As an American who has toured England and saw a number of monarchy-related attractions, I can say that my interest and experience would have been exactly the same whether there was an active monarchy or not
I think its more because he is an IRA sympathizing Catholic monkey skull faced ape that does not belong on this island, he should go back to where his people come from, I mean seriously his name is O'Connor that is as British as Singapore chow mein, but seriously if he hates monarchy why doesnt he just go back to Ireland like the papist he is
Lol what has that got to do with anything culture is everything literally everything nothing is more important than culture and heritage is also important it's a gain to the UK no real cost why apart from being bitter would you be against it
"Why are you a pro-monarch?" Would be the broader, more globally honest question. And with the average answer that doesn't go much deeper than "But it's pretty and traditional", the question still stands.
Well said. Why are there no movements of not to re-establish the monarchy in countries that have already abolished it? Simple, the claims made in its favour have little, if any basis in reality, and the harms caused by monarchy are evident when you're not surrounded by the establishment propaganda supporting it.
When a political system is stable, then, yes, you absolutely do need a specific, "good-enough" reason to overhaul it, and you do not need a reason beyond tradition to maintain the status-quo.
@@davidlamb1107 Sure. It's a very stable system that works in the favour of the establishment, to the detriment of 99% of us, and we can't change it because our constitution as it stands is a stitch up. Stability is only one half of the picture. It has to be beneficial to the populace, too.
@@davidlamb1107 Abolishing the monarchy would not amount to overhauling the political system. As monarchists are often quick to point out, the monarchy essentially has no political power or relevance. It's purely symbolic.
Why does noone ever wrestle the morality of it? It is deeply immoral to have one specific family have insane public funded wealth and privilege thrust upon them in perpetuity purely because of hereditary bloodline, earned by conquest.
That's why the anti-democrats' first line of defence is to talk about the imaginary financial benefit. It's such an absurd claim, and built on the basis of such outrageous lies that discussion descends into arguments about who owns the crown estate, rather than whether it's right to tell our own children they will never be the equal of the latest Saxe Coburg und Gotha sprog, who we have meanwhile splashed photographs of all over newspapers and magazines for the gratification of dirty old dears.
Yup. Every parent in the country should revile it. Wanna tell their kids that they “can be anything they want to be” except this one thing that requires you to have been inbred into a particular family
@@bruhdabonesex-con. big fallout from a video he made about 2 years ago where it was alleged he was essentially using a sex worker (with whom he was apparently friends) to make up / exaggerate child SA / ritual SA allegations against famous people for views. He was very big into covering institutional SA early on in his channel. Also interviewed some known kooks on similar subjects who have turned out to either be chomos themselves or have lied about their allegations against powerful people
Forgive me for saying, this is a compliment, Alex you went full Hitchens Mode on this one, making obvious the absurdity of it all. I have liked Shaun Attwood for a few years now. As an interviewer he takes no sides and is also a very good listener, allowing his guests to speak their mind for as long as they need. Great clip.
@@andresdubon2608 He has certainly acquired many Hitchens-isms, I see them as well. But yes, he has a great way of not offending while speaking honestly, something very un-Hitchens-like. I guess that may come in time, when his cynicism and humour really come out in full force lol. He has the potential to be The Hitch Reborn.
@@Truffle_Pup The sharp verbal lashes of Hitch were the biggest opponent against his own arguments, but it would also get the audience on his side, which resonates with all of his appearances. Alex has the intellect, wit and mannerisms, but not the humour.
@@MrYelly I agree, only I would argue he has two out of those three. To claim all four, and the other two are surely within his grasp, comes a phantom fifth, the final caveat - Experience. Wit and Humour are twins, and these days those twins can get you in a lot of trouble with people who don't like what you are saying in the first place. A very delicate balance for one without Experience.
@@Truffle_Pup That is intresting, I have always believed that one of Hitchens biggest pluses was his way of politely calling their opponents out. He sure knew (and enjoyed) how to put on a show, but when he wasn't intentionally doing so, he was quite charming and was able to up the stakes into a level of seriousness that I feel was very much welcomed by his opponents.
@@lenwilkinson672 there’s a process for removing the PM, so I guess if we wanted to we would, right? There’s currently no way to get rid of these british cousin-fuckers.
While you're at it, replace the House of Lords with an elected Senate. That's what we've got here in Australia. It works. Imagine how much worse the monarchy is fur us Aussies - our head of state is the monarch of a foreign country. It's about time we had another referendum about a becoming a republic
At least there is a strong republican movement in Australia. Here in Canada, most people are either apathetic or are perfectly happy to have a foreigner and chinless fool be king and head of state our our country.
I forgot the specific details, but I'm pretty sure the monarchy has actually interfered in Australian politics to the detriment of the democracy, in the 70s I believe. If I recall correctly, the Governor General, who is technically the Royal representative and rules at the behest of the British monarch, actually used his supposedly symbolic powers to remove a prime minister from office. I'd have to look it up but I'm pretty sure I didn't just dream this.
You completely hit the nail here Alex. I cannot think of a single reason to retain the monarchy other than nostalgia for its wornout & eclipsed place in history. Still love the UK *despite* the royal presence.
You don't need to think of a single reason to retain the monarchy. The authority to change the constitutional settlement of the country does not lie with you.
The fact that you can't think of a single reason, tells me you are lacking a very specific emotion. Like how narcissists and sociopaths can't feel empathy. That emotion is sort of akin to the feeling you get at a concert, when you're one with the crowd. A sort of mystical transcendence that you're part of something bigger, not just an individual. Movies with hidden layers of deep symbolic meanings must mean absolutely nothing to you, and it saddens me you are living such a life in obliviousness, not knowing what you're missing, and being happy about it.
@@dennisgoatimer1079what do you find great about them? Genuinly interested as someone who doesn't really have strong feelings about the royals. UTV by the way.
@@samuelloification2749 Well one it's a deterrent to any tyrannical regime in this country stomping it out if it ever gets that far with a efficient system to make sure if the head of state does die it will be replaced instantly unlike in Germany in the 30s after President Paul Von Hindenburg died no one was around to stop Mr Austrian man in Germany we don't have that problem. Two they bring in more money into this country then the cost to keep them. Three it's British culture and tradition that puts us on the world map more so then without them which affects point two. Four it's a good political tool to help out in terms of crisis like the late Queen's speech during COVID helped many get through tough times or back in the past with Princess Margaret helping calm down tensions with the US after the Suez Canal incident. Plus them being a figure to be a great public influence when The Queen passed many felt saddened like they lost a auntie it's like a secondary family for many me included. UTV
Comparing human behavior to animals/insects is useless. I do agree with your point 100% but please don't use animal analogies to justify human behavior.
From Eastern Europe here, among the more politically progressively minded people , the prevailing attitude is "what exactly gives the UK the right to speak to ANYONE about democracy, when their head of state claims that the creator of the universe empowers them to rule". And while Eastern Europe probably doesn't inspire the idea of democratic thought to the average westerner, you have to understand that among the younger generations, 30/40/50 year old's, the conversations on democracy, rule of law, self governance and liberty are very passionate, very serious subjects, since the baggage of communism is very strong among the older generations, and we generally have a practical understanding of just how fragile liberty is.
19:38 Just to add to this point, even if they were driving the bulk of tourism into the country (which they aren't), they wouldn't be 'paying for themselves'. Because who gets that tourism money? Businesses, mostly big ones. And who pays for the monarchy to exist? The taxpayer. So it's not 'paying for itself', it's a wealth transfer from mostly middle/working class taxpayers to big businesses.
I feel like that's inaccurate. I'd assume that most of the money gained through tourism belongs to the state, so it would actually be used to support public services. In this scenario, the monarchy does actually play for themselves, in the sense that the money that they help make helps in running the infrastructures that everyone uses. If the taxes that you pay to run the monarchy actually do decrease other public expenses by a bigger ammout than what you would play if the monarchy didn't exist, then the monarchy is, at the very least, useful.
How do you think tourism works… people just come over and pay money to the government? Tourists come and buy things and that money goes to businesses. Sure a portion of that will go to the government in the form of taxes but by no means the majority of it. However the bigger issue is that the monarchy doesn’t generate any tourism. Sure people might come to see Buckingham palace or whatever- but people will still come to see that even if you abolish the monarchy as an institution
@@sanstheblaster2626 Not only does most tourism money not go to the government, but the royal family are also not obliged to pay taxes on their end. When other governments want to boost tourism, they might pay marketing firms, event organisers, construction companies et al to provide services to that end. All of that is taxable, and after the expenditure you actually have something to show for it. You built a new museum, you improved the catalogue of local attractions, you hosted annual events which build new interest for tourism. When you throw hundreds of millions at the royal family every year instead, you don't get any new infrastructure, any new branding, any consolidation of information for tourists. And to add insult to injury, the money you invested in the royal family wasn't even subject to tax.
@@Hankblue I feel like only a statistical analysis can settle this. I am not fully convinced that the boost to tourism that having an active monarchy provides is as irrelevant as you all make it out to be, but I am open to change my mind in the face of objective data. Does anyone here have any source to back up their claims? Not that I'm basing mine on anything other than intuitions, but I feel like, when you want to change who the head of state should be, the burden of proof should rest on you.
It is so refreshing to listen to you on this topic Alex. Thank you for the upload. It is concerning how many people mindlessly accept and even cherish such an obsolete institution.
@@dennisgoatimer1079 As an institution, the Monarchy is fundamentally at odds with modern democracy. As Alex said, the Royal family would still remain more than capable of providing similar public services after having their various unnecessary privileges revoked (tax exemptions, political influence, taxpayer funding, immunity in regards to certain laws, etc). They would become normal citizens, albeit very rich and influentual.
@@BiggyJimbo Oh so it can stop government mainly the Prime Minister from going Tyrannical would it be such a boom for a economy by bringing in the tourists no it wouldn't. Would it be able to be used as a political tool to fix the Prime Minister's mistakes like after the Suez Canal incident the monarchy was used to make peace with the US. Not to mention the weekly meetings for the Prime Minister to voice out his opinions to someone on the outside to make sure they get their point across and make any changes when they do go into the House of Commons. It's a good tool for the Prime Minister aswell that would stop if they get rid of the monarchy as well as them getting the red box to update them on current goings on to question the Prime Minister when he does visit typically on a Wednesday to again to get them to actually say out loud what they think. You can check on the quotes of the former Prime Minister's of this country on the Queen and how much she helped them during their tenure in office by being that stable voice of reason a little old debate if you will. So no getting rid of the monarchy wouldn't bring the same thing to the country if they just did their charity work.
One creepy thing about the monarchy is its ardent supporters. When I ask them if they would accept an Irish style presidency, which acts much like the British monarch but it's cheaper and democratic, in which Charles, etc could decide if they wanted to run for the position of head of state, they say no. Because of how popular they still are I assume a royal could win the presidency easily but royalists don't seem to want them to have a choice in the matter because they know the royals would probably decline if they no longer saw it as a duty. They want the royals in a goldfish bowl for their amusement.
There's nothing creepy about it at all. The British monarchy, and all monarchies really, serve a very particular psychological function that seems to appeal to specific personality types. It represents order and stability and perseverance - as well as countless other things (identity, etc.). It is not just some whimsical phenomena but appears to point to something deep and engrained in the psyche. There is something quite transcendental about it. Humans seem to love ritual and symbolism and hierarchies that there's just something about a managerial system that does not appeal to people.
I appreciate that I didn't know, the entire way trough, which side was the interviewer on. There was something that bugged me until I realized that's what was missing, I was re-programmed to hear interviews where interviewers push their own points forward as much as guests or more. 1. That is a sad realization to have - that this is exceptional now 2. Again appreciate the interviewer
Droning down a list of questions is great at creating distance and impartiality, but I really miss that engagement and interaction with the words being said. At least lead into your next question by using a response to the last one.
@@DaBIONICLEFan in the absolute monarchy the "royal family" is the state... In an "intellectocracy", things would be little different from current superficial democracies.
I have no idea where this notion that getting rid of the monarchy means you HAVE to adopt a presidential system comes from. As things stand we literally just pretend the Prime Minister has to get permission from the monarch to form a government. We could equally pretend that the Prime Minister has to go to Stonehenge and dance around naked singing "OOGA BOOGA OOGA BOOGA" in order to form a government. That would be equally as made-up and equally as comical.
I totally disagree. He posseses impressive cognitive ability, but absolutely lacks wisdom, which cannot be achieved exclusively through reasoning, which is the only thing he relies upon
So the trick is, go way back in time, declare yourself king of some land, ordained by God, and then for 1000's of years, your family will live in absolute luxury, privilege, and celebrity or sport star-like fame. Silly? Sure, but that's exactly what happened if you go back far enough in the British monarchy. Seems one dude just said, "Hey, losers, God says I'm the King of this piece of land."
The idea that the monarchy "held the country together' is an incredibly silly idea from a historical perspective. The largest Empire in the world is now down to the island of Britainia and a little bit of Ireland. And even that rump state is likely to brake up even further in not to long. I mean when the state is reduced to England and Wales are we still going to be hearing about how the monarchy holds the country together? He'll even some of the Welsh are getting uppity. What good is an English King if he can't even keep the Welsh in line?
The greatest threat to the monarchy is the monarchy itself. I think with today's online political radicalization, its likely that there will come a Monarchy, perhaps after Charles, that will start to act outside of norms we have been used to under Elizabeth. As you said, Trump as an unelected head would likely bring further restrictions to the monarchy or at worst, its dissolution.
@GansGreutz It rarely does because it is not relevant at all, as mentioned in the video. Why get that angry at them when they have no real power? As Alex says, the biggest reason to be angry is the social injustice they represent, and the principle and _potential_ danger of the lifelong office. The US president has actual, sweeping powers so that people get angry when their views and opinions are not represented at the highest Level, even if the views they hold are obviously bullshit, is at least to me obvious.
@@GansGreuts I would argue most of the younger generations do not care about the monarchy at all, meaning that once the older generations go away, the power of uniting the country will slowly disappear with the support for the monarchy
As an American, I can say that while I personally see the English monarchy as a waste of potentially taxable income for the government, many in this country just look at the crown and think of how pretty it is.
@@awesome3139 Exactly! There's so much money locked up in church assets, and the government is in trillions of dollars of debt. Why not tax the religious institutions?
I think that abolishing the Monarchy is important, because the Royal Family still have a disproportionate level of personal power, not to mention their rarely mentioned emergency powers.
Also the power in the Commonwealth countries like Australia which are not republics, where in 1975 the Governor General...the Queen's Representative and head of state at the behest of the opposition political party dismissed the elected Labor Government!
I never understood why the monarchy had such great support. Ever since I was a kid I thought it was strange. On the one hand we believe in evolution and democratic processes, but on the other we believe one family is literally superior to all others by birth right. It's bizarre.
Yes, that's why that argument isn't ever used. Instead, the seemingly-plausible assertions that they are good for the economy, tourism, charity, or even the last-ditch defence against tyranny are rolled out by the propagandists.
Can we start interviewing scottish people about this? Some people only started thinking about the monarchy since the queen died or the coronation, we think and talk about it all the time in common discourse. Its crazy how much people dont know about our general outlook on life and britain in general! Just ask us!
Tbh being anti-monarchy isn't the tricky position to defend anymore. The only people left who really defend monarchy are the "hangings too good for them" end of conservatism, they are the ones with the uphill battle.
I became a republican from my experiences in the Air Cadets and observing the theist vs atheist debate on UA-cam during the golden age of UA-cam 2006-2014
I really would love to see him do a podcast with an anarchist, i think it would very fascinating and informative. Plus rarely are discussions had with the far left and in my biased opinion it would be far more beneficial
8:50 It is not a vestige. It is immense power as an institution. You can't simply look at the monarch or the royal family and think that is the extent of a monarchy. An entire cleptocratic oligarchy is interwoven in that as a system.
If they weren't there tomorrow then all would be fine. We have a PM. Whilst we are at it, lets abolish the House of so say Lords. Lets have a peoples chamber of elected experts in the various fields with a bias to science, engineering, maths and technology.
The Lords is a completely corrupt institution. Letting an outgoing prime minister like Johnson reward his mates is so wrong. Also the membership of the second chamber is far too big and having bishops involved has no place.
It looks to me like people from the UK associate having a president with the president having a lot of power (like US or France) , but the president can be a ceremonial office with as little power as you want.
Well I don't see any practical way to expropriate them of their private wealth. Would you just leave them destitute since all of their wealth was unfairly earned? Is this not unfair, since the royals could have been earning money had they not been royals? I think the government should just take everything that belongs to the crown itself. But the royals should be allowed to keep their private wealth and estates.
Your neighbours in Ireland have a very similar system except we elect a president every 7 years. They are similar to your monarch but rather than having a symbolic position, they have final say on changes to the law. Apart from that, they are more or less a figurehead and representative of the country while the PM (Taoiseach) runs the place.
Alex, I've enjoyed your content for some time now--mostly agreeing with various arguments and conclusions--but I have to say, I've noticed a marked improvement in your debate skills, for lack of a more concise term. You make your points clearly, answer questions quickly and concisely, and those answers seem more confident than in the past. I don't know if you've taken to preparing more rigorously, or if you're just more comfortable having done various types of speaking over the years, but bravo. We may still have some subtle disagreements regarding animal farming, but I'd be afraid to publicly discuss it with you. Lol
The monarchy is a "LUDICROUS INSTITUTION". Exactly!!! I'm of the opinion that the UK doesn't have a written constitution (similar to what most other first world countries have) to protect the "royalty". Any written constitution would specify equality of all and insist on the law being applied without exception.
The king shouldn’t be meeting weekly with the PM of the day as did the queen. This means they have influence over the political process and legislation however they can’t be voted out
Shaun Attwood in this video has had one of the most interesting lives of anyone still living. If you don’t know about him, he was basically the Wolf of Wall Street times ten, was an ecstasy kingpin in Arizona, was in jail in America for ten years, and now became quite a big UA-camr covering things from his experiences as well as true crime and conspiracies
Sometimes I am so distraught about how i have wasted my life, learnt nothing and achieved nothing. But I go to sleep peacefully knowing that monarchists exist too
@@dennisgoatimer1079 As part of a dwindling majority, soon to be part of a dwindling minority, you'll need to get used to the 'great institution' being one of the past.
@@Fordnan It's the majority of the British public's opinion that the monarchy is great we don't give a damn what foreigners say on that matter which even then there's a good amount that like our monarchy
@@dennisgoatimer1079 It's a majority at the moment, yes. But it's 62%, down from 75% a decade ago. And if you ask people why they feel positive about the monarchy, they tend to acknowledge that it is an outdatd institution, but that it is at worst harmless, and at best a financial benefit to the country. If their misconceptions are addressed, they rapidly realise it is in our best interests to abolish the monarchy and enact constitutional reform.
@@dennisgoatimer1079 And, just to address the rather insulting attitude toward 'foreigners', aren't Australians supposed to be our dear cousins? They have to endure the monarchy, too. The sooner they become a republic, the better things will be for us, too.
it seems natural to me to end on a high note. society has changed rapidly in 70 years and the monarchy should have ended with our longest reigning most respected monarch
the reason youre the best debator, is you play the most thorough devil's advocate. I see you argue against your own opinion constantly. something even other great skeptic debatists (like sam harris and christopher hitchens) cant claim. you are something special dude. you inspire the best of conversation.
Honestly i think the monarchy is weird. Before I had herd much about the monarchy in the UK i thought it had already been abolished. I thought all their political powers had been stripped from them, and that they didnt have any exemption from the laws. Could be that my thoughts before were motivated by what i learned of the magna carta, and i somehow connected it to the UK instead of England. Could also be that i just didnt know much about it because as Alex pointed out the former queen didnt do much.
Am American and when I think of Britain I think of London, Big Ben, tea breaks, pubs, and really old buildings and churches. I never really think of the Queen until I see the currency. Like… Have zero interest in visiting Buckingham Palace. Unfortunately not really interested in visiting a zoo either because I think they’re unethical.
Agreed about zoos, but in essence the royal family is worse. What are the royals if not exotic zoo exhibits? Little wonder they grow up with very questionable personality traits.
Until now, the notion had never truly crossed my mind, but the designation "Mr. President" strikes me as remarkably unassuming when bestowed upon the individual entrusted with guiding a nation.
I don't understand why we insist on single leadership for our political institutions? The best of humanity comes from cooperation, not placing one person in a position to abuse the most power. If everyone in a political party had to contribute equally to leadership, I think we'd be vastly better served.
As a citizen of the US, I’ve never understood the interest in the monarchy. They are vestigial organs from a system of government that has no place in the modern world. Pretty much every nation on the planet does just fine without institutionalized heritable celebrity. Why do people think Britain needs them? Tourism? Britain isn’t so boring that nobody would visit without a king. Rallying around king and country? Most people care more for family and friends. This debate has basically no impact on my life, but for what it’s worth I think Britain would be better off without the monarchy.
Spot on. Unfortunately, we're so steeped in establishment propaganda here that people believe the monarchy to be something other than a financial drain on the country, with considerably more damage to our democracy than any claimed benefits they supposedly bring. Thank you for sharing your view, though, it might help persuade at least someone of the ridiculousness of the arguments put forward to support the monarchy.
The problem isn't that you can't make an excellent case for getting rid of the monarchy. It's that the case never comes with a detailed plan of what comes next or you can't get agreement on what comes next. Until we have that then I prefer to keep them.
When we decide to abolish the monarchy, then we can decide. It needs a national debate. And evidently you don't understand the cost of the monarchy. It's hard to come up with something much worse.
@@Fordnan As an Aussie I can tell you that if you don't get that then people will vote to keep monarchy. Our referendum in the 90s failed for exactly that reason. The people who didn't like the proposed model to come next voted against it despite prefering a Republic over the Monarchy. I understand the cost. It costs us a small fortune just to get the monarch out here for a visit. All I'm saying is that this is one conversation where you can't really say "this bad and we should change it" without what you intend to change it to. Saying "I don't know" to the obvious 1st question allows people to dismiss you pretty quickly as simply complaining.
@@dansharp2860 I'm not talking about financial cost, I'm talking about the democratic cost (which I find it hard to believe some Aussies can remain in the dark about), and the moral and ethical cost. I don't know the details of your unsuccessful referendum, I had read that it was more complex than a simple yes/no. The problem with outlining anyone's personal plan at this stage is that the plan then comes under attack. In the run up to a referendum, we would have to state a timetable for change, which would probably involve a second referendum to determine the most popular option from a suite of solutions which are already often raised.
@@Fordnan The basic problem with the 90s vote was that it was decided that we would replace the Governor General with a President that would be voted for by 2/3rds majority parlimentary vote. This was a package deal vote not 2 separate questions on removing then monarchy then how to go about the next step. A large enough percentage of voters wanted a popular vote that they voted to keep the monarchy out of spite and the referendum failed. There's more to it but I think that was the major issue. This why I think having a plan to begin with is needed because you are going to be debating that far more than if you should get rid of that useless and costly (in every sense of the word) old family.
I think that some British people like the monarchy the way some usa people like pennies. Pennies don't really actually serve any purpose anymore but we love them and don't want them to go away.
But what if those pennies have a certain leverage or political control over you? And they could leave that power with the very next penny you hold, would you not start freaking out, if ever so slightly?
Britain doesn't necessarily need to have a president. A president is just a republican monarch. We could just have a vacant crown, where the monarch is imaginary. UK law has sections already which partially allow for this; Demise of the crown. In other monarchies, when the monarch dies all government positions cease to exist- that is not the case in the UK. We have political continuation already, we don't need a monarch.
American here, I personally think Democracy is the way to go! I'm for more than our two pitiful parties! But, I never understood what is the point of the Monarchy. Ordained by God!? 😳 uh, NO! It's not my country, but why waste the taxes on the rich? What do they actually do? ❤🖖
Is a person, who wants to rule over themselves, an anarchist? Even stateless-socialist type of Anarchists see the utility of working together in organizations; how else could Anarchy work. I think the quip, 'be careful what you ask for,' was not thought out very well.
Yeah that comment didn't seem like it was asked by an anarchist, however the fact that Alex has at least some understanding of anarchism that he can recognize anarchist like ideas is nice. Also yeah Alex's comment wasn't the best, seems like he just isn't well educated about anarchism
As a Canadian, I'm very similar to the amercains, and relate to what you said. I want you guys to have a monarch because it's "fun", but get the monarchy out of my country lol
I like Shaun's work, glad you did this and i enjoyed it more than i expected to, lol. I think the contentiousness is more about the fact that the monarchy is largely symbolic, so they're not supporting "monarchy" as a system of governance, but *this specific* "monarchy" as a living breathing museum exhibit, not that I support it in that case either, but that being the case, I think there's a lot of people talking past each other here.
Aside from the monarchy, it seems we humans put undue importance on lots of crazy stuff, such as placing celebrities or sport stars on pedestals, often for arbitrary reasons such as "He scored lots of goals in the child's game I love.", or "I really like the movies that she is in." Even worse is when we idolize and make celebrity out of reality TV stars, who often have no skill or make any meaningful contribution to society whatsoever. Why do we do this? If there was no monarchy, the British people, along with everyone else, would STILL find others to place on pedestals to worship, for similar arbitrary reasons as to why the royals are worshiped..."God" said they are more important than the rest of us.
Yeah plus they as rich billionaire powerful privileged individuals aren't held to the stringent social "moral" standards as us average joe nobodies ie if they're guilty of something the accountability is way far less than normal yet the forgetability is way bigger or higher even though its yet another upside down systems in an upside down world that which makes FA sense....obviously but no doubt that a big reason for its fkn continuation and more than likely permanent existence....
Well, yes, it's a fundamental part of our psyche. But we don't need people placed in front of us to look up to. Perhaps our boss, an inspirational author, there are lots of people we can look up to for genuine reasons. We won't miss a monarchy nobody who knows about them respects anyway.
@@Fordnan how is looking up to an author any different to a footballer? All you are doing is revealing your own bias and values. Ppl are always going to look up to ppl involved in fields they're interested in and being snobbish about it won't change anything. Hero worshipping authors or brainiacs is just as bad or good as hero worshipping a footballer. Ppl who are secure in themselves and mature don't need to look up to anyone
I think there might be some civic benefits to having a king vs. not having, but its difficult to weigh whether its worth to invest so much into this kind of culture. Certainly helps with UK's picture, I can't imagine imagining England without the Royal Family, London, Double Decker buses.
yep. we should abolish the monarchy. who needs monarchy in the modern world? Let them keep at least ONE royal palace as their own property. If this is Sandringham, Balmoral, Highgrove, etc. so be it. But Buckingham Palace, Holyrood, Stormont, etc. should be public museums and palaces upon to all. Just like Versailles or former German royal palaces.
This is just "Well what would rather have, smart guy?" the show. Just because you cannot see the world any other does not mean there isn't another way to see it.
The "most powerful woman on earth" was only so powerful and popular because she "dutifully" did what she was supposed to ie what she was told to do by the more powerful men she was surrounded by ...she got there and stayed there because she was an obedient "good little girl"!!!! Which makes u think of another conversational dimension....ie who's really in charge behind the fancy play acting and wizard of oz-style smokescreen and is it still a boys club undercover??? (Ps) Plus wtf is the problem or people's problem with Joe biden??? I get it with trump....but he's better than trump by Miles....it just makes one realise that no matter who's in charge or the system in place there'll always be lovers/admirers and goons aswell as haters/detractors+naysayers
I know Alex is trying to diplomatic but I feel like he's soft pedalling his own philosophy without realising it. We should abolish the monarchy and transition into a secular federal republic with a constitution, a bill of rights, declaration of independence, a separation of power among legislative, executive and judicial branch, separation of church and state.
We would have a parliamentary Head of State, similar to Ireland’s President. A president not involved in political decisions A president upholding the laws of our newly written constitution.
I like the idea of allocating the role of king or queen to a person randomly selected from the pool of people who have been rewarded honours (allocated democratically) to serve for 5 years. Politically-neutral, genuinely someone who has served the country in some way, and deserving of the easy life for a few years.
@@FordnanYes, it works quite well. In the Czech Republic we recently elected a new president and while he's not in any way perfect, he does the representative role quite well. And (because for 10 years before that our president was almost completely useless) it made me realise that it's good to have a person who's the leader of the country but does all the ceremonial/charity-related stuff. Basically what the British royal family does. But without the tax exceptions and while being voted in and replaced as any other politician.
It is so funny to me that the only alternative British people see to having a monarch is the US model. In Germany we have a system that would probably be more reasonable than the American system. There is a head of government (Bundeskanzler) who is determined through a public vote. Furthermore, there is a head of state (Bundespräsident) who is elected by the elected through the House of representatives and a few others every five years. The Bundespräsident's role is almost the same as the role of the British monarch (no direct political power, veto rights over laws, lives in a castle, represents the country). The main difference is that he is elected.
In Ireland we have one of the most visited castles in the world Blarney Castle and all we had to do is convince gullible American tourist that if they kiss a dirty old rock built into it they get magical powers😂😂😂
As an American who has toured England and saw a number of monarchy-related attractions, I can say that my interest and experience would have been exactly the same whether there was an active monarchy or not
If anything, I imagine you'd be more interested if you were actually able to enter Buckingham Palace and see all the rooms
@@PhilosophicalTramp-lu2mi that's a really good point. I agree!
@@PhilosophicalTramp-lu2mi Turning Buckingham Palace into a museum or monument would be a great tourist attraction.
Yet many come from the USA specifically for royal events same from around the world for various reasons
I actually think it would be better. Think the Louvre or Versailles. All the palaces open all year round.
Being anti-monarchy is such a mind-blowingly obvious stance it's crazy anyone wants a monarchy.
Something, something something something; something something. British Culture something something, Piers Morgan something, something. Megan Markle something Britain.
@@kwisatzhaderach9087 I'm convinced
@@kwisatzhaderach9087 I'm convinced as well
@@kwisatzhaderach9087Damn. I did not think of that. I am convinced.
ROYAL BRITTANIA
This Alex guy is way better than that CosmicSkeptic guy. Glad to have him as the new face of the channel.
Instagram comments: lol dude it's the same person 🤦🤦🤦
@@ghfacta2 quick question: can you explain the meaning of sarcasm?
He's better looking as well
Probably grew out of the babyish pseudonym.
@@ghfacta2please tell me you're being ironic. I can't tell on the fucking internet anymore...
“Why are you against monarchy?” -Because we’re not in the bloody Middle Ages.
I think its more because he is an IRA sympathizing Catholic monkey skull faced ape that does not belong on this island, he should go back to where his people come from, I mean seriously his name is O'Connor that is as British as Singapore chow mein, but seriously if he hates monarchy why doesnt he just go back to Ireland like the papist he is
that's the most british anti-monarchy argument ever
Yup. Well said mate
Lol what has that got to do with anything culture is everything literally everything nothing is more important than culture and heritage is also important it's a gain to the UK no real cost why apart from being bitter would you be against it
@@davidevans3223 'no real cost' except £50-100m for putting a fancy hat on an old man? 🤡
"Why are you a pro-monarch?" Would be the broader, more globally honest question. And with the average answer that doesn't go much deeper than "But it's pretty and traditional", the question still stands.
Well said.
Why are there no movements of not to re-establish the monarchy in countries that have already abolished it? Simple, the claims made in its favour have little, if any basis in reality, and the harms caused by monarchy are evident when you're not surrounded by the establishment propaganda supporting it.
When a political system is stable, then, yes, you absolutely do need a specific, "good-enough" reason to overhaul it, and you do not need a reason beyond tradition to maintain the status-quo.
@@davidlamb1107 Sure. It's a very stable system that works in the favour of the establishment, to the detriment of 99% of us, and we can't change it because our constitution as it stands is a stitch up. Stability is only one half of the picture. It has to be beneficial to the populace, too.
Lol anti-monarchism is common sense at this point.
@@davidlamb1107 Abolishing the monarchy would not amount to overhauling the political system.
As monarchists are often quick to point out, the monarchy essentially has no political power or relevance. It's purely symbolic.
Why does noone ever wrestle the morality of it? It is deeply immoral to have one specific family have insane public funded wealth and privilege thrust upon them in perpetuity purely because of hereditary bloodline, earned by conquest.
That's why the anti-democrats' first line of defence is to talk about the imaginary financial benefit. It's such an absurd claim, and built on the basis of such outrageous lies that discussion descends into arguments about who owns the crown estate, rather than whether it's right to tell our own children they will never be the equal of the latest Saxe Coburg und Gotha sprog, who we have meanwhile splashed photographs of all over newspapers and magazines for the gratification of dirty old dears.
THE ELECTED "LEADERS" LIKE A BORIS JOHNSON ARE MUCH BETTER ?!
Yes! 100% yes!
@@melodyecho4156 YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GOT !
Yup. Every parent in the country should revile it. Wanna tell their kids that they “can be anything they want to be” except this one thing that requires you to have been inbred into a particular family
Alex is always full of wisdom. Never tire listening to him.
This is a collaboration I never expected
Now there’s a couple of strange bedfellows
@@whyohwhy555completely disagree. Shaun is a great example of a reformed man
@@whyohwhy555what did he do
@@bruhdabones like the queen he was passive. all he did was read comments and not engage whatsoever
@@bruhdabonesex-con. big fallout from a video he made about 2 years ago where it was alleged he was essentially using a sex worker (with whom he was apparently friends) to make up / exaggerate child SA / ritual SA allegations against famous people for views. He was very big into covering institutional SA early on in his channel. Also interviewed some known kooks on similar subjects who have turned out to either be chomos themselves or have lied about their allegations against powerful people
Forgive me for saying, this is a compliment, Alex you went full Hitchens Mode on this one, making obvious the absurdity of it all.
I have liked Shaun Attwood for a few years now. As an interviewer he takes no sides and is also a very good listener, allowing his guests to speak their mind for as long as they need. Great clip.
Just the mannerisms he has acquired from Hitchens makes him so entertaining. 😂
Although I tend to enjoy his own ideas as well.
@@andresdubon2608 He has certainly acquired many Hitchens-isms, I see them as well. But yes, he has a great way of not offending while speaking honestly, something very un-Hitchens-like. I guess that may come in time, when his cynicism and humour really come out in full force lol. He has the potential to be The Hitch Reborn.
@@Truffle_Pup The sharp verbal lashes of Hitch were the biggest opponent against his own arguments, but it would also get the audience on his side, which resonates with all of his appearances. Alex has the intellect, wit and mannerisms, but not the humour.
@@MrYelly I agree, only I would argue he has two out of those three. To claim all four, and the other two are surely within his grasp, comes a phantom fifth, the final caveat - Experience.
Wit and Humour are twins, and these days those twins can get you in a lot of trouble with people who don't like what you are saying in the first place. A very delicate balance for one without Experience.
@@Truffle_Pup
That is intresting, I have always believed that one of Hitchens biggest pluses was his way of politely calling their opponents out.
He sure knew (and enjoyed) how to put on a show, but when he wasn't intentionally doing so, he was quite charming and was able to up the stakes into a level of seriousness that I feel was very much welcomed by his opponents.
As a Canadian, I’m right there with you. We have even less reason to keep the British monarchy.
Abolishing the monarch for the UK is a different issue than to remove Canada from the commonwealth
@beepart1 You lot havnt the ball to remove your own P.M. Then you can be taken seriously.😊
@@lenwilkinson672 there’s a process for removing the PM, so I guess if we wanted to we would, right? There’s currently no way to get rid of these british cousin-fuckers.
@@chesster5981 it’s not exactly the same, is it?
@@beepart1 exactly…
While you're at it, replace the House of Lords with an elected Senate. That's what we've got here in Australia. It works.
Imagine how much worse the monarchy is fur us Aussies - our head of state is the monarch of a foreign country. It's about time we had another referendum about a becoming a republic
At least there is a strong republican movement in Australia. Here in Canada, most people are either apathetic or are perfectly happy to have a foreigner and chinless fool be king and head of state our our country.
Not gonna lie mate, the australian government may be even more messed up than the bri'ish one.
@@MrYelly In what ways?
My ancestors took action against King George. Australia should rebel as well, albeit more peacefully.
I forgot the specific details, but I'm pretty sure the monarchy has actually interfered in Australian politics to the detriment of the democracy, in the 70s I believe.
If I recall correctly, the Governor General, who is technically the Royal representative and rules at the behest of the British monarch, actually used his supposedly symbolic powers to remove a prime minister from office.
I'd have to look it up but I'm pretty sure I didn't just dream this.
You completely hit the nail here Alex.
I cannot think of a single reason to retain the monarchy other than nostalgia for its wornout & eclipsed place in history.
Still love the UK *despite* the royal presence.
It's annoying to be in the uk during the days of royal madness though.
@@lepetitchat123 can't relate to the struggle 🙈
AND there is so much more to Great Britain than just the monarchy itself!
You don't need to think of a single reason to retain the monarchy. The authority to change the constitutional settlement of the country does not lie with you.
The fact that you can't think of a single reason, tells me you are lacking a very specific emotion. Like how narcissists and sociopaths can't feel empathy. That emotion is sort of akin to the feeling you get at a concert, when you're one with the crowd. A sort of mystical transcendence that you're part of something bigger, not just an individual.
Movies with hidden layers of deep symbolic meanings must mean absolutely nothing to you, and it saddens me you are living such a life in obliviousness, not knowing what you're missing, and being happy about it.
Thank you for talking about this. I’ve always found monarchies extremely weird, you worded my tumbling thoughts brilliantly
It may be weird to some but it's a great institution
@@dennisgoatimer1079 yeah. A useless, corrupt, anachronistic, brilliant institution.
@@dennisgoatimer1079what do you find great about them? Genuinly interested as someone who doesn't really have strong feelings about the royals. UTV by the way.
@@samuelloification2749 Well one it's a deterrent to any tyrannical regime in this country stomping it out if it ever gets that far with a efficient system to make sure if the head of state does die it will be replaced instantly unlike in Germany in the 30s after President Paul Von Hindenburg died no one was around to stop Mr Austrian man in Germany we don't have that problem. Two they bring in more money into this country then the cost to keep them. Three it's British culture and tradition that puts us on the world map more so then without them which affects point two. Four it's a good political tool to help out in terms of crisis like the late Queen's speech during COVID helped many get through tough times or back in the past with Princess Margaret helping calm down tensions with the US after the Suez Canal incident. Plus them being a figure to be a great public influence when The Queen passed many felt saddened like they lost a auntie it's like a secondary family for many me included. UTV
I just want to point out that a queen bee makes no decisions for the colony and if she is failing in her duties they remove her, violently.
Not to mention that the queen bee actually has a purpose
Yes. Well said.
Comparing human behavior to animals/insects is useless. I do agree with your point 100% but please don't use animal analogies to justify human behavior.
From Eastern Europe here, among the more politically progressively minded people , the prevailing attitude is "what exactly gives the UK the right to speak to ANYONE about democracy, when their head of state claims that the creator of the universe empowers them to rule".
And while Eastern Europe probably doesn't inspire the idea of democratic thought to the average westerner, you have to understand that among the younger generations, 30/40/50 year old's, the conversations on democracy, rule of law, self governance and liberty are very passionate, very serious subjects, since the baggage of communism is very strong among the older generations, and we generally have a practical understanding of just how fragile liberty is.
I've already gotten down with abolishing the monarchy
19:38 Just to add to this point, even if they were driving the bulk of tourism into the country (which they aren't), they wouldn't be 'paying for themselves'. Because who gets that tourism money? Businesses, mostly big ones. And who pays for the monarchy to exist? The taxpayer. So it's not 'paying for itself', it's a wealth transfer from mostly middle/working class taxpayers to big businesses.
I feel like that's inaccurate. I'd assume that most of the money gained through tourism belongs to the state, so it would actually be used to support public services. In this scenario, the monarchy does actually play for themselves, in the sense that the money that they help make helps in running the infrastructures that everyone uses. If the taxes that you pay to run the monarchy actually do decrease other public expenses by a bigger ammout than what you would play if the monarchy didn't exist, then the monarchy is, at the very least, useful.
How do you think tourism works… people just come over and pay money to the government?
Tourists come and buy things and that money goes to businesses. Sure a portion of that will go to the government in the form of taxes but by no means the majority of it.
However the bigger issue is that the monarchy doesn’t generate any tourism. Sure people might come to see Buckingham palace or whatever- but people will still come to see that even if you abolish the monarchy as an institution
@@sanstheblaster2626 Not only does most tourism money not go to the government, but the royal family are also not obliged to pay taxes on their end.
When other governments want to boost tourism, they might pay marketing firms, event organisers, construction companies et al to provide services to that end. All of that is taxable, and after the expenditure you actually have something to show for it. You built a new museum, you improved the catalogue of local attractions, you hosted annual events which build new interest for tourism.
When you throw hundreds of millions at the royal family every year instead, you don't get any new infrastructure, any new branding, any consolidation of information for tourists. And to add insult to injury, the money you invested in the royal family wasn't even subject to tax.
@@sanstheblaster2626 More accurate than any benefit that can be described to having a monarchy.
@@Hankblue I feel like only a statistical analysis can settle this. I am not fully convinced that the boost to tourism that having an active monarchy provides is as irrelevant as you all make it out to be, but I am open to change my mind in the face of objective data. Does anyone here have any source to back up their claims? Not that I'm basing mine on anything other than intuitions, but I feel like, when you want to change who the head of state should be, the burden of proof should rest on you.
It is so refreshing to listen to you on this topic Alex. Thank you for the upload. It is concerning how many people mindlessly accept and even cherish such an obsolete institution.
It's not obsolete it's a great institution
@@dennisgoatimer1079 As an institution, the Monarchy is fundamentally at odds with modern democracy. As Alex said, the Royal family would still remain more than capable of providing similar public services after having their various unnecessary privileges revoked (tax exemptions, political influence, taxpayer funding, immunity in regards to certain laws, etc). They would become normal citizens, albeit very rich and influentual.
@@BiggyJimbo Oh so it can stop government mainly the Prime Minister from going Tyrannical would it be such a boom for a economy by bringing in the tourists no it wouldn't. Would it be able to be used as a political tool to fix the Prime Minister's mistakes like after the Suez Canal incident the monarchy was used to make peace with the US. Not to mention the weekly meetings for the Prime Minister to voice out his opinions to someone on the outside to make sure they get their point across and make any changes when they do go into the House of Commons. It's a good tool for the Prime Minister aswell that would stop if they get rid of the monarchy as well as them getting the red box to update them on current goings on to question the Prime Minister when he does visit typically on a Wednesday to again to get them to actually say out loud what they think. You can check on the quotes of the former Prime Minister's of this country on the Queen and how much she helped them during their tenure in office by being that stable voice of reason a little old debate if you will. So no getting rid of the monarchy wouldn't bring the same thing to the country if they just did their charity work.
One creepy thing about the monarchy is its ardent supporters. When I ask them if they would accept an Irish style presidency, which acts much like the British monarch but it's cheaper and democratic, in which Charles, etc could decide if they wanted to run for the position of head of state, they say no. Because of how popular they still are I assume a royal could win the presidency easily but royalists don't seem to want them to have a choice in the matter because they know the royals would probably decline if they no longer saw it as a duty. They want the royals in a goldfish bowl for their amusement.
There's nothing creepy about it at all. The British monarchy, and all monarchies really, serve a very particular psychological function that seems to appeal to specific personality types. It represents order and stability and perseverance - as well as countless other things (identity, etc.). It is not just some whimsical phenomena but appears to point to something deep and engrained in the psyche. There is something quite transcendental about it. Humans seem to love ritual and symbolism and hierarchies that there's just something about a managerial system that does not appeal to people.
Props to Alex for keeping things interesting for 30 minutes while a blank stare reads chat questions people paid way too much to ask.
It was really weird to me that he had nothing to say after Alex was done answering
I appreciate that I didn't know, the entire way trough, which side was the interviewer on.
There was something that bugged me until I realized that's what was missing, I was re-programmed to hear interviews where interviewers push their own points forward as much as guests or more.
1. That is a sad realization to have - that this is exceptional now
2. Again appreciate the interviewer
Droning down a list of questions is great at creating distance and impartiality, but I really miss that engagement and interaction with the words being said. At least lead into your next question by using a response to the last one.
Yes, so much better than the piers morgan interview. He was so biased toward the 'pro monarchy' guy, it was obnoxious!👍💙💖🥰✌
Yeah he was good in that sense. I 100% expected him to be pro monarchy and clearly biased but I was happily surprised.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". It is far beyond time to abolish all vestiges of hereditary rule.
That’s different countries mate
If you don't follow an Abrahamic religion you don't believe that men are created so the equality is under question.
Soldiers don't fight for king and country, they fight to defend their mates in their own squad.
Or to defend their families.
Soldiers do fight for psychopathy and sociopathy, they fight to satisfy their innate primal urges to kill & mate.
@@mrdarren1045 Ultimately there lies the source.
Monarchy is the ultimate idiocracy.
Rather than selecting the wisest to rule, this process takes place primarily through heredity.
No kidding. I was wondering what it was all about. What a great insight.
man, this guy knows it all... xD lmao
In what way does an elected head of state ensure the wisest is in charge? A hereditary process is non-partisan.
@@DaBIONICLEFan in the absolute monarchy the "royal family" is the state...
In an "intellectocracy", things would be little different from current superficial democracies.
I have no idea where this notion that getting rid of the monarchy means you HAVE to adopt a presidential system comes from. As things stand we literally just pretend the Prime Minister has to get permission from the monarch to form a government. We could equally pretend that the Prime Minister has to go to Stonehenge and dance around naked singing "OOGA BOOGA OOGA BOOGA" in order to form a government. That would be equally as made-up and equally as comical.
Ooga booga sounds like a jreg viewer lmao
You'd be surprised how many politicians do exactly that!
Well this is peculiar. This guy spoke at my school years ago. 😂
Quite surreal seeing the two of you chatting, enjoyed it very much!
I totally disagree. He posseses impressive cognitive ability, but absolutely lacks wisdom, which cannot be achieved exclusively through reasoning, which is the only thing he relies upon
@@danw5760 Are you some kind of poo wizard?
So the trick is, go way back in time, declare yourself king of some land, ordained by God, and then for 1000's of years, your family will live in absolute luxury, privilege, and celebrity or sport star-like fame. Silly? Sure, but that's exactly what happened if you go back far enough in the British monarchy. Seems one dude just said, "Hey, losers, God says I'm the King of this piece of land."
In many countries the people WANTED a king or khan to protect them from other tribes/raiders and provide resources.
"Just vote them out" Wow, why didn't numerous republics think about that when someone refused to give up their position.
The idea that the monarchy "held the country together' is an incredibly silly idea from a historical perspective. The largest Empire in the world is now down to the island of Britainia and a little bit of Ireland. And even that rump state is likely to brake up even further in not to long.
I mean when the state is reduced to England and Wales are we still going to be hearing about how the monarchy holds the country together? He'll even some of the Welsh are getting uppity. What good is an English King if he can't even keep the Welsh in line?
The greatest threat to the monarchy is the monarchy itself. I think with today's online political radicalization, its likely that there will come a Monarchy, perhaps after Charles, that will start to act outside of norms we have been used to under Elizabeth. As you said, Trump as an unelected head would likely bring further restrictions to the monarchy or at worst, its dissolution.
Never would have thought Shaunt Atwood would have wound up over here!
As an American, it's bizarre to me that "should we have a monarchy" is still even a debate in the 21st century.
🙄
Yea I agree with your statement, but "as American" was at best not needed
@GansGreutz It rarely does because it is not relevant at all, as mentioned in the video. Why get that angry at them when they have no real power? As Alex says, the biggest reason to be angry is the social injustice they represent, and the principle and _potential_ danger of the lifelong office.
The US president has actual, sweeping powers so that people get angry when their views and opinions are not represented at the highest Level, even if the views they hold are obviously bullshit, is at least to me obvious.
As an American, I'm American
@@GansGreuts I would argue most of the younger generations do not care about the monarchy at all, meaning that once the older generations go away, the power of uniting the country will slowly disappear with the support for the monarchy
As an American, I can say that while I personally see the English monarchy as a waste of potentially taxable income for the government, many in this country just look at the crown and think of how pretty it is.
Now we just need to get to the point where we treat our churches in the same way.
@@awesome3139 Exactly! There's so much money locked up in church assets, and the government is in trillions of dollars of debt. Why not tax the religious institutions?
They could have an Irish/German style president, who wears a crown.
@@MrCmon113 Any democratic alternative would be preferable, I think.
About the national defence argument: Ukraine proved that you don't need a king/queen to rally under a flag
The US proves that every single day.
Im so blessed to listen to this guy
As an Australian, I hate few things. It's not something we do. Hate that is. I hate Daylight saving... I hate the Monarchy... it's a joke.
I think that abolishing the Monarchy is important, because the Royal Family still have a disproportionate level of personal power, not to mention their rarely mentioned emergency powers.
Also the power in the Commonwealth countries like Australia which are not republics, where in 1975 the Governor General...the Queen's Representative and head of state at the behest of the opposition political party dismissed the elected Labor Government!
@@leoniedavies Yes, in the original video, there's someone talking about that as if it shows the value of the monarchy. Unbelievable.
I never understood why the monarchy had such great support. Ever since I was a kid I thought it was strange. On the one hand we believe in evolution and democratic processes, but on the other we believe one family is literally superior to all others by birth right. It's bizarre.
Yes, that's why that argument isn't ever used. Instead, the seemingly-plausible assertions that they are good for the economy, tourism, charity, or even the last-ditch defence against tyranny are rolled out by the propagandists.
Alex is so well spoken
Can we start interviewing scottish people about this? Some people only started thinking about the monarchy since the queen died or the coronation, we think and talk about it all the time in common discourse. Its crazy how much people dont know about our general outlook on life and britain in general! Just ask us!
Tbh being anti-monarchy isn't the tricky position to defend anymore. The only people left who really defend monarchy are the "hangings too good for them" end of conservatism, they are the ones with the uphill battle.
I became a republican from my experiences in the Air Cadets and observing the theist vs atheist debate on UA-cam during the golden age of UA-cam 2006-2014
We’d very much disagree about anarchism, but I appreciate you treating it like a legitimate position and not immediately laughing it off.
Yes, a much-maligned political philosophy deliberately used as a synonym for chaos.
I really would love to see him do a podcast with an anarchist, i think it would very fascinating and informative.
Plus rarely are discussions had with the far left and in my biased opinion it would be far more beneficial
Feel like I’m witnessing the second coming of Hitchens. Love it!
8:50 It is not a vestige. It is immense power as an institution. You can't simply look at the monarch or the royal family and think that is the extent of a monarchy. An entire cleptocratic oligarchy is interwoven in that as a system.
First Morgan, then Destiny and now Shaun Attwood, the year of unexpected collaborations it seems.
If they weren't there tomorrow then all would be fine. We have a PM. Whilst we are at it, lets abolish the House of so say Lords. Lets have a peoples chamber of elected experts in the various fields with a bias to science, engineering, maths and technology.
The Lords is a completely corrupt institution. Letting an outgoing prime minister like Johnson reward his mates is so wrong. Also the membership of the second chamber is far too big and having bishops involved has no place.
I really like Shaun. Was a nice crossing over paths.
It looks to me like people from the UK associate having a president with the president having a lot of power (like US or France) , but the president can be a ceremonial office with as little power as you want.
The monarchy should not just lose their political power; we should also expropriate their exorbedant, unearned wealth!
yeah I think Alex wasn't radical enough in this regard lol.
@@RuthwikRaotrue, but I'm 60% sure Alex actually kinda agree with this idea. That's my opinion though
Well I don't see any practical way to expropriate them of their private wealth.
Would you just leave them destitute since all of their wealth was unfairly earned? Is this not unfair, since the royals could have been earning money had they not been royals?
I think the government should just take everything that belongs to the crown itself. But the royals should be allowed to keep their private wealth and estates.
@@yoloswaggins7121no. Take all their shit.
What exactly makes wealth "earned"?
Your neighbours in Ireland have a very similar system except we elect a president every 7 years. They are similar to your monarch but rather than having a symbolic position, they have final say on changes to the law. Apart from that, they are more or less a figurehead and representative of the country while the PM (Taoiseach) runs the place.
The idea that anyone anywhere thinks high office should be based off inheritance is crazy.
Alex, I've enjoyed your content for some time now--mostly agreeing with various arguments and conclusions--but I have to say, I've noticed a marked improvement in your debate skills, for lack of a more concise term. You make your points clearly, answer questions quickly and concisely, and those answers seem more confident than in the past. I don't know if you've taken to preparing more rigorously, or if you're just more comfortable having done various types of speaking over the years, but bravo. We may still have some subtle disagreements regarding animal farming, but I'd be afraid to publicly discuss it with you. Lol
The monarchy is a "LUDICROUS INSTITUTION". Exactly!!! I'm of the opinion that the UK doesn't have a written constitution (similar to what most other first world countries have) to protect the "royalty". Any written constitution would specify equality of all and insist on the law being applied without exception.
You can still be respected without abusing power and calling yourself royal
We need social justice and equality
Alex you are amazing ❤
You were batting a thousand with this one!
The king shouldn’t be meeting weekly with the PM of the day as did the queen. This means they have influence over the political process and legislation however they can’t be voted out
Shaun Attwood in this video has had one of the most interesting lives of anyone still living. If you don’t know about him, he was basically the Wolf of Wall Street times ten, was an ecstasy kingpin in Arizona, was in jail in America for ten years, and now became quite a big UA-camr covering things from his experiences as well as true crime and conspiracies
that is insane lol
Do you really think he only sold ecstasy ?
Yeah, he's from my home town.
Sometimes I am so distraught about how i have wasted my life, learnt nothing and achieved nothing. But I go to sleep peacefully knowing that monarchists exist too
😂
As a Australian, I’m with you, it needs to go. It has no place in modern society
As a Brit it's needs to stay it's such a great institution
@@dennisgoatimer1079 As part of a dwindling majority, soon to be part of a dwindling minority, you'll need to get used to the 'great institution' being one of the past.
@@Fordnan It's the majority of the British public's opinion that the monarchy is great we don't give a damn what foreigners say on that matter which even then there's a good amount that like our monarchy
@@dennisgoatimer1079 It's a majority at the moment, yes. But it's 62%, down from 75% a decade ago. And if you ask people why they feel positive about the monarchy, they tend to acknowledge that it is an outdatd institution, but that it is at worst harmless, and at best a financial benefit to the country. If their misconceptions are addressed, they rapidly realise it is in our best interests to abolish the monarchy and enact constitutional reform.
@@dennisgoatimer1079 And, just to address the rather insulting attitude toward 'foreigners', aren't Australians supposed to be our dear cousins? They have to endure the monarchy, too. The sooner they become a republic, the better things will be for us, too.
it seems natural to me to end on a high note. society has changed rapidly in 70 years and the monarchy should have ended with our longest reigning most respected monarch
Come on man it’s bed time and you upload another dope video 😅
The Harry and Meghan obession is hysterical the right wing treat them like they are worse than Prince Andrew 😂
the reason youre the best debator, is you play the most thorough devil's advocate. I see you argue against your own opinion constantly. something even other great skeptic debatists (like sam harris and christopher hitchens) cant claim. you are something special dude. you inspire the best of conversation.
I’m
@@joshnaylor6009 going
Hey, you finally went through with changing your channel name haha
Honestly i think the monarchy is weird. Before I had herd much about the monarchy in the UK i thought it had already been abolished. I thought all their political powers had been stripped from them, and that they didnt have any exemption from the laws. Could be that my thoughts before were motivated by what i learned of the magna carta, and i somehow connected it to the UK instead of England. Could also be that i just didnt know much about it because as Alex pointed out the former queen didnt do much.
I am stunned
Am American and when I think of Britain I think of London, Big Ben, tea breaks, pubs, and really old buildings and churches. I never really think of the Queen until I see the currency. Like… Have zero interest in visiting Buckingham Palace. Unfortunately not really interested in visiting a zoo either because I think they’re unethical.
Agreed about zoos, but in essence the royal family is worse. What are the royals if not exotic zoo exhibits? Little wonder they grow up with very questionable personality traits.
Until now, the notion had never truly crossed my mind, but the designation "Mr. President" strikes me as remarkably unassuming when bestowed upon the individual entrusted with guiding a nation.
Yeah from what I recall, Washington was super insistent on stuff like that--respect, not reverence--and established it as the norm
I don't understand why we insist on single leadership for our political institutions? The best of humanity comes from cooperation, not placing one person in a position to abuse the most power. If everyone in a political party had to contribute equally to leadership, I think we'd be vastly better served.
As a citizen of the US, I’ve never understood the interest in the monarchy. They are vestigial organs from a system of government that has no place in the modern world. Pretty much every nation on the planet does just fine without institutionalized heritable celebrity.
Why do people think Britain needs them? Tourism? Britain isn’t so boring that nobody would visit without a king. Rallying around king and country? Most people care more for family and friends.
This debate has basically no impact on my life, but for what it’s worth I think Britain would be better off without the monarchy.
Spot on. Unfortunately, we're so steeped in establishment propaganda here that people believe the monarchy to be something other than a financial drain on the country, with considerably more damage to our democracy than any claimed benefits they supposedly bring. Thank you for sharing your view, though, it might help persuade at least someone of the ridiculousness of the arguments put forward to support the monarchy.
The problem isn't that you can't make an excellent case for getting rid of the monarchy. It's that the case never comes with a detailed plan of what comes next or you can't get agreement on what comes next. Until we have that then I prefer to keep them.
When we decide to abolish the monarchy, then we can decide. It needs a national debate. And evidently you don't understand the cost of the monarchy. It's hard to come up with something much worse.
@@Fordnan As an Aussie I can tell you that if you don't get that then people will vote to keep monarchy. Our referendum in the 90s failed for exactly that reason. The people who didn't like the proposed model to come next voted against it despite prefering a Republic over the Monarchy.
I understand the cost. It costs us a small fortune just to get the monarch out here for a visit. All I'm saying is that this is one conversation where you can't really say "this bad and we should change it" without what you intend to change it to. Saying "I don't know" to the obvious 1st question allows people to dismiss you pretty quickly as simply complaining.
@@dansharp2860 I'm not talking about financial cost, I'm talking about the democratic cost (which I find it hard to believe some Aussies can remain in the dark about), and the moral and ethical cost.
I don't know the details of your unsuccessful referendum, I had read that it was more complex than a simple yes/no.
The problem with outlining anyone's personal plan at this stage is that the plan then comes under attack. In the run up to a referendum, we would have to state a timetable for change, which would probably involve a second referendum to determine the most popular option from a suite of solutions which are already often raised.
@@Fordnan The basic problem with the 90s vote was that it was decided that we would replace the Governor General with a President that would be voted for by 2/3rds majority parlimentary vote. This was a package deal vote not 2 separate questions on removing then monarchy then how to go about the next step. A large enough percentage of voters wanted a popular vote that they voted to keep the monarchy out of spite and the referendum failed. There's more to it but I think that was the major issue. This why I think having a plan to begin with is needed because you are going to be debating that far more than if you should get rid of that useless and costly (in every sense of the word) old family.
The UK turned its back on the EU without a shadow or a detailed plan.
Family keep what’s theirs Balmoral Castle and Sandringham The rest give back to State.
I miss cosmic skeptic!!!!
I think that some British people like the monarchy the way some usa people like pennies. Pennies don't really actually serve any purpose anymore but we love them and don't want them to go away.
good analogy
But what if those pennies have a certain leverage or political control over you? And they could leave that power with the very next penny you hold, would you not start freaking out, if ever so slightly?
@@MrYelly
i'm not sure i follow your metaphor. can you state it plainly?
Britain doesn't necessarily need to have a president. A president is just a republican monarch. We could just have a vacant crown, where the monarch is imaginary. UK law has sections already which partially allow for this; Demise of the crown. In other monarchies, when the monarch dies all government positions cease to exist- that is not the case in the UK. We have political continuation already, we don't need a monarch.
I kind of wish the host would have revealed the results of the poll he posted to the listeners.
Alex is right the history of the royal family exists however continuing it at taxpayers expense makes little sense.
What a fascinating crossover
American here, I personally think Democracy is the way to go! I'm for more than our two pitiful parties! But, I never understood what is the point of the Monarchy. Ordained by God!? 😳 uh, NO! It's not my country, but why waste the taxes on the rich? What do they actually do? ❤🖖
They give power to the establishment over parliament. The establishment therefore promote them with incessant propaganda.
Is a person, who wants to rule over themselves, an anarchist?
Even stateless-socialist type of Anarchists see the utility of working together in organizations; how else could Anarchy work. I think the quip, 'be careful what you ask for,' was not thought out very well.
Fu¢k that! Take all of their money and absorb it into the dole, counsel-flats, paying for education, universal basic salaries, etc. etc, etc.
Yeah that comment didn't seem like it was asked by an anarchist, however the fact that Alex has at least some understanding of anarchism that he can recognize anarchist like ideas is nice.
Also yeah Alex's comment wasn't the best, seems like he just isn't well educated about anarchism
As a Canadian, I'm very similar to the amercains, and relate to what you said. I want you guys to have a monarch because it's "fun", but get the monarchy out of my country lol
I like Shaun's work, glad you did this and i enjoyed it more than i expected to, lol.
I think the contentiousness is more about the fact that the monarchy is largely symbolic, so they're not supporting "monarchy" as a system of governance, but *this specific* "monarchy" as a living breathing museum exhibit, not that I support it in that case either, but that being the case, I think there's a lot of people talking past each other here.
Why do people rightly criticize oligarchs, but not monarchs? Is a few better than one?
I didn't vote for King Charles.
Aside from the monarchy, it seems we humans put undue importance on lots of crazy stuff, such as placing celebrities or sport stars on pedestals, often for arbitrary reasons such as "He scored lots of goals in the child's game I love.", or "I really like the movies that she is in." Even worse is when we idolize and make celebrity out of reality TV stars, who often have no skill or make any meaningful contribution to society whatsoever. Why do we do this? If there was no monarchy, the British people, along with everyone else, would STILL find others to place on pedestals to worship, for similar arbitrary reasons as to why the royals are worshiped..."God" said they are more important than the rest of us.
Yeah plus they as rich billionaire powerful privileged individuals aren't held to the stringent social "moral" standards as us average joe nobodies ie if they're guilty of something the accountability is way far less than normal yet the forgetability is way bigger or higher even though its yet another upside down systems in an upside down world that which makes FA sense....obviously but no doubt that a big reason for its fkn continuation and more than likely permanent existence....
If that makes sense lol
Well, yes, it's a fundamental part of our psyche. But we don't need people placed in front of us to look up to. Perhaps our boss, an inspirational author, there are lots of people we can look up to for genuine reasons. We won't miss a monarchy nobody who knows about them respects anyway.
I don't remember when God ever said that. Not really fair to blame it on God is it.
@@Fordnan how is looking up to an author any different to a footballer? All you are doing is revealing your own bias and values. Ppl are always going to look up to ppl involved in fields they're interested in and being snobbish about it won't change anything. Hero worshipping authors or brainiacs is just as bad or good as hero worshipping a footballer. Ppl who are secure in themselves and mature don't need to look up to anyone
I think there might be some civic benefits to having a king vs. not having, but its difficult to weigh whether its worth to invest so much into this kind of culture. Certainly helps with UK's picture, I can't imagine imagining England without the Royal Family, London, Double Decker buses.
I can't understand why anyone cares about the monarchy.
I don't know any fans
yep. we should abolish the monarchy. who needs monarchy in the modern world? Let them keep at least ONE royal palace as their own property. If this is Sandringham, Balmoral, Highgrove, etc. so be it. But Buckingham Palace, Holyrood, Stormont, etc. should be public museums and palaces upon to all. Just like Versailles or former German royal palaces.
Democracy forever!!!
This is just "Well what would rather have, smart guy?" the show. Just because you cannot see the world any other does not mean there isn't another way to see it.
Time to get over themselves, Britain awake.
So many kings started of as pirates. Than get people to sign a piece of paper to get him to remain in power for ever. Well played
I didn't know the cosmic skeptic is a fellow taig. Nice
The "most powerful woman on earth" was only so powerful and popular because she "dutifully" did what she was supposed to ie what she was told to do by the more powerful men she was surrounded by ...she got there and stayed there because she was an obedient "good little girl"!!!! Which makes u think of another conversational dimension....ie who's really in charge behind the fancy play acting and wizard of oz-style smokescreen and is it still a boys club undercover???
(Ps) Plus wtf is the problem or people's problem with Joe biden??? I get it with trump....but he's better than trump by Miles....it just makes one realise that no matter who's in charge or the system in place there'll always be lovers/admirers and goons aswell as haters/detractors+naysayers
I feel that only applied when she was young and bew to the family business
I know Alex is trying to diplomatic but I feel like he's soft pedalling his own philosophy without realising it. We should abolish the monarchy and transition into a secular federal republic with a constitution, a bill of rights, declaration of independence, a separation of power among legislative, executive and judicial branch, separation of church and state.
We would have a parliamentary Head of State, similar to Ireland’s President. A president not involved in political decisions A president upholding the laws of our newly written constitution.
I like the idea of allocating the role of king or queen to a person randomly selected from the pool of people who have been rewarded honours (allocated democratically) to serve for 5 years. Politically-neutral, genuinely someone who has served the country in some way, and deserving of the easy life for a few years.
@@FordnanYes, it works quite well. In the Czech Republic we recently elected a new president and while he's not in any way perfect, he does the representative role quite well. And (because for 10 years before that our president was almost completely useless) it made me realise that it's good to have a person who's the leader of the country but does all the ceremonial/charity-related stuff. Basically what the British royal family does. But without the tax exceptions and while being voted in and replaced as any other politician.
It is so funny to me that the only alternative British people see to having a monarch is the US model. In Germany we have a system that would probably be more reasonable than the American system. There is a head of government (Bundeskanzler) who is determined through a public vote. Furthermore, there is a head of state (Bundespräsident) who is elected by the elected through the House of representatives and a few others every five years. The Bundespräsident's role is almost the same as the role of the British monarch (no direct political power, veto rights over laws, lives in a castle, represents the country). The main difference is that he is elected.
In Ireland we have one of the most visited castles in the world Blarney Castle and all we had to do is convince gullible American tourist that if they kiss a dirty old rock built into it they get magical powers😂😂😂