Correction: William of Orange was not the King of the Netherlands. He was the stadholder of most of its provinces, which is a position that gave him a great deal of military authority but outside of that he wasn't formally the head of state or anything, with a republican government being the actual highest power. Though that being said, the powers of the position varied wildly across time meaning the stadholder was at some times powerless and at other times a de-facto king; with William coming to power in a historic peak of stadholder power that made him king of the Netherlands in all but name. So basically, calling him the king of the Netherlands is sort of right in practice but gives the wrong impression that his ascension was a union of two kingdoms rather than a republican officeholder achieving a higher rank elsewhere
I think the position of Stadholder is best translated as Governor, but with William of Orange at this time basically being governor of most of the states of the Netherlands at the same time. It's like if Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor of California, Texas, New York and about 30 other states. He would not be president, but still very powerful.
No, I don't agree, he was appointed by the States, the parliaments of the Dutch provinces consisting of commoners. It was the States-general that paid for his invasion army and fleet, and the goal for both the States-General and William was not to annex England or have him rule like a medieval king, but to make England into a durable, stable protestant religious tolerant ally. That's why he asked to be invited and waged a propaganda war to get popular and nobility support. This was to prevent a catholic absolutist English king being treacherous again and teaming up in secret with catholic absolutist Louis XIV and German bishopries to annihilate the Dutch Republic like in 1672 when they came very close. He was somewhat king like because he was competent, had vision and had build a huge network in foreign relations, so the States let him. There also was no 'countercommoner' (William was a noble), a higly competent well respected figure leading the States like Stadtholder Maurits had decades before. The 'Statists' side with it's disregerad for heridatery posiitons had taken a heavy blow in 1672 because it made Holland to powerful over the other provinces and neglected land defenses there in the preceeding 'Stadtholderless Era'. William stepped in, took command of the army, flooded large parts of the country and kicked the French troops out, he saved the Dutch Republic from annihilation, catholic rule and mass murder of the protestants. The Stadtholder used to be the high command of the army and unifying force, while the commoners in charge of the Dutch Republic were all about Holland, trade and the navy. Holland was protected over land by the Hollandic waterline, a system of defenses by flooding area's. He was a rich man in an extremely rich Dutch Republic and showing off more than other rich Dutch people, in a royal style and he had a court like entourage. He once complained he felt like king of the Dutch Republic and Stadtholder of England because the English parliament was slowing his policies down while the Dutch States gave him more room to manouver. He might look like a king now, but that's because he changed what a king is through that glorious invasion, he created the constitutional monarchy. Back then, kings had the divine right of kings, denounce by the Dutch in their DOI more than a century before, they were king by birth and were absolute monarchs who decided on the religion of their people. Originally the Stadtholder was a steward to the king appointed by the king, and became a steward to the States appointed by the States once the king was declared to have left the throne for being a tyrant.
I discovered Britmonkey rather recently and I've been enjoying every bit of your videos. Thank you sir for making good content and being motivated to do so all these years. I think you might hit it off these days and get the true recognition you deserve.
Same here, discovered the channel about a week ago, and already watched most of the videos on it (the one recommended to me was "The Graffiti that changed a city"). Great channel with a great style of content
10:13 Scots literally couldn't choose a worse place. The Darien Gap is one of the hardest places to live in. There was that one thing where some guys wanted to travel by car (Range Rover) through the Americas in the seventies. It took them 6 months, three of which were spent in the Darien Gap. And they had an additional professional team assisting them there.
I have written a paper on the Magna Carta fallout (the reign of child king Henry the Third) during my history master's and my master's thesis will probably be on the Statute of Marlborough. I'm looking forward to this series!
From the POV of an American I hope you can answer my question. If the British constitution is not written in one place who determines which documents comprise it? When a disagreement arrises over some act of elected officials or perhaps some lower court judge, who decides which document determines what is permissible and what is not?
UK lawyer here. All lawyers, politicians, judges and royalty know which documents make up the constitution. There are A LOT so I hope you don't mind me not giving you a list. But in regards to disagreements, they're rare. If a lower court makes a wrong decision, it goes to the court of appeal, if they can't decide then it goes to our Supreme Court. And then, but rarely, the House of Lords. Our rules and guidelines for courts are set out in law and following the example of previous court cases. However these can be easily changed via new legislation (such as making homosexuality legal) or the making an old law more modern, hence why bicycle riders can be arrested for dangerous riding under a 1800's act.
Thanks. It now makes sense. You will forgive an American having the idea the House of Lords is a bridge club. Glad to know they have a real function.@@HomoLegalMedic
I always thought the House of Lords,the only Unelected Upper House in the World,was one of Review of Laws past in the Lower House.Its,when compared to Australia’s Preferentially Elected Upper House is about 125yrs out of date and should of been Reformed many years ago.Its kept the way it is because of its loosely bound constitution.
The English Constitution did not start with Magna Carta, Magna Carta came from earlier Constitutional documents such as the Constitutions of Clarendon 1164. I will repeat there is no such thing as a British Constitution England and Wales share the same Constitution and Scotland has its own Constitution hence why their legal system is different to ours.
10:40 The Acts of Union 1707 created the "Kingdom of Great Britain", not the "United Kingdom of Great Britain". The "United" part was added in 1801 with the Acts of Union 1800, creating the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". Great video though :)
When Scotland leaves and NI unites with Ireland there will be no Kingdom of Great Britain because there will be no Great Britain. All treaties, international agreements and most law will be null and invalid because a United Kingdom won't exist any more.CONSITUTIONAL states rarely break up
@@ausbrum That's not so clear. The resulting kingdom (consisting of England, Wales, and a few other parts) would probably be considered to be the successor state to the UK. By convention successor states inherit most rights and obligations under existing treaties (and thus you can't e.g. legally nullify government debt by a breakup). Admittedly, this convention isn't codified. Well, there is the Vienna Convention of 1978 but the UK isn't a signatory.
Yes, I too am glad to have been born on this island and/or one of the many small islands near it or far away from it and that one small part of a big island. Very proud.
Really enjoy the acknowledgement of the separate legal tradition of scotland relative to the rest of the UK. Lots of videos about British history are essentially English history so its nice to see someone do it properly.
Here I was expecting a fairly dry if still interesting little delve into British history. But what I did not expect from a video talking about historical paperwork was for it to be THIS hilarious.
A small (major) correction on your comments on the acts of union and law. It's... Completely wrong. The treaty and acts guarantee that the Scottish legal system shall remain independent from the English one. While laws where and are passed in the UK parliament they apply to both legal systems not the "UK legal system." And the UK parliament can and does pass acts that apply only to one of those systems from time to time. And certain acts have different clauses for different legal systems. Most acts will clearly indicate when they apply to only England or Scotland etc. Anything to do with land for example will be radially different from Scotland to England as we have conceptually different theories of property law. For an example of a mixed act take a look at the Sale of Goods Act, esp around article 14 and what was once called "merchantable standard". These laws are different from England and Scotland because the act of union required England to respect Scottish legal theory on contract law which developed differently that England. Additionally, the UK supreme court can only be binding on Scottish law if the case being heard originated in a Scottish court. Vice versa for England. This is why during the prorogation crisis during brexit both a Scottish and English case was heard simultaneously. Otherwise, a great video and you clearly tried to respect Scotland being a distinct entity in the rest of the video. Hopefully a quick correction in future videos will be possible. Sincerely, A Scottish lawyer.
I’d also like to add the Scottish constitution which is still legally binding under the acts of union 1707, this is why Scotland has a completely different law system
One correction: the 1707 Acts of Union created the Kingdom of Great Britain (the island with England (and Wales) and Scotland together). It became in the United Kingdom in 1800 when Irealnd was included in the Union as before then they still had a separate Parliament
It's been a while since I've enjoyed history videos. The last time I remember getting that feeling was watching videos by "Alternate History Hub". Thank you for creating such a great, educational and Numero video.
Great video! Looking forward to Part 2. Very cool to learn where our 3rd Amendment to the US Constitution came from. I'd thought that was a response to the quartering of British troops during the revolution.
damn boy, you know how to tell a story!! we have a saying in the netherlands: "soft healers make stinking wounds" , YOU would NOT be one of them :) LOVE the storytelling, thank you
The Scots banned the quartering of troops in civilians' houses as a result of the "Killing Times", the military attempt to repress the Presbyterians of Lowland Scotland. This saw the King send a Highland Army (known as "the Highland Host") to stay in Lowlanders' houses and do not very nice things like force them to say "God Save the King" whenever asked, go to Episcopalian Churches, and provide lots of extra money and/or daughters (allegedly) to keep them happy. Great vid btw - absolutely loved it!
The part about soldiers billeting in peoples homes without consent occurred during the covenanter times in Scotland, and still occurred on foreign campaigns like the napoleonic wars.
I am from a former colony and we've got one of your laws which basically gives me right to enter in anyone's house and if he doesn't forces me out for a particular period then I have the right to the house. I find kinda awesome 😂
Minor Nitpick: at the Time of the Glorious Revolution the Netherlands where officially a Republic (sort of) so William was not King of the Netherlands.
8:57 "Wait a bit...I have an idea. Instead of marching all the way across this strip of land from one ocean to the other, why don't we just dig a huge ditch and sail right through?" ... ... ... "Ah, you're daft. The heat's getting to you, mon." :D
Your "British Constitution" videos are actually very good! I'm surprised they're getting low views... I suspect it's because of the title and thumbnail of the videos. They make people think some guy is just reading the constitution! lol.
Really looking forward to the second part. I really like this "series", as the brittish constitution isn't that popular (outside Britten?). And I also love how you stay consiouse of the good and the bad. Like how you talked about the criminalities that Great Briten has done in Asia (India), Afrika and America.
From the POV of an American I hope you can answer my question. If the British constitution is not written in one place who determines which documents comprise it? When a disagreement arrises over some act of elected officials or perhaps some lower court judge, who decides which document determines what is permissible and what is not?
@@dabrack9350 So, I am not british but I read the wikipedia article about the british constituion. It says, that the Supreme Court decides on which papers and cases have "constituional status". Therefore it depends on what the Supreme Court "recognises" as constitutionally relevant. That's why "cases" can also be constituional. It is much more transparent and can be adjusted to the given situation...
7:42 - It's about the army not supposed to be the ones enforcing the laws (aka doing police work), the clause was to ensure that it fell to civil authorities instead of the military.
To add a key point here . When William of Orange and Mary II ascended the throne , in April 1689 , during their Coronation Oath , they swore to recognize the Sovereignty of Parliament . However , at the time , only land owners had the vote , or could be Parliamentarians - but this is still the beginning of Democracy in the modern world . So James II ( VII ) was the last Absolute Monarch , then William and Mary II were the first Constitutional Monarchs . .
Does the Magna Carta not have a line saying that it cannot ever be repealed ? If that's the case then everything that comes after by the government is actually illegal. We have many more rights than we know or stand up for.
A surprisingly unbiased retelling of the Darien Scheme, but with one small detail that most folk get wrong; Darien didn't bankrupt Scotland. It was entirely privately funded. So, England never wrote off Scotland's debt, they wrote off the personal debts of the aristocrats who funded the scheme who, as you pointed out, were members of the Scottish parliament.
I don't want to get technical, but a "Constitution" in the European/American sense is not just a sum of rules concerning how the government operates, what it can and can't do etc. It also has "relative superiority" over normal statutes of the legislative power, meaning that a) all Acts of Parliament are automatically subordinate to it and they are checked for their constitutionality and b) that there is usually an extraordinary procedure for it to change (like the amendment procedure of the US Constitution), with some Constitutions (like the Greek one) even going so far as to prohibit the change of certain clauses under any circumstances. For example, could the British Parliament today, through a duly voted upon Act, abolish the Bill of Rights or the Magna Carta? This is a legitimate question, so if anybody knows please tell me
To answer you, the British Constitution is an unentrenched, uncodified Constitution. Uncodified means that it is not made up of a single document, but rather many documents which concern how the governing of the country is done. Unentrenched means that there is no special majority required to change it, e.g. for the US one needs a 2/3 majority in the house of representatives and a whole other bunch of requirements to change the Constitution which one does not for a normal law. In the UK, by contrast, any law passed by parliament will supercede any contradictory law made beforehand, so if tomorrow the UK parliament managed to pass a law completely changing the voting system of the UK, it would only need to exceed 50% of votes cast to come into force. I hope that answers your question :)
Thing is, the "European/American sense" is about codified constitutions, which all mainland European countries (and Ireland and Iceland) and the US have. Britain's constitution is uncodified
So its Cause 9 of the Magna Carter that gives legal independence to the City of London Corporation (aka the Square Mile). One of the financial capitals of the world , with all its international investment banks , and offshore banking islands . .
For NI what did you mean “for now” I’d die to hold onto to it. if anything if Ireland got into a row with Europe as it has opposed the eu many times, and that the Irish president few years ago said rejoining wouldn’t be bad, and it’s economically beneficial and there’s many unionists still in the other northern provinces. Ireland could fully reunite with Britain. Stronger together!
@@aidancollins1591 What day and when will it come? What are you gonna do with your tiny little population and lack of support and GDP. We still protect you, you lot don't realise that.
@@gubgub3275 Census numbers, ever since 1983 our side was guaranteed to be a majority in NI. It is almost so. The Irish lobby in the USA will make sure the GFA stands. Ireland will unite under Sinn Féin sometime in the next couple decades ;)
Article 1 of the British constitution:
-The Prime minister shall never speak in a comprehensive and proper manner.
Article 1 of the French constitution requires that le President keep a mistress
5th comment!
*Looks at Boris*
Welp.
@@anttibjorklund1869 Sascha de Pfeffel has welped a half-dozen love children by this point, right?
@@alexandergangaware429 Who's Macron's mistress? If Le Pen wins next year, would she keep a mistress?
Correction: William of Orange was not the King of the Netherlands. He was the stadholder of most of its provinces, which is a position that gave him a great deal of military authority but outside of that he wasn't formally the head of state or anything, with a republican government being the actual highest power. Though that being said, the powers of the position varied wildly across time meaning the stadholder was at some times powerless and at other times a de-facto king; with William coming to power in a historic peak of stadholder power that made him king of the Netherlands in all but name.
So basically, calling him the king of the Netherlands is sort of right in practice but gives the wrong impression that his ascension was a union of two kingdoms rather than a republican officeholder achieving a higher rank elsewhere
I think the position of Stadholder is best translated as Governor, but with William of Orange at this time basically being governor of most of the states of the Netherlands at the same time.
It's like if Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor of California, Texas, New York and about 30 other states. He would not be president, but still very powerful.
@@rogerwilco2 That's actually a pretty excellent way of putting it
Psh. Nerd
@@rogerwilco2 you know what, the US should change its constitution just for that. We all need to see Stewart Schwarzenegger
No, I don't agree, he was appointed by the States, the parliaments of the Dutch provinces consisting of commoners. It was the States-general that paid for his invasion army and fleet, and the goal for both the States-General and William was not to annex England or have him rule like a medieval king, but to make England into a durable, stable protestant religious tolerant ally. That's why he asked to be invited and waged a propaganda war to get popular and nobility support. This was to prevent a catholic absolutist English king being treacherous again and teaming up in secret with catholic absolutist Louis XIV and German bishopries to annihilate the Dutch Republic like in 1672 when they came very close.
He was somewhat king like because he was competent, had vision and had build a huge network in foreign relations, so the States let him. There also was no 'countercommoner' (William was a noble), a higly competent well respected figure leading the States like Stadtholder Maurits had decades before. The 'Statists' side with it's disregerad for heridatery posiitons had taken a heavy blow in 1672 because it made Holland to powerful over the other provinces and neglected land defenses there in the preceeding 'Stadtholderless Era'. William stepped in, took command of the army, flooded large parts of the country and kicked the French troops out, he saved the Dutch Republic from annihilation, catholic rule and mass murder of the protestants. The Stadtholder used to be the high command of the army and unifying force, while the commoners in charge of the Dutch Republic were all about Holland, trade and the navy. Holland was protected over land by the Hollandic waterline, a system of defenses by flooding area's. He was a rich man in an extremely rich Dutch Republic and showing off more than other rich Dutch people, in a royal style and he had a court like entourage.
He once complained he felt like king of the Dutch Republic and Stadtholder of England because the English parliament was slowing his policies down while the Dutch States gave him more room to manouver. He might look like a king now, but that's because he changed what a king is through that glorious invasion, he created the constitutional monarchy. Back then, kings had the divine right of kings, denounce by the Dutch in their DOI more than a century before, they were king by birth and were absolute monarchs who decided on the religion of their people. Originally the Stadtholder was a steward to the king appointed by the king, and became a steward to the States appointed by the States once the king was declared to have left the throne for being a tyrant.
I discovered Britmonkey rather recently and I've been enjoying every bit of your videos. Thank you sir for making good content and being motivated to do so all these years. I think you might hit it off these days and get the true recognition you deserve.
Same here, discovered the channel about a week ago, and already watched most of the videos on it (the one recommended to me was "The Graffiti that changed a city"). Great channel with a great style of content
Same
He reminds me of brain4breakfast but without countryballs
@@danielkrustev rip brain4breakfast
Yeah, this channel is going to blow up sometime soon
10:13 Scots literally couldn't choose a worse place. The Darien Gap is one of the hardest places to live in. There was that one thing where some guys wanted to travel by car (Range Rover) through the Americas in the seventies. It took them 6 months, three of which were spent in the Darien Gap. And they had an additional professional team assisting them there.
If a Range Rover can't do it, it's not worth it
In fact, the Darien Gap it's the only place in the Americas where the Panamerican Highway is interrupted,
If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus Is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. -Romans 10:9
I have written a paper on the Magna Carta fallout (the reign of child king Henry the Third) during my history master's and my master's thesis will probably be on the Statute of Marlborough. I'm looking forward to this series!
From the POV of an American I hope you can answer my question. If the British constitution is not written in one place who determines which documents comprise it? When a disagreement arrises over some act of elected officials or perhaps some lower court judge, who decides which document determines what is permissible and what is not?
UK lawyer here.
All lawyers, politicians, judges and royalty know which documents make up the constitution. There are A LOT so I hope you don't mind me not giving you a list.
But in regards to disagreements, they're rare. If a lower court makes a wrong decision, it goes to the court of appeal, if they can't decide then it goes to our Supreme Court. And then, but rarely, the House of Lords.
Our rules and guidelines for courts are set out in law and following the example of previous court cases. However these can be easily changed via new legislation (such as making homosexuality legal) or the making an old law more modern, hence why bicycle riders can be arrested for dangerous riding under a 1800's act.
Thanks. It now makes sense. You will forgive an American having the idea the House of Lords is a bridge club. Glad to know they have a real function.@@HomoLegalMedic
I always thought the House of Lords,the only Unelected Upper House in the World,was one of Review of Laws past in the Lower House.Its,when compared to Australia’s Preferentially Elected Upper House is about 125yrs out of date and should of been Reformed many years ago.Its kept the way it is because of its loosely bound constitution.
You know the constitution is going to be a good meme when it starts in 1215
The English Constitution did not start with Magna Carta, Magna Carta came from earlier Constitutional documents such as the Constitutions of Clarendon 1164.
I will repeat there is no such thing as a British Constitution England and Wales share the same Constitution and Scotland has its own Constitution hence why their legal system is different to ours.
10:40 The Acts of Union 1707 created the "Kingdom of Great Britain", not the "United Kingdom of Great Britain". The "United" part was added in 1801 with the Acts of Union 1800, creating the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". Great video though :)
When Scotland leaves and NI unites with Ireland there will be no Kingdom of Great Britain because there will be no Great Britain. All treaties, international agreements and most law will be null and invalid because a United Kingdom won't exist any more.CONSITUTIONAL states rarely break up
@@ausbrum That's not so clear. The resulting kingdom (consisting of England, Wales, and a few other parts) would probably be considered to be the successor state to the UK. By convention successor states inherit most rights and obligations under existing treaties (and thus you can't e.g. legally nullify government debt by a breakup).
Admittedly, this convention isn't codified. Well, there is the Vienna Convention of 1978 but the UK isn't a signatory.
This made me proud to be an inhabitant of the land mass know as Britain.
Yes, I too am glad to have been born on this island and/or one of the many small islands near it or far away from it and that one small part of a big island.
Very proud.
I'm indifferent.
Someone has forgotten what they have done to the Welsh people...
I can't believe the noblemen laid siege on the king's castle and still made him king.
Really enjoy the acknowledgement of the separate legal tradition of scotland relative to the rest of the UK. Lots of videos about British history are essentially English history so its nice to see someone do it properly.
Here I was expecting a fairly dry if still interesting little delve into British history. But what I did not expect from a video talking about historical paperwork was for it to be THIS hilarious.
A small (major) correction on your comments on the acts of union and law. It's... Completely wrong.
The treaty and acts guarantee that the Scottish legal system shall remain independent from the English one. While laws where and are passed in the UK parliament they apply to both legal systems not the "UK legal system."
And the UK parliament can and does pass acts that apply only to one of those systems from time to time. And certain acts have different clauses for different legal systems.
Most acts will clearly indicate when they apply to only England or Scotland etc. Anything to do with land for example will be radially different from Scotland to England as we have conceptually different theories of property law.
For an example of a mixed act take a look at the Sale of Goods Act, esp around article 14 and what was once called "merchantable standard". These laws are different from England and Scotland because the act of union required England to respect Scottish legal theory on contract law which developed differently that England.
Additionally, the UK supreme court can only be binding on Scottish law if the case being heard originated in a Scottish court. Vice versa for England. This is why during the prorogation crisis during brexit both a Scottish and English case was heard simultaneously.
Otherwise, a great video and you clearly tried to respect Scotland being a distinct entity in the rest of the video. Hopefully a quick correction in future videos will be possible.
Sincerely,
A Scottish lawyer.
I’d also like to add the Scottish constitution which is still legally binding under the acts of union 1707, this is why Scotland has a completely different law system
Your channel is growing and spreading like wildfire. Congrats.
really glad! love this channel
It's metastasizing, but in a good way, like educational cancer.
This is so interesting. Can't wait for the next one.
I love this channel so much, keep up the amazing work man!
laws are not real.
-britmonkey 2021 a great quote
And it was the British Royal Navy that stopped slavery in its tracks.
I'm gonna sleep now, mate, but this seems like a gooden and I hope I remember it when I wake up. The idea of multiple parts really gets be excited.
did you
Brilliant, like always. I'm looking forward to episode 2!
Congratulations on 50k mate
Shame about the mukbang tho
This is just my second video of yours, and I absolutely ADORE these already. Great job, mate.
I'm glad to see your channel growing, countdown to 100k less gooo
Your channel is absolutely fantastic, I’m addicted to your videos keep on going!
This video was absolutely informative but in a uniquely fun way
0:04 "For now" lmao
King John was not in the Bayeux Tapestry. That is King Harold Godwinson.
One correction: the 1707 Acts of Union created the Kingdom of Great Britain (the island with England (and Wales) and Scotland together). It became in the United Kingdom in 1800 when Irealnd was included in the Union as before then they still had a separate Parliament
this was incredible
Very good video, looking forward on seeing the next one!
Keep growing my currently most favourite britbonger.
This is a wonderful video, I **can** wait until the next part, but something inside me tells me I can’t wait!
Aaaaah the Monty Python music at 2:24, BritMonkey you beautiful bastard! I thought I was the only one who actually knew and wanted to use this piece!
i subscribed at about 15k and to see its now at 51k makes me smile. good luck!
Absolutely Brilliant I cant wait for part 2!
It's been a while since I've enjoyed history videos. The last time I remember getting that feeling was watching videos by "Alternate History Hub". Thank you for creating such a great, educational and Numero video.
Idk why this channel isn't more popular, it's like a chavvy-yet-endearing History With Hilbert.
1:06 minor correction here, King John is not called "John the First" because there's never been another John on the throne
Waiting excitedly for part 2
Great video! Looking forward to Part 2. Very cool to learn where our 3rd Amendment to the US Constitution came from. I'd thought that was a response to the quartering of British troops during the revolution.
damn boy, you know how to tell a story!!
we have a saying in the netherlands: "soft healers make stinking wounds" , YOU would NOT be one of them :)
LOVE the storytelling, thank you
Cool video, looking forward to the next one!
The Scots banned the quartering of troops in civilians' houses as a result of the "Killing Times", the military attempt to repress the Presbyterians of Lowland Scotland. This saw the King send a Highland Army (known as "the Highland Host") to stay in Lowlanders' houses and do not very nice things like force them to say "God Save the King" whenever asked, go to Episcopalian Churches, and provide lots of extra money and/or daughters (allegedly) to keep them happy.
Great vid btw - absolutely loved it!
The part about soldiers billeting in peoples homes without consent occurred during the covenanter times in Scotland, and still occurred on foreign campaigns like the napoleonic wars.
I am from a former colony and we've got one of your laws which basically gives me right to enter in anyone's house and if he doesn't forces me out for a particular period then I have the right to the house. I find kinda awesome 😂
You’d need to openly live in that house for 10 to 20 years for it to become yours.
Cant wait for part 2 XDD
*the next two videos*
The next video: PEAR
6:48 I remember this, this is also in American law. They copy pasted the phrase "cruel and unusual punishments"
Minor Nitpick: at the Time of the Glorious Revolution the Netherlands where officially a Republic (sort of) so William was not King of the Netherlands.
Finally, someone who realises we have a written constitution.
Interesting indeed aha let's use this
Just found your channel and nearly done binge watching them all. Awesome content my man
This is exactly the stupid humor I like, you have instantly became my favourite channel on UA-cam
ayy William coming in for the save yet again. legend!
based
"...and find out how a slave *sued himself* into freedom."
Talk about a cliffhanging ending. I must know more *damn it.*
Check Somerset v Stewart on Wikipedia (or watch the part II now that it's out, I guess).
This was a very Good video, i can't wait for part II
Please include South Africa in the colonisation
6:11 is that the Eurovision theme tune 😂😂
Most interesting sides of English history were explained by you. Great ,👏
The fact that you kept calling James "Jimbo" made me think it was how his name was pronounced back then and had to actually check
*_Cries in one third of the entire planet_*
King Jimmy 2 was the Embodiment of "The Law says you cant do tha- WELL I CANT READ!"
5:55 William of Orange was NOT king of the Netherlands at the time, as the Netherlands was a Republic.
His position was closer to that of a Governor.
Ahh now I get where the TV nobility dramas get their inspiration from
This channel is very underrated.
It’s the English constitution not the British constitution
If Anyone's unsure, look at The English Constitution Society
Can't wait for part 2
Congrats on reaching 50K subscribers. It seem to have happened overnight. I blame Kurzgesagt and their climate change video.
8:57 "Wait a bit...I have an idea. Instead of marching all the way across this strip of land from one ocean to the other, why don't we just dig a huge ditch and sail right through?"
...
...
...
"Ah, you're daft. The heat's getting to you, mon." :D
for some reason i'm super happy he used Pokemon Uranium music at the end
It all began with the Magna Carta
Your "British Constitution" videos are actually very good! I'm surprised they're getting low views... I suspect it's because of the title and thumbnail of the videos. They make people think some guy is just reading the constitution! lol.
The successor to Brain for Breakfast, god rest his soul
I must know the sauce at 10:03 my good sir
Cant wait till part 2. God bless this country
😂😂😂 Your sence of humour triggers my deepest Lough ! I'm literally laughing all the time 😅😂.
I know this video didn't slap in the analytics, but it did slap in my heart
Really looking forward to the second part. I really like this "series", as the brittish constitution isn't that popular (outside Britten?). And I also love how you stay consiouse of the good and the bad. Like how you talked about the criminalities that Great Briten has done in Asia (India), Afrika and America.
Britain*
From the POV of an American I hope you can answer my question. If the British constitution is not written in one place who determines which documents comprise it? When a disagreement arrises over some act of elected officials or perhaps some lower court judge, who decides which document determines what is permissible and what is not?
@@dabrack9350 So, I am not british but I read the wikipedia article about the british constituion. It says, that the Supreme Court decides on which papers and cases have "constituional status". Therefore it depends on what the Supreme Court "recognises" as constitutionally relevant. That's why "cases" can also be constituional. It is much more transparent and can be adjusted to the given situation...
@@jameshaydn3341 This helps a lot. Thanks
Awsome video, when is part two coming out ? No rush
At what point did UK started calling these laws, proclamations, etc as “unwritten constitution”?
7:42 - It's about the army not supposed to be the ones enforcing the laws (aka doing police work), the clause was to ensure that it fell to civil authorities instead of the military.
To add a key point here . When William of Orange and Mary II ascended the throne , in April 1689 , during their Coronation Oath , they swore to recognize the Sovereignty of Parliament .
However , at the time , only land owners had the vote , or could be Parliamentarians - but this is still the beginning of Democracy in the modern world .
So James II ( VII ) was the last Absolute Monarch , then William and Mary II were the first Constitutional Monarchs .
.
Can’t wait for the sequel
Loved the video, can't wait for the next one!
I'm disappointed that you chose the Welsh flag that didn't have a big fuck-off dragon on it.
6:57 my favorite part
Small correction, it is not The Magna Carta, it is just Magna Carta, as it is a Proper noun, like a name.
Claim your award before 1 hour
Does the Magna Carta not have a line saying that it cannot ever be repealed ? If that's the case then everything that comes after by the government is actually illegal. We have many more rights than we know or stand up for.
I think you could argue that until the Protestant revolution, it wasn’t the “Church of England” but “The Church IN England”
your best video so far, well done
A surprisingly unbiased retelling of the Darien Scheme, but with one small detail that most folk get wrong; Darien didn't bankrupt Scotland. It was entirely privately funded. So, England never wrote off Scotland's debt, they wrote off the personal debts of the aristocrats who funded the scheme who, as you pointed out, were members of the Scottish parliament.
'EVERYONE WHO IS A PROTESTANT CAN OWN A FUCKING GUN'
I can't breathe. Help.
Why I love this video
5:20 Hillarious! Have you made such a simplified version of the war of the roses too?
I don't want to get technical, but a "Constitution" in the European/American sense is not just a sum of rules concerning how the government operates, what it can and can't do etc. It also has "relative superiority" over normal statutes of the legislative power, meaning that a) all Acts of Parliament are automatically subordinate to it and they are checked for their constitutionality and b) that there is usually an extraordinary procedure for it to change (like the amendment procedure of the US Constitution), with some Constitutions (like the Greek one) even going so far as to prohibit the change of certain clauses under any circumstances. For example, could the British Parliament today, through a duly voted upon Act, abolish the Bill of Rights or the Magna Carta? This is a legitimate question, so if anybody knows please tell me
To answer you, the British Constitution is an unentrenched, uncodified Constitution. Uncodified means that it is not made up of a single document, but rather many documents which concern how the governing of the country is done. Unentrenched means that there is no special majority required to change it, e.g. for the US one needs a 2/3 majority in the house of representatives and a whole other bunch of requirements to change the Constitution which one does not for a normal law. In the UK, by contrast, any law passed by parliament will supercede any contradictory law made beforehand, so if tomorrow the UK parliament managed to pass a law completely changing the voting system of the UK, it would only need to exceed 50% of votes cast to come into force. I hope that answers your question :)
Thing is, the "European/American sense" is about codified constitutions, which all mainland European countries (and Ireland and Iceland) and the US have. Britain's constitution is uncodified
You might find your answers at The English Constitution Society.
So its Cause 9 of the Magna Carter that gives legal independence to the City of London Corporation (aka the Square Mile).
One of the financial capitals of the world , with all its international investment banks , and offshore banking islands .
.
6:56 Ferb, I know what we're doing today!
Thank god i found you dude
9:13 hysterical
I love your videos so much, sending love from Québec!!!
For NI what did you mean “for now” I’d die to hold onto to it. if anything if Ireland got into a row with Europe as it has opposed the eu many times, and that the Irish president few years ago said rejoining wouldn’t be bad, and it’s economically beneficial and there’s many unionists still in the other northern provinces. Ireland could fully reunite with Britain. Stronger together!
Fuck off Anglo, Tiocfaidh ár lá.
@@aidancollins1591 What day and when will it come? What are you gonna do with your tiny little population and lack of support and GDP. We still protect you, you lot don't realise that.
@@gubgub3275 Census numbers, ever since 1983 our side was guaranteed to be a majority in NI. It is almost so. The Irish lobby in the USA will make sure the GFA stands. Ireland will unite under Sinn Féin sometime in the next couple decades ;)