Why I am a monarchist and a supporter of the Prince of Wales
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- The present Prince of Wales will make an excellent king, and I hope that he will use his reign to bring the concept of parliament up to date, using internet technologies to communicate with the people directly.
God Save the King 👑
Love from Canada
God save the King
He’s dead sorry 😐
Though I'm a very enthusiastic Traditional Catholic, I have high hopes for the Prince of Wales.
Your channel is an absolute delight to explore. All the ideas I was educated to believe were functionally retarded and here you are raising them up with patience, intelligence, detail and hope. Respect 🙏🏻
Monarchy reign supreme above all ! 👑⚔️
Absolutely brilliant.
Yeah ok but the Kaiser's abdication was more of an Alllies than Hitler thing
But hitler still only rose because of the weimarer republic
And Hitler did not have love for the Kaiser nor was the Kaiser Wilhelm saying was going "go get them" to Hitler. The Kaiser actually compared Hitler to the mob.
The Kaiser more like abdicated on his own will when he realize Germany is in tatters.
Well, Churchill did say " Our greatest mistake was forcing the Kaiser to Abdicate, he would have never enpowered Hitler"
The kaiser would have never let hitler rise a monarchy doesn’t let that happen but because they were a democracy meant heaps of nazis were elected I think hitler might of even
You touched on the dividing force of democracy. I'd like to add that democracy distorts the most important political divison, the one between the ruler(s) and the ruled. In a representative democracy the division becomes ideological, and as such the political divide is now between different teams of the masses and their respective leaders. We can see that this makes people very quick to attack the other team's political elite and equally quick to defend their own, which makes holding incompetent and malevolent leaders accountable for their actions that much more challenging.
Additionally, It wouldn't be far fetched to think that the political elites could be in bed with eachother and looking out for themselves and their fellow politicans rather than the branch of the masses they're supposed to represent. This would obviously make the system completely unworkable, and the steady increase of government size and power around the world, combined with the continued trampling of people's rights seems like evidence of just that. Perhaps that is inevitable as it looks like the most rational conduct for a political elite that want to gain, increase and maintain power.
Precisely
I can’t like this comment enough. It needs to be republished, highlighted and pinned
I'm not even British but I agree, we need a monarchy in the US
Agreed ....
But you didn’t let Trump become dictator, er, “king” 🤪
@@emlynjessen2957 it wasn't my fault
Never gonna happen in that sham and disgrace
@@emlynjessen2957 The House of Trump would just turn into a reality show
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts on UA-cam. Despite being subscribed to many other channels with many millions of subscribers, I find this channel to be one of most influential to me. Not necessarily in making me adopt your opinions, but more in developing an alternative perspective to the current ethos.
On the topic of the video, I wholeheartedly agree. Democracy has absolutely turned into mob rule and it has become painfully evident here in America. I'm envious of your country as you have clear "heirs to throne" so to speak. America obviously has no clear options for alternative governments save for the possibility of a tech oligarchy. The point you made that I agree with most is that technology is the key to the reformation of government. I feel it's only a matter of time before it's an expectation for tech to play a much larger role. Likely 15-20 years, mainly due to the public that grew up with and adapted to social media becoming overwhelmingly the voting base. My conundrum is whether I can help influence the outcome and, if so, how?
As the case with Prince Charles, anyone looking too far forward is seen as being ridiculous and is generally discounted immediately. Anecdotal sure, but my own employees look at me oddly as I start to speak of the future and the paths that lay before us. The everyday man has no interest in change. I suspect this may be result of the current government and its effect on time preference through its taxation and use of the intelligencia.
I suppose my question to you is if you find yourself driven to influence the future and do you find that fulfilled through posting your thoughts on UA-cam?
Thank you for your comments. Yes, most people have little understanding of history and their place in it. When I was at school, I didn't care for history and thought it completely irrelevant to my life and my concerns. Now I realise that without understanding the past, we can't understand the present--why things are as they are, and how they could be different, for example. To answer your question, I suppose I hope to influence the future--although, as a Tolstoyan (history is the swarm-life of mankind), I don't expect my thoughts to be taken up wholesale. It is a matter of taking things from elsewhere, giving them a little extra spin and re-injecting them into the ongoing current of ideas. It is good to know that they help people like yourself develop your own thinking. Obviously I am a tiny voice, not like politicians or journalists. Nevertheless, the small thoughts of us below can perhaps build into intellectual revolutions, by the butterfly effect of chaotic dynamics.
@@DarkAgeTheorist I have two friends who are rabid republicans. I cannot discuss monarchy with them for they refuse to listen! Admittedly in Canada and New Zealand (where my two friends live) Queen Elizabeth is a distant figure, and there is even less known of Prince Charles, so the point of a monarch is not felt. Interestingly, NZ carefully manages the post of Governor General to match the roles of the monarchy. When a past Canadian GG tried to do some of what the British monarchy does (bring to light the impoverished North) she was completely shot down!
@@emlynjessen2957 What is a Canadian GG?
@@butterflybeatles GG = Governor General. The person who represents the Queen in other countries that still have her as their Head of State.
Well worded my good sir. God save the Queen
Tumblar House has a show which is called Off the Menu, here on UA-cam, which is very favorable towards Monarchy.
Your wish is granted. Charles is now King.
I think every Briton should watch this....
Great video,
Greetings from Poland
It is a pity that Prince Charles, now king, allowed himself to become embroiled with the World Economic Forum?
Your videos are extremely interesting. Thank you. I have changed from being a Royalist when I discovered that among Charles is a member of the WEF
👑Bring back the Witan! Ha! May the spirit of Alfred take hold in our hearts and awaken the learning and fighting spirits of our folk everywhere in the Eurosphere! Leave the cakes to the ladies haha! Long and good health to you all!
Prince Charles is a truly great person even for us in Ukraine, since he openly accused russia's tyrant Putin of being like Hitler for russian aggression against Ukraine.
@Will DeMarco This to me has been the best argument against monarchies. IMPERIALISM. While Monarchs will inevitably have their constituents best interests at hearts, they will to some extent disregard others, this is why we need a synthesis of the monarch in something as cheesy as a "blockchain sort of system"
There's a small movement here in the US as well I'm an American monarchist God bless the future American King and or queen and God bless the future American Empire! :")
May the Brazilian Empire come back (I'm Brazilian)
@@noltarferiorbr empire soon Inshallah ☝️
Imperial America
@TheNewNormal No Rest Till Coronation! 😇
@TheNewNormal A valid concern I agree, that's why we make sure that the movement to do this is Traditional through and through. :) We'll have a state that is so Traditional that the Illuminati won't feel comfortable to stay in anymore. 😇
Prince Charles was underrated. Poundbury and the opposition to the Channel Tunnel show his true colors.
I agree but the problem is I fear King Charles rain will not last very long simply because of his age the queen could live another 10 years not to mention if he tries to regain power for the monarchy I also fear a revolution
The revealing of his private letters to MPs show the extent of criticism he would get...
Well, the republicans (Not the US political party) would definitely do that.
Absolutism is not Tyrrany.
If they want the best for their country, why do they not speak up about the flux of refugees coming here?
This is due to Charles being a member of the WEF, so no better than any prime-minister. He has sold us down the river to his boss Klaus Schwab . Charles only has his interest at heart.. the Queen signed off on Windrush and now look at the knife crime
🎯👈 Facts 💯🧐
Very good points
👑Matt Raphael Johnson compared Monarchy to a Store manager, if you’re handing it over to your son for the family you keep it clean, manage it properly for sustainability profit cleanliness whereas a store manager thats in for 2-4 years only to be replaced by an unknown will not care about employees cleanliness or sustainability and would just barely keep the store afloat and steal as much as they can before they leave....ANY THOUGHTS On MRJ or his theory here??
🛑Edit: i commented after 2 minutes in, got my answer a few minutes later...Long and good health from Texas to you and all my brothers and sisters in the UK and on the European continent!
Whilst I agree with much of this, Charles is a wef stooge and we are no longer a sovereign country. Could you incorporate these facts into an updated video? I’m a fan of your channel by the way, but I think you have neglected the transfer of power that has happened.
You, good sir, have exponential wisdom!
+great Saville...🎉
"Only over my dead body!" Elizabeth the II
I am an American Monarchist who found your channel years after you made this video.
Charles could also say much more on non-political subjects. A simple tour of British cathedrals and a few diplomatic words AGAINST Welby the Woke’s attack on Christianity in this country would go a very long way. But nothing.
Long Live the King Charles!
Fantastic video! I guess the book I'm writing is kind of superfluous now though
What is the book you are writing? I can't imagine it would be superfluous. This is only an obscure UA-cam video..!
@@DarkAgeTheorist My book is defense of monarchy and how it can be an answer to current social and political problems. If anything it's heartening to see someone like minded
I certainly hope you will continue with your project and let us know when it is ready. There is more to say than I have covered above, for example to address possible counterarguments and to bring in historical examples, statistics etc.
@@hyundisuper100 How are you getting on with your book?
@@wolfguptaceo On hold while I work on my masters. I'm considering repurposing my research for my thesis, but either way it is coming and will be released at some point.
👑🙏
please keep making videos !
A fine presention
Even to an atheist, the King's authority must be absolute, not because he is appointed by God, but because he is appointed by no one. If someone appoints him, that man is King. . . . Thus the modern divine-right monarchist says, not that God has chosen any person or family to rule, but that sovereignty exists and someone must hold it.
You can't get something from nothing. It had to be somehow ordained.
@@bradleyhoyt3188 Exactly this...and this will prove to be the original and first challenge even if this idea is given an iota of consideration.
Great channel.
God Bless the Prince of Wales! God Save the Queen! Long Live Queen Elizabeth II !
Very interesting. I'm curious though about what you make of hereditary dictatorships, ones like in Syria or NK; as in spite of these regimes sharing many similarities with absolute monarchies, they end up being extremely infested in corruption top-down, not working in the interest of their nations, having Heads of State with psychopathic tendencies, and being potentially willing -- as a result of the fragile nature of such regimes -- to wreak-havoc on the very people they govern as soon as their totalitarian rule get threatened (e.g. Syrian regime).
Also, what's preventing such regimes from forming full-blown, actual monarchies? Why do they stick to their "republic"/"People's republic" titles?
If I had to guess, in the grand scheme of things most dictators are barely outside of the revolution. Their power hasn't settled and consolidated. When power is threatened it tends to become stricter against its subjects. There is also no "gentleman's agreement" that deposed autarchs just get sent to exile. In the 20th and 21st century abdication always means death. Look what they did to Sadam and Gaddafi. There is also always the presence of international banking and intelligence agencies that pre-industrial monarchs did not have to contend with.
So because the dictator comes into power via revolution a lot of people have to be kept placated in order for the dictator to stay alive.
But corruption is also a feature of any organization. Business, monarchy, democracy etc. The only antidote to corruption is a moral populace. Hence why you see less corruption in places like Vermont than you do in New Jersey. Same government, similar population, but vastly different levels of corruption.
I think the argument put forward is that monarchy is better than democracy, not that monarchy is perfect or without flaws. So once that argent has been put forward, the onus on the opposition is moreso to prove that democracy is better than monarchy, instead of just pointing out hypothetical problems a monarchy *may* have, which democracy *does* have.
I agree with Charles's criticism of modern architecture, but neotraditional architecture developments like Poundburry have not been terribly successful. When I visit such places, I can't shake the feeling of visiting a "Disneyland" environment. This isn't really the fault of the architects, brick masons or craftspeople who made the old-looking new buildings. Ours is a culture where people do not dress particularly well and where people deep down do not feel much connection to or reverence for the subtle graecoroman and medievalist visual details around which such architecture is spatially organized. Modernist architects, in their intellectual heyday (which is a very long time ago now), were trying to produce a new language of form for a modern type of human being who feels new feelings and has cut himself off from those traditional influences. The idea was to take modern man as he is and somehow elevate and ennoble him as he moved through built spaces. Modern architecture failed to do this, but that was the idea. I don't think neotraditional architecture solves the problem either. To bring architecture back to life, it's necessary to bring the soul of the community back to life.
I agree. Poundbury has an artificial feel and doesn't really achieve its aim of being an organic, human-oriented environment. BUT it should be judged as an experiment and as a riposte to those who dismissed even the idea that, instead of imposing their grand visions, architects should work back from what people really desire. Prince Charles is busy being heir to the throne and designing new towns is just a side-line. It's not perfect but it's a start and should hopefully make the professionals, the full-time planners and architects, think more carefully about how to build places in which people feel at home. It's surely better than the concrete wastelands or the soulless lego-towns that Prince Charles felt we could improve on. I would even suggest it's better than the pleasant-enough but rather dreary garden cities of Ebenezer Howard. And perhaps we should judge Poundbury not today but in a few generations when it has had time to evolve autonomously and develop a more natural, organic, lived-in persona. I like what you say about the modernist architects...in effect, that they were motivated not by malice but by a well-intentioned vision of elevating the human spirit. That is a fair point, and in fact I have an affinity for modernist architecture...I quite like Le Corbusier's monastery of La Tourette (of which I have a video on my channel). Nevertheless, the authors of communism in Russia and eastern Europe could also be said to have been well-intentioned. That doesn't mean that their vision for humanity was not ultimately one-dimensional, over-simplistic and socially destructive, and that it was not right to speak out and campaign against it.
I would also say that the rights and wrongs of Poundbury and modernist architecture are not the crucial point...those are somewhat subjective issues anyway. The deeper point is that Prince Charles is not just sniping from the sidelines with the criticisms of an armchair theorist. He is really trying to make a difference, and staking his money and his reputation to show there is another way. That shows, I think, what an excellent king he could make. He truly cares and tries to engage with the issues, which is more important than him being right every time (though I think he is right a good deal of the time). Let us remember, he could have been a playboy prince like Edward VIII say, more interested in cocktail parties than anything else. But he isn't. We have been blessed with someone who is deep, thoughtful and devoted to improving the lives of his future subjects.
@@DarkAgeTheorist I believe that what makes the architecture of a traditional English town, or a special one like Bath, look beautiful is not really the physical stones themselves, but the fact that they were the architectural expression of a rooted community, or in the case of Bath a rooted class structure. Poundburry feels off because it's intended for middle class buyers and sellers of real estate, who'll come and go as they chase their salary opportunities.
Every traditional English town culminates in a grand church, the crowning space of the community. Not so in Poundburry, because it was built for a society which no longer has any confidence in its former social and spiritual convictions. When Charles is coronated, I wonder what he'll swear about God and Church and all that. These are the most important questions to work out, before deciding whether a laser-cut pilaster on a chemists shope should be ionic or corinthian in style.
@@DarkAgeTheorist I agree with your broader points about Charles. And you're quite right, there's been a constant media effort my entire life (born in early 80s) to make him look ridiculous. But on every issue he's been proven right, or at least more right than his critics in the media and academia. No disrespect intended, but marrying Diana was a mis-step. Love is complex of course, but she did not appear to love him back.
@@napoleon8181 Thank you very much for your comments which are good points and I agree with you. I hadn't particularly thought about the issue with Poundbury like that, and your explanation seems correct to me. As for Diana, it was a mistake certainly with the benefit of hindsight. I will refrain from giving my full thoughts on that here..!
im still a republican (in the sense that i believe in republics) but i am considering your points
Democracy has obviously failed though
@@kaidenhall2718 it has, it really has.
@@thekingslady1 I’ve had people genuinely say basically true democracy has never been tried when it was there’s been way to many democracy’s and republics for it not to have been usually when I say this though I get called a fascist a boot licker or I want a dictatorship and hate freedom
this made so much sense. thanks!
Absolute monarchy and the idea of the "divine right" of kings is something of the Northern European scope to be of Protestant origin. In the Catholic and Mediterranean countries, the king's power was never absolute, it was limited to natural law, Catholic doctrine and the rights or privileges historically present in the different regions of the kingdom.
Divine Right is part of biblical doctrine. In the Catholic sense, it is Pope that could take away power as the head of the church. This is still a resemblance to God. Of course, a king's power was never absolute. Read Jacques Bossuet's Politics Drawn from Scripture, and I think it is enough to speak for itself. What is absolute is not exactly totalitarian. It is an authoritarian hierarchy. What we see in vassals is not a modern equivalent of checks and balances. In Bossuet's properties of royal authority, he makes 4 characteristics: #1. royal authority is sacred. #2. it is paternal. #3. it is absolute. #4. it is subject to reason. Yes, a king may not have totalitarian -arbitrary- power over all things and has social limits. The proposition of divine right is simply that they rule 'Dei Gratia'; aka, they rule by the Grace of God, and that is all it means.
Is that why the very Mediterranean and very Catholic Kingdom of France is often regarded as one of the first truly absolute monarchies?
¡Aribba España!
Lol. Then why the literal opposite happened?? Protestant countries like Britain, the Netherlands and the nordic countries often had liberal monarchs. The opposite happened to southern europe
@@mitonaarea5856 What? you mean enlightened despotism? that was an european phenomena Spain had enlightened monarchs, Austria too etc., you mean constitutional monarchs? Denmark was an absolute monarchy by the 1840s while Spain was already a constitutional monarchy. read more and learn.
Here is an interesting though, good politicians are very experienced at gaining power, good Monarchs are very experienced at wielding power.
1. Keep the bottom-up government of elected officials who claim to answer to the people.
2. Create a top-down government of appointed officials who answer to the king and allow it to function in tandem with the present government.
3. Hold a referendum asking the people which government they prefer.
Monarchy doesn't necessarily need to be hereditary. We could have a competition based monarchy like they did in ancient Scandinavia. That's the system I prefer. And I am an American. I'd settle with pre 1776. But I'd really like 800.
How do you have a competition that measures loyalty?
@@markhansen6236 in my mind the competition would be set up in a way that it would select only the best and most qualified to be crowned. That quality would have to include loyalty, but I am not really sure myself how that could be tested. I like to say that the monarchy I speak of is based off of a round robin of arm wrestling and slam poetry. But the real deal would have many competitions that are somehow scored to determine who is most qualified. The task would be so great that only the best of the best would even attempt it. And I would like to think that preparation for this would require a very deep connection to the traditions and people of the nation. In a way dedication itself is a show of loyally.
I call this democratized system of competitive kingship "anarcho monarchism". Because all are equally qualified to rule.
This line of thinking is mainly a rhetorical tool I use to break my countrymen of their dualistic dogma of right and left. I use anarcho monarchism and the ideas therein to show the possibility of a third way.
@@captiankidandcrew The most capable doesn't mean the least corruptible. Measuring loyalty would have to be one of the most vital tests. I too have wanted a system that selected people based on merit through a series of tests, however in practice this would come with many challenges.
@@markhansen6236 agreed. The goals make sense, but how we get there is rocky.
Have you met many American monarchists?
@RMFN I did a comparative study of the Visigothic and Frankish monarchies in the 6th and 7th centuries. The Visigothic monarchy veered more to the competitive style, while the Frankish was dynastic. As a result, the Visigothic kingdom was a lot less stable. Strong men manoeuvred for the throne and when one came to power he would get rid of the old king's officials and replace them with his cronies. Those people who had been dispossessed in this way were then machinating behind the scenes to get one of their own group back into power at the next change of reign. Kings were more likely to get assassinated, reigns were short and there was a lot of turbulence. Whereas in the Frankish kingdom, the throne was firmly in the hands of the Merovingians even though they were often minors. You did not get people trying to seize the throne because the other nobles would oppose them...why should they want one of their peers to take over and probably start shaking things up in unpredictable ways? Better to stick with the dynasty and the status quo. Maybe this difference between Franks and Visigoths is partly why Visigothic Spain fell to the Arabs whereas Frankish Gaul turned back the Arabs at Poitiers. I think if you had a competitive monarchy, you would get the Visigothic syndrome--instability and a kingdom frequently at war with itself.
Where's my first comment? Did you delete it already?
Would America get one king? Or is it too divided to be ne considered one nation, and who would that king be? Who chooses? How?
Military competence most likely. Whoever can prove they are best fit to defend their land. Whoever can reunited the currently divided States
First of all, I think you were able to promote Prince Charles as a royal who cares about his people better than the current royal family does.
Second, the problem with your proposal to have an internet run parliament and having the monarch act as an executive is that it would functionally made the UK an absolute monarchy very similar to the ones seen in Saudi Arabia, where legislative bodies are advisory like the ones you proposed. If Saudi Arabia were seen as a good place in terms of all possible metrics, then people might be open to the idea of an absolute monarchy.
Third, the problem with monarchies is that monarchies are very dependent on the monarch. This means it depends on the competence of the monarch in his job as a monarch, how the monarch is perceived, and how his people are faring. The constitutional monarchs have an easier time because they aren't tied to any political position nor policies that could damage the country. In contrast absolute monarchs are responsible to the policies they implemented, and if it turns out very badly, then it would be a strong justification for either revolution or civil war. Despite these things, if the monarch is perceived very badly by the populace then it could also be a strong justification against the monarchy, especially if the monarch is incompetent or unpopular. For example, Spain and Thailand. Despite all the advantage that monarchy provides to the monarch, King Juan Carlos has proven himself to be corrupt and King Vajiralongkorn is corrupt, deeply immoral, and has abandoned his people to live with his son in Bavaria. In these two countries, it is undoubtedly that Republicanism is growing strong.
In contrast in Democratic or Republican systems, we would just wait for the terms of corrupt or immoral Presidents or Prime Minister to expire and in the next election vote in for the alternative to them. This is what happened to Trump in the USA.
The short-termism of Republic Head of States is extremely problematic!
Yes, you can "just vote out" a problematic President but the flip side of the coin is the difficulty of being able to have and hold long term goals - goals that may even span generations - because of a sort of revolving door mentality.
I don't see how the United States will continue to be a Democratic Republic past the 21st Century!
ETA:- I forgot to add all the messiness of the ruling Oligarchs - corruption and selling out the people - with no one to strongarm them(monarch!).
@@thekingslady1 I agree that short termism is a problem for Democratic Republics. But that doesn't mean that long termism is better in the long run. Most monarchies where the monarch has significant powers to craft and enact policies got overthrown or drastically weakened.
@@theunknownpersonism from what I have seen so far (only been seriously researching this for a couple days now), through time and history, a Constitutional Monarch - most like the UK's - seems to be what is working best right now.
The Queen still having the ultimate power to dissolve *her* Parliament - in the best interest of the common people- is pretty powerful.
And she has to be non-political which allows the common man to TRULY trust her.
Democracy is trash....a joke really.
@@thekingslady1 that's not true as the Fixed Terms Parliament Act is still in place that was enacted during the coalition years. Though you're right that the Queen still has Royal Assent that could block any bill to become a law. Though the trend in the UK nowadays is that the monarchy is giving too much power to Parliament and to the PM.
You should consider that in democratic or republican systems such as the USA, although a President or other elected official can be replaced by another one in a future election, the bureaucrats, who are appointed, will remain, and they are the ones who have the most influence and actually accomplish the agenda of a president or prime minister. They can decide whether the agenda of a president or prime minister is accomplished. The influence and power of a president or prime minister can only do so much.
you seem to make no distinction between absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy...
Would be nice to see a King on the Throne,Charles then William would be fantastic to see,i favour Monarchy rather than The house of Lords.
I hear you and got your point. however, history shows monarchy is just as disastrous as a democracy when it comes to matters outside of socioeconomic policies, such as imperialism and international affairs. Even you stated the best thing about Monarchs is the possessive principle and nature of man which tends to make people have their possessions best interest at heart. This doesn't however account for disparaging positions of international affairs. IMO, a useful and effective monarchy will only be possible if there is an AGI that is controlled by all the people. That is to say, the Monarch should be an AGI that represents an idea and principles of the people just as human monarchs will be, as it will be without the overbearing nature of the "passions" that preside over humans. As cheesy as it sounds, an example will be something like blockchains systems.
To say monarchy is just as disastrous as democracy ignores the fact that total war, with its 2-4 more orders of magnitude of body counts, has only really found its way into human experience since the dawn of modern democracy.
British monarchy itself saved your black brothers from dying from diseases hunger poverty etc. So use your brain once in your life and stay loyal to the His Majesty
Once again, my opinions have been revised by this channel.
The problem, here is not declaring oneself a 'pragmatic monarchist' - considering that *feudalism is the baseline of all civilization* , to fall back to when progress turned out to be less linear than propagated - but the adoration of House Hannover, a false crown that had been issued from 'the grace of Parliament'.
The proof is the current reign of Charles the III. who unlike his namesake predecessor takes no lead, whatsoever - a conduct that is unfitting to any prince.
Never will there be a dissolution of parliament as imagined in the play 'Charles the III' - regardless, how resonant the iconography is with an electorate - deceived by obscurantist political caucuses with a lineage to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the last refuge of Adam Weishaupt's 'Perfectibilists' and home to Prince Albert.
'Constitutionally', the United Kingdom has been turned into a 'radically enlightened' republic, openly since the rise of the neo-liberal 'New Democrats' and 'New Labour' - with the House of Lords now officially reduced to a bicameral institution of parliamentary politics.
Legitimate monarchism has organically grown, elsewhere: like the *Royal Stuart Society* and it's declared rejection of Westminster's primacy and in a wider, cultural sense, Neo-Jacobitism.
To make an induction (?) to a five year old video from the channel's explicit direction: apparently anticipating a cycle from an Age of Enlightenment into another Dark Age - not Charles 'Windsor', but *_warlordism_* around the ethnically defined suburbs of the City of London is the more realistic resignation.
('Double Bubble Trouble')
ua-cam.com/video/v9AKH16--VE/v-deo.htmlsi=5umjtg4Hmu7ppe3Z
And this is isn't a matter of petty moralization, but the epiphany that follows calm observation of the historical process - either stalled or accelerated through one's agency.
While I agree with many of your arguments, I would dissent with several of them. For one, you are mistaken about "Democracy", for it is not about "mob"rule, but about People rule. In the Greek origins of the word and practice, the male citizens of a City-state (neither women nor slaves) would debate the issues of the day and make decisions for the well-being of the state with elected Leaders to carry them out and coordinate things. They knew that "too many cooks spoil the soup". Athens even had the Ostrokon, a piece of pottery used to vote a person considered dangerous to the public out of the community for a period of time, as a protection against possible tyrants. Monarchy does mean "One person rule", and you seem to have partly adopted that by making One person responsible to attend to all the problems of a nation by Twitter or Facebook, or something similar. A nation is Complex, as you observed about nature. We Need a political class assisted by experts (hopefully) in different fields to attend to a vast multitude of problems and issues. It is Useful to get them together, as in parliaments, so as to Discuss together even physically and decide on Concerted Solutions to public issues. We need Health and Defense and Public Safety and other Departments to coordinate those solutions in each sphere. Charles is an ingenious and multiplex personality, there is no doubt, but to place him as the hub of governing all the complexities would be "a bit much". May he have a prosperous reign for the UK, but I could not wish upon him what you seem to be suggesting as a role.
I get your point also and largely agree with it. However, I like to view things from a lens of RESPONSIBILITY. The reason much of our systems today are subpar is this inherent lack of responsibility and the tendency to want to put it on someone other than ourselves. I also do not support Monarchy in this way it's presented in this video since it doesn't take into account imperialism and international affairs which are far more dire matters on the whole as it pertains to overall progress and development. A monarchy is inevitably bound to only tend to their constituent and not any other. More so, the monarch is not all-encompassing in capabilities as you yourself have observed and stated. This is why I believe for such a system to even be reconsidered, there have to be talks of an AGI or rather a blockchain-like system. So there is a synergy and synthesis of information and decision making.
@@emmanueloluga9770 --Monarchy is a democrqatic system is basically not responding to 'constitutents" as do politicians. Democratic monarchies have few political responsibilities and are more in the way of non-politial Unifiers of nations and conserving cultures as well as helping to create some Stability through the Royal Family that does not change from election to election. Examples such as the UK and Denmark or Norway where over 80% of the population approve of the monarchy that is removed from the bitter emotionality of a political contention such as republics offer are a Sanitizing influence in those nations.
@@FRAGIORGIO1 I honestly did not understand your reply due to its structure.
@@emmanueloluga9770 --Sorry about that,. Maybe, someone else could help you understand about what Democracy means to "me". It is called also "Bourgois democracu" as opposed to "Marxist-Leninist" democracy in which the people rule through the Vanguard Party in their name. Our bourgois democracy has elected official chose by the people but usually filtered through a party system that has two of more electoral bodies called parties. In the Marxist-Leninist system, ther4e is only One party. In a literallly true Monarchy, there is only One source of authority, whether a king or a dictator. Louis XIV was a Monarch as was Peter the Great. Hitler became a monarchical dictator as did Stalin and Mao. Anyone else just assists the One who is the Determiner of all policy, I hope that helps, but if not, ask someone else who might understand better what I have tryied to explain. Best wishes.
@@FRAGIORGIO1 democracy is shit now and forever more it is mob rule and nothing what you said will change that Socrates hated the democracy becouse it is STUPID MONARCHY IS THE BEST FORM OF GOVERNING
Rather be an anarchist. Not a monarchist or republican. Both are corporate monopolies with militarily enforced Exclusive Economic Zone free-markets and monopoly currency.
Rather completely de-deregister as a voter and publish MONOPOLY = SLAVERY on so-called sovereign monopoly currency.
I am sad to hear that your heart is against government
Good luck, hes a WEF stooge!! 😒
Monarchy is the natural culmination of Oligarchy. It is a simplistic form of government. I personally despise rule by inheritance. Democracy is the same as anarchy in a way. Basically no one but public opinion rules in a democracy. No one individual is ruler. Even our president is only temporary overseeing the constitutional government and with very limited power.
Understand many of us do not trust any form of concentrated power in the hands of an individual or group. No office is permanent except the Supreme Court here in the state.
We all know that oligarchy and monarchy offers very little social change. A corrupt government is very hard to be rid of Just look at Putins Russia. It’s a dystopian nightmare. It callus be a monarchy just like the Czars before. The population is lied to, manipulated and live in subjugation. It’s a miserable system. Monarchy is not needed and dangerous. That is why we Americans broke from that crap tradition.
L
if you're a dreamer you're an anarchist. If you're a realist you're a monarchist.
Rhetorical skills indeed. I wonder what else you'll have me believing...
RIP Prince Charles.
but but but, Caligula
I dont understand how anyone could be a monarchist, could anyone help me?
Sure, it really depends on a lot of factors such as Religion, Race, and Culture. Being a Monarchist is the understanding that we Humans LOVE our symbols, positions of Executive power, and National unity. It's all about how one sees society and recognizes that mob rule creates many issues. Trump becoming president after Obama was a big shake up but once Biden was elected Trumpers lost their collective shit. Personality cults are very real and can be good or bad. With a Monarch you don't have this type of unstable nature of Government. That isn't to say it is perfect, I for one am a Constitutional Monarchist. The masses must have a voice but deserve a symbol and voice that speaks for all within it's borders and cautions the masses against ideological stonewalling propagated by partisans. Monarchs can be voted in as well.
Most modern day Monarchists are Constitutional rather than absolutist which is what people around the world mainly dislike about historical monarchies. I'm at work so this is a really shitty and short reply on the topic but I hope it gives a bit of insight and not just a view of my personal take on it. Happy to talk more about the ideals and modern value of such institutions.
Do you live in the U.S?? Or a democratic state??
You don't see the kind of instability a democracy breeds?? Do you really think it's going to last past the influx and fluctuations of the 21st Century?? People crave stability in these times....
@@thekingslady1 monarchy is ridiculous, it's an unjustified hierarchy.
@@kiwichippie5465 did you watch this video at all?? There are many cogent points for a Monarchy and this video barely touched on some of them. Please look some more into it.
There is a reason why from even Biblical times till this very day, peoples of the world *chose* and had a Monarchy! Through the histories of the world, there have been dynasties that spanned centuries upon centuries.
Any such proven track record for a Republic??
Look at the United States....a mess! I do not see how it will make it past the 21st Century as a democratic state. EXTREMELY unstable with the people frettingly biting at their fingertips!
@@inuyasha4889 Thanks for the reply.
'the country has to be governed by someone'.
What a pathetic argument. Of course, Westminster is flawed to the extent of worthlessness.
But this is not a sound reason to dismiss Democracy - the key point of Democracy is that we should try it!
The best form of Democracy? Direct Democracy - regional parliaments, run by the people, for the people.
Which would also afford a useful window to deal with the pox which has blighted Western governance for
many decades (earlier centuries saw comparable, but also fundamental differences) - Lobbying.
Banking in particular, has moved on from mere Lobbying, to squeezing its agents into High Office directly -
Sunak - Goldman Sachs, Javid - JP Morgan, in the USA, #BunkumObummer had most of his team chosen for
him by CitiBank, Camoron ... and so it goes on.
We now live in a world where Corporations can sue national executives for loss of profit, if, for instance,
public ownership interrupts transfer of wealth - as Branson did to the NHS.
It should be clear the status quo is the last thing we need.
Well this video didn't age well.
God save the king