact your worst argument yet.
There's a comic idea that Americans visit the UK more than France because we care about the monarchy. We care because its extremely hard to go on vacation to a foreign country for Americans, and we generally don't get time off, and we tend to, shockingly, go to places which speak English or are nearby. Mexico, then Canada, because they're next door (and Mexico shares a boarder with two of our most populous regions) and then as a far off distant third, clustered together numberwise with three other countries is...
The UK, because the UK speaks English. Next up on that list is the Dominican Republic and France, which are barely below that and have, in some years, exceeded it in tourist numbers. Honestly what surprises me is England doesn't get ~more~ tourists.
This is ridiculous, nobody goes to any country for vacation "because they speak English." The England is a terrible place to go on vacation. Bad weather, terrible scenery, obnoxious people. There are no beaches to relax on, mountains to climb, exotic foods to gorge on, or festivals to enjoy. Americans visit the England because its part of our cultural heritage, and because in many cases its our ethnic heritage. Many of these people of English decent DO in fact care about the Queen. If England wants more tourists then maybe it should hold more festivals, get rid of the dangerous migrants, be nicer to tourists, and create your own, original cuisine that is unique to the country alone that isn't boring. Nobody wants to travel across the Atlantic to eat fish and chips and drink tea while eating crumpets.
@@RazorRyan100 no beaches on a country that isnt landlocked ?
@@RazorRyan100 Tonight's meal will start off with sweeping generalizations spoken as *true* fact with a sweet transition to hyperbole. And for dessert, a superbly succulent mention of "dangerous migrants"
Well done, sir! Might I ask, when was the last time you visited the England?
@@roadrunneruntd There is a difference between a beach and coastline. Britain is an Island so it has plenty of coastline, but no beaches were one would relax and enjoy life. This is the same case for Ireland.
@@cleonanderson1722 June 2015, not that you could tell it was England when in London. Hardly any English people, first White person I did encounter was Polish. Liverpool was only slightly better. Its sad really, a nation which was once the most powerful on Earth is giving away its land, culture, women and identity all because the alternative is "being mean."
Oh and if you dont think the migrants are dangerous then you have been watching too much BBC or reading The Guardian too much.
*mischievous smirk*
"reality isn't turn based, however" lmao who is this guy 😂😂😂😂 subscribed
The greatest thing about Patreon, besides the whole our-fav-creators-get-to-eat part is that the end of every month becomes lefty Christmas.
Imma give you a response because I always feel bad when a comment has 100+ likes but no responses
Awww that's cute
@@spencerokeefe438 carefully, they’re a hero.
The UK should just make a Robo-Queen for the tourists.
Wait, wasn't that the plot of one of those disney movies? The one with the mouse Sherlock. I forgot the name, it was something with B...
(Although it was a mouse queen.)
It would be cheaper to just build a robo santa to take care of the Monarchists as few as are remaining :D
That sounds like a Futurama gag
@@yonokhanman654 The Great Mouse detective? It was apparently re-released as 'Basil; The great mouse detective.
A wind up ,waving, robot.
Who else is here after the Queen died?
Watching this on September 19th 2022 because it felt appropriate.
I find CGP's American argument specious anyway, considering there are indeed other sitting monarchs in Europe who also have palaces and parks and whatnot. I would posit that Americans go to Britain more due to language than anything else. We Yanks can actually mostly understand you Brits when you speak. Most Americans (not including myself) don't speak French or German or Italian.
This completely ignores the massive following of the royal family in the US (the funeral of princess Diana was one of the most watched tv broadcast of all time). Americans obsession with the drama around the royal family undoubtedly brings some tourism to the UK, how much I don't know.
Side note, I am for kicking our the royalty out, but for moral reasons, I think monetary reasons are stupid.
As a similar TH-camr to Shaun said "Everyone wants to fuck the Queen"
But most Germans, Italians and French people speak English
@Solving Humanity fair point
The proof of this is the fact that Denmark has a much older monarchy, depending on how you define it the oldest in the world, yet it gets barely any tourists, people don't even try the tourism argument here because it's so obvious that the only tourists we get are due to either the beaches or viking shit. The only other European monarchy to get a lot of tourists is Spain and it's very obvious that, that's not due to the monarchy either, that's for the beaches, all of the other popular European tourist destinations are republics.
Still find it hilarious that he mistook Mont Saint-Michel for St. Michael's Mount
In fairness, they're the same name translated and look pretty similar
TheBrainboxer
I recall watching that video and thinking ‘Isn’t that in France?’, but didn’t check. It looks more European than the typically drab British buildings.
That reminds me of Aphex Twim's fast-paced track titled _Mt. Saint Michel & St. Michel's Mt._
[drukqs intensifies]
boggisthecat for extra hilarity a few of the ‘boring old French castles’ were probably built by the English during the Hundred Years’ War, they look drab and boring because you don’t really care about making something look nice while you have a war to win
rewatching gang where ya at? 💯
As an American who has been to France and the UK, France was cooler mostly because there weren't royals, and we could actually go inside the palaces and look around. In London we could just stand outside and watch the changing of the guard and,,, that's it
I like the fact that you also criticize people who aren't complete shitbags. All of us are silly from time to time, and it's great to have a man with a dry British accent telling us to check our shit.
I would pay good money to have a man with a dry Briitsh accent follow me and occasionally tell me to check my shit
Yeah, gray has only two videos that are deserving of much scrutiny the one being discussed in this video, and the traffic one. Other than that, a great TH-camr
@@cantthinkofaname5046 What’s wrong with the traffic one? I haven’t watched it in a while so I don’t remember any problems with it.
@@justinswenson5124 Grey's solution to traffic was self-driving cars, because it would eliminate tailgating, and traffic lights, thus traffic jams. Not realizing that this is a temporary solution as this creates induced demand, making roads more crowded. Kinda like adding another lane in the road. Also it eliminates pedestrian, or non-motor vehicle traffic along with public transportation. Basically if you see those American cities with highways and connectors cutting through massive swaths of land in the cities, Grey's solution would be that times 10.
The fact that there are still monarchies around feels kinda ridiculous. Every time I see clips of kings or queens, it feels like they're just a bunch of weird old people cosplaying.
Especially when they basically have ceremonies that are identical to how dictators stage theirs. There's a message here.
Holy shit, same!
007MrYang goose to show we see the past before we are born more fictional then fiction to us
I saw that clip and thought, "Wow, this looks and sounds disturbingly similar to a really mediocre play." Bunch of people standing around in silly, cheap-looking costumes pretending to care about someone sitting on a really gaudy throne on a really gaudy stage with a ridiculous hat literally reading lines >.< Also I actually just scrolled up to look at it again because I'm still not convinced that was real.
If people wake up and respect my royal status (that I gave myself) don't let me look like this D:
The fact that there are still republics around feels kinda ridiculous. Every time I see clips of oligarchical leaders, it feels like they're just a bunch of weird old people cosplaying.
always a good time to revisit this video, especially now the queen has promised to pay for prince andrew's defence in his child sexual assault lawsuit
Time to dust off this video again
Shaun wants to cancel Netflix's The Crown lol
Well it is properganda shit
Shaun hates good British TV! RRRRAAAHGHHHHH
(I love you both Shaun and CGP Grey. But Grey is cooler because he’s robot. Sorry)
Nah it pisses off the Queen, so it may continue
wait, is it propaganda or does it piss off the queen. i cant decide whether to check it out
@@pluezilvlk8427 I thought I remembered reading that the Queen actually really liked The Crown?
Prince Andrew just made an amazing argument for abolishing the monarchy...
@@banger2998 we have the same issues as America, only we actually have accessible healthcare, a welfare system that is still shit but nowhere near as bad as the US, slightly better labour laws, and less mad Nazis with guns paying their local schools a visit. Queen ain't got shit to do with that. If anything, the fallout from the Brexit referendum has shown how disunited we are
Anyway, any unifying effect the monarchy in the UK may have will dissipate ince Lizzy dies
@@banger2998 Except between people that like the monarchy and people that oppose the monarchy, I'd reckon they'd be pretty divided because of the monarchy
@@OpreRoma Yeah I can’t see it going on for long after good ole’ Liz :(
anyone watching this after the queen's death
Yessir
Hello!
Yup. I loved playing this video to match the cheers of the irish.
Sucks that this is still relevant in 2021. The purpose that the monarchy serves is to say "this is what Britishness is".
the monarchy is not britishness. tea, pubs, fish and chips and rubbish weather are what britishness is
@@thejuiceking2219 Actually , the beginning of Democracy and human rights in the modern world began when John Locke's Enlightenment ideas were put into the 1689 English Bill of Rights .
Although at this time only land owners had the vote - so it was pretty flawed .
From there the rise in Democratic Rights , Human Rights , phasing out of slavery , phasing out of child labour , increase in labour rights , animal rights , public programs , rise in public health , science and technology is one of the greatest achievements in all of humanity .
.
@@landsea7332 actually the beginning of human rights started in Africa when humans evolved, from there all the human related things originated, including human rights
@@thejuiceking2219 " the beginning of human rights started in Africa when humans evolved, "
In Africa , Europe , Asia and the Middle East Warriors and Kings made up any rules they wanted. Many of them thought they had the divine right to rule .
The first time the very concept of human rights were written in a document , by a ruler or government , occurred with Cyrus the Great and and the Magna Carter . The Athenians promoted human rights for the upper class .
However , to have strong human rights there needs to be strong Democratic government in place . This is why the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights doesn't work . Someone can declare all the human rights they want , but there needs to be a Democratic and legal system to back this up .
The actual bench mark and beginning of the promotion of equal rights of all citizens occurred during the Age of Enlightenment .
Maybe read up on what John Locke and Rousseu had to say .
th-cam.com/video/bZiWZJgJT7I/w-d-xo.html
.