There is no one answer but a large and sad answer is that a sufficient number of people remain intoxicated by deference and supplication, by the sense that certain others are superior in some thrillingly ineffable way, and by the confirmation of that putative superiority in wealth, property, baroque ceremony and an ultra-privileged, ultra-leisured life. Why adults continue to find those things intoxicating or even interesting - let alone acceptable - is a sorrowful mystery.
OMG!! i'm frankly surprised that the absurd comment: "Monarchy is not social immobile, because Kate Middleton was a commoner" went unchallenged. The word "COMMONER" in itself is indicative of a social division between a lower and a self-entitled superior class, and just because every 30 years or so, one member of the privileged class gives a golden ticket to one of the "common folk" to join their group, is NOT proof of social mobility. I find the word "COMMONER" very offensive and incompatible of what a democratic society should be.
***** As much as I think that race, class, faith and so on should not enter into a discriminative minds. They unfortunately do and republicans excasibate this more than most they take away national pride and relace it with xenophobia, they squander money and give none back. They abuse their powers and it is the poor and middle class that are left out to hang when the shit hits the fan. Monarchy is not the best system and depends on where you are but in most cases it is better than republics.
@ the masses giving their hard earned taxes to keep the landed gentry in their palaces..bizarre to continue with a practice from the Middle Ages. Each country to their own
A curious fact to ponder: all the Germanic countries, except the two which lost them after losing WWI, still have monarchies. England imported not only spouses but kings from Denmark, Germany, and Holland.
.....and yet those "imported" monarchies were "imported" because of their own descent from the English royal house. The bloodline has never been deviated from in well over 1000 years, whether it was sons, daughters, siblings or cousins who succeeded the previous monarch(s).
I think the crown should rightly pass to the one most deserving of it and that would be Anne, the Princess Royal. She is the unsung workhorse of the family with the best head on her shoulders. In no way has disgraced her family. Parliament can have a say in it if they think Charles has become too corrupt to become king. Check out his speech on "The WILD Places" I am not sure if he is sound?
Ive got too much respect for Paxman's intellect to be taken in by half of what he says here. Around 55 mins he states that other countries don't see the Commonwealth as a power position and that our seat on the UN security council is more prominent...i wasn't a political commentator or journalist like him and yet i'm fully aware that it was our ties with the commonwealth that actually gave Keynes his bargaining power to stand up to Harry Dexter White at Bretton Woods which was where the UN, IMF and World Bank were formed. Hence the UK permanent position on the UN security council that he mentions is a direct result of our ties to the commonwealth. Its all public record and easily verifiable online and if someone whose primary focus is social sciences like myself is aware of it a political commentator with a background like Paxman who claims to have researched what he is talking about is well aware.
The English / British monarchy is an antiquated irrelevance. Like the Catholic church, it held its "subjects" in nothing but contempt for much of its history, using them to pay for their palaces, fund their wars and meating out harsh justice when they disobeyed. Now in this enlightened age when they rely on people's goodwill to secure their survival, they have taken on a ceremonial role but its still the little people that keep them in their thrones. Western democracies are no role models but to think Obama fulfils a similar role in many ways, works incredibly hard to boot and gets paid a relative pittance....... god feckin bless murica!
most votes don't even count in britain...'democracy' lol...when for example did the ppl of Britain ever vote for or grant their consent to the eternal project of 'multiculturalism'? Never. Yet this massive change is foistered on us under the pretense of 'democracy'
oh I haven't watched right through but up until the halfway point he's just delineating his research he did for a book about monarchy, like the religious angle, the military angle and what not. saved it in my watch later file but my attention on these type of things is well-meaning but a bit scattered.
No-one wanted to be King of Albania becuase they knew they could get a knife in the back. I think a lot more would apply for King of England! However, what a piss-poor excuse for the rationale of wanting a Royal Family that arose from a feudal system. A monarch goes against the basic philosophy of democracy and only serves in present times to perpetuate the aristocracy. Just look at the latest of the tribe, M.P. Benyon, who is now out to exploit the property market for his own dirty gain: as if he hasn't already got enough money and assets (20,000 acres in UK). Why do you think that in the last year or so, the richest 1,000 have doubled their wealth whilst companies are paying pathetic wages for the now popular zero-contract hours. Soon it will be better to go to China and the like for better salaries. The old system wants to keep you poor. In the meantime, the Royal Family sit by without comment unless it is big-mouth Charles and his dad bleating on about global warming or their Poundbury Village.
Rather surprised at Paxman's lack of knowledge of European Heads of State. If a University Challenge contestant had not known the name of the Irish President Paxman would have sneered.
zeztro Me too! I have seen him in several documentaries and read On Royalty. I think he focuses too much on the social relevance of monarchy and not enough on its institutional relevance. But I suppose that is for Bagehot and other political scientists.
Prince Andrew still gets public money and who paid for the “hush” money of about £11 million to shut that woman up, no innocent person would do that. He is also shitting his pants now that Jeffrey Epstein documents will be made public next year. What about Blair, Brown ( sold the gold reserves for a song), Camoron, May, and let’s not forget Truss who lasted a month and finally Sunak who nobody elected. Your CONservative (conservative in name only) have had more leaders in the past few short years than Prince Andrew has had underage girls.
@@johnwayne1464 The US war of independence wasn’t specifically about getting rid of the monarchy. The people considered themselves English but without political representation and from being taxed. Go check out some history.
Spot on again, and please keep raising these issues. Your videos should be on national TV in the form of public information programmes. The indigenous population of this rapidly failing country need educating of the grim reality in regard to immigration.
Every society needs a checkmate in the event of stalemate. Supreme Courts are not sufficient. Monarchies today can be limited to such a rare checkmate to save the nation which is why monarchies exist.
Really annoyed that the question of money wasn't broached, we are still in the dark as to the cost of security. which could completely flip the idea that they are value for money
I don’t know if you’ve seen them around at events but apart from the soldiers, who are on military wages, they don’t have an overwhelming amount of security.
+Matt Webber Once the monarchy goes, they lose value. The Royal Family already do a lot of good and sponsor charities. If it went back to the government then there's no saying where the money would go.
Just as SO many were helped SO much by the selling of Britain's gold reserve by the Labour government. The real problem power in the UK is it's 'popularity contest' political figures. The Monarchy costs us around £40 million a year. The US president costs the US more than $1 billion. Replacing them with a republican system does not necessarily equate to a saving. Even the French, who removed their monarchy, allegedly pay double the amount we do for a president no one has heard of.
+Muppeteer Yes, other countries spend a lot on their presidents, but that is due to their own choice and is not a necessary requirement for a president (head of state).
Matt Webber the charities you speak of are bogus charities and are little more than money laundering tax free havens for them the make even more money. those who have the ability to eradication problems would rather perpetuate or maintain them as it is financially beneficial but the masses are ignorant, indenial and deluded which enable a smooth operate for the most part. If you research much deeper than the surface you'll realise the powerful socially approved and accepted facade that these 'elites' have in operation, which is would say is direct proof of their power if nothing else.
yes and sell the constitution or all art institute and museum items. hell sell all heritage and give to masses who will consume it and end up with nothing
He sees "no evidence" very easily throughout this piece, even when contrary evidence is brought up ... and repeatedly. Good conversation to hear though.
The question that nobody asked that should have been asked: if monarchy is so harmless and beneficial, how come the majority of countries have become republics?
+Matthew McVeagh In my opinion, it's only really beneficial to have a monarchy as opposed to a republic if you are the monarch. Otherwise, I'd prefer a republic. To be clear though, if I can be the king, and particularly if I can live in a palace and be supported by taxes, I have a strong preference for a monarchy. As an American, I support a monarchy insofar as only if I am the monarch in question.
+Matthew McVeagh Yes most countries in the world are republics, but it's only fair to ask are they doing better than the monarchies the minority? Some statistics : democracy index no1 : Norway, corruption perceptions index : Demark. Life expectancy : Monaco . GDP per capita : Qatar. ...... On the other hand, 10 poorest countries in the world are all republics. Therefore sir I don't think your question is fair based on majority while the majority are not doing better than the minority.
+Matthew McVeagh Yes most countries in the world are republics, but it's only fair to ask are they doing better than the monarchies the minority? Some statistics : democracy index no1 : Norway, corruption perceptions index : Demark. Life expectancy : Monaco . GDP per capita : Qatar. ...... On the other hand, 10 poorest countries in the world are all republics. Therefore sir I don't think your question is fair based on majority while the majority are not doing better than the minority.
This discussion, I think, is rather very relevant even to this day. And I have to say that I agree with Paxman on this. Take my country for example. Right now in our presidential election season, we have Hillary Clinton (unapologetic crook), Ted Cruz (Theocratic Messiah), and Donald Trump (dear lord, where do we start?).The President of the United States is both the head of government and head of state, and thus lends itself to be the goal for the most radical and greedy among some of the most powerful people in the most powerful country in the world. Had we a monarchy whose only real powers mainly serve to be an augment to morale, national unity, and largely apolitical positive influence, we might not be undergoing our current political breakdown in America right now.That gentleman who brought up the presidency of the US (and Ireland) might not have a very informed of just how incredible broken our system (which was created and built primarily out of spite and greed) really is compared to the UK. Literally billions upon billions of dollars spent every election season to buy seats and politicians through air-time via for-profit media (illegal in UK elections). Plus, we have a senate, rather than a House of Lords. And our senate is just as corrupt as our House of Representatives. Better that they be appointed subject-matter experts like your current system in the House of Lords (though not perfect, as Cameron is desperately filling it with his party) than our system that will do all they can to try and get re-elected, rather than standing their ground to do the right thing if it's at all against the corrupted powerful already in office.
I get his argument but he is completely ignoring the fact that GB makes a lot of money with the Royals as a brand. Instead of answering that to the student's question he denies the Royals to be lavish. This is not really a well backed-up argument.
55:58 Ugh! Elizabeth is not "queen" of the Commonwealth. She is only the head of the organization and she plays no part in its executive functions-. That is done by the Commonwealth Secretariat with the respective ministers of member states. Moreover, her role in it is not a substitute for the UK and her role in it is wholly independent of the UK. Ugh!
The idea that democracy would increase if we elected head of state is a myth. Ireland and US countries in which republicanism is a large part of their heritage have roughly just over 50% turnouts to elect their head of state, democracy isn't just voting at elections and nor is it making every position of authority elected democratic, should we move to electing our judiciary? I suppose in some ways it is difficult to defend the hereditary principle, do we want hereditary dentists? No but id rather have a hereditary dentist than an elected one. Final idea that we can have a popular elected non partisan president is also a myth. All those words contradict eachother, who does he obby for campaign funds, does a party come out and support a candidate? Do they represent all of us if a large chunk of people vote against or are apathetic to the winning candidate? Food for thought I guess
I Don't really think anyone will benefit if they are gotten rid of but as a matter of principal we won't have a bunch of half witted parasites getting money and praise just for being born into an inbred family.
Stu M And you know what, I don't give a fuck about principle for principles sake. The monarchy are a great symbol of the United Kingdom, a link to tradition and a brilliant tourist attraction. Abolishing the monarchy in the face of this is shear madness.
A link to what tradition? You mean when their ancestors conned people into thinking they were a conduit for god to help keep their power and charge taxes and gather land, basically steal land from people. Tradition my arse. And you think this tradition is worth her getting 36 million a year and for mindless people to worship her? Worship her because of the family she was born into not because she achieved anything. The highest academic achieving royal with all their money and benefit, private tutors, best schools is William who got a 2:2. A bunch of inbred halfwits who live in luxury whilst most people struggle through life. Yes these are just some matters of principal, also add to that the article about some of the bad things they are involved in and just getting rid of them is being kind.
Stu M you know the entire royal family costs each UK tax payer 56p. even four cans of special brew don't cost that. If you were born into a blue blooded family you wouldn't be complaining
Rebecca Broad Yep I wouldn't be complaining, I don't necessarily dislike them apart from them being a bit dim and pretty useless. But don't you think it is wrong that they live a life of luxury for doing well nothing and worse that some people worship them? And of course how their ancestors came to be in power. They are outdated. Also consider that if Queenie was allowed to sell all the land they don't officially own but really do the money would be enough to educate and provide healthcare for everyone on the planet. Why should any of them be treated special because of an accident of birth. I don't mean the money here I mean them being so worshipped, the mentality of people who put them on a pedestal is idiotic. Ask yourself how or why they were friends with Saville, the secret service will thoroughly vet every person they are connected with so they would no doubt of had a binder full of info, rumours, hearsay on that sick SOB yet they still befriended him publicly. I was never a fan of Diana but was she murdered by them? Are the accusations against Andrew in the US true? Everyone else pays inheritance tax over a certain amount so should the royals pay inheritance tax on all the palaces when they inherit them which must be worth billions or do they get round that by them officially being owned by the state....? *No idea what special brew would cost but that seems quite cheap for 4 cans.
Blah b Rubbish. They can just walk out of the job any time they please. The only thing that's stopping them is that they'd have to work for a living. It's been done before.
I've never asked them? What a shit-for-brains ignorant statement! I deal in facts not fantasies. Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 and lived for the next 36 years in relative anonymity. It's happened. It's a fact. What do you think would happen to the royal family if the monarchy were to be dissolved? Nobody would give two shits about an inbred thicko called Charles Windsor or his equally halfwit sprogs two weeks later. And what the fuck are you calling me a republican for? What the fuck is a republican in this context?
I know what a republican is, I wanted to know what you meant by trying to label me one in this context. A republic is a state where the power resides in the people and their elected representatives rather than a monarchy. Given that, how much power do you think the Queen (let alone the rest of the inbreds) has in reality? None. If she started to try and impose her will against the elected democracy then the whole country would erupt. She believes in homeopathy and her son, next in line to the throne, can hardly tie his shoe laces by himself.
10 років тому+2
***** No, you're talking about a democracy. Not all republics are democracies, and a great many democracies are not republics. For example North Korea is a republic, but who would dare claim its people are the ones in power? Also, didn't I already say I'm not interested in your bittered republican fantasies? If I wanted to hear lies, don't you think I'd just buy a gossip magazine?
Here's the dictionary excerpt: republic noun a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. So you're wrong. Check your facts little one!
If you're looking for stability, have a parliament and you'll find a much higher chance of stability. A Monarch or the lack of it doesn't really make much of a difference.
Chris Watson well it does because pretty much one of the main branches of government is stable. Rock stable. Doesn’t really change, simply pure stability. And it’s stable because it knows their position is precarious, and without popular support it’ll all fall apart. Without one then a head of state becomes unstable along with the Parliament. A democracy is by nature, unstable, a monarchy provides stability. In the modern day, when was the last time a constitutional monarchy became seriously unstable. Like Revolution/civil war unstable. I can’t really think of any examples, at least in Europe.
@@jamiengo2343 well if monarchies help they don't help much, look at Finland, Switzerland, Iceland and Germany. We should talk about how stable Parliaments are before going onto monarchies.
Chris Watson Switzerland’s... Switzerland, Iceland’s... Iceland, Finland’s... Finland lol and Germany didn’t have one during Weimar. They learned lessons and created a better democracy. Unfortunately the lessons learned came at the expense of just about everywhere in the world. I mean the U.K. Parliament has survived since the Glorious Revolution. Probably one of the most stable in the world and in history. With a constitutional monarch
What weak arguments for retaining a monarchy; because they are a fallible example of a family? A point of focus that represents the nation? Yeah, that makes all the difference to my life. Patronising and tenuous.
Christian Magnusson The British monarch is determined by an Act of Parliament (Act of Settlement 1701) which states the monarch is the most senior successor of Sophia of Hanover. Sophia's successor is determined by the Accession Council, which in 1952 declared that to be Queen Elizabeth II.
could someone please answer this question: is there a known case of a openly opposed to monarchy individual being knighted by the Queen in recent history? much obliged
Reasons for and against retaining the monarchy can be made and many have merit. But what is England without them? What is English identity and connection to it's own history once the royals are removed and the historical statues are gone and the castles become tacky hotels........not so Great Britain.
***** I'm sure the monarchy-based tourism would continue in a British republic. They could still function and pretend to be a Royal Family and all that wouldn't change. The head of the family just wouldn't automatically become Head of State, that's all.
***** People still love the Colosseum despite there being no actual entertainment there, people still love the pyramids despite there being no Pharaohs there to commission them anymore, people still love feudal Japan despite there being no Shoguns anymore. If we took away constitutional power away from these people we would still get the tourism. every major historical monuments that still attracts millions of tourists from all over the world proves this.
Nice to see Paxman talking extemporaneously outside the confines of his _Newsnight_ interview mode. He makes a compelling case (albeit one that's ironically apathetic) for the monarchy that I heartily endorse. The figurative Head of State should never be a grubby, scheming politician.
Why do you assume an elected head of state would be a politician? Other countries have elected academics, playwrights and trade unionists. Monarchy is long outdated and should be replaced.
And I absolutely agree that the US is a highly class based society. I've worked there quite a lot recently and was shocked at the endemic contempt that even liberals have for the poor. Like it's somehow your own fault to be born into poverty. It's much worse than the UK in its attitudes to poor people. I was recently in LA and saw a very unfortunate looking homeless man crossing the road and being blasted by the horn from a stretch limo based on the Cougar armored car. Utterly shameful.
I suppose the reason some people have “contempt,” as you say for poor people, and I don’t agree that they do, it’s most likely because there is no class system. Therefore there is no excuse, especially since society provides ample opportunity for free education, endless grants and scholarships for university, and has spent billions for welfare. A lot of homeless people are simply mentally I’ll people who refuse to take their medication or are drug addicts who won’t seek help. Society can’t totally mother you your entire life. I’m a liberal, and the problem of poverty is very complex and the more money you throw at the problem the more you find that there are certain points when it is up to the individual to take some manner of responsibility
Monarchy manically and desperately rebranding - hence kate and marcle recruited to the Firm. It’s as simple, cynical and desperate as that. Ridiculous atavism - disband it now. It effectively symbolises all that’s wrong with an anti-democratic structure.
The Queen should roll out the same "Voluntary Contribution" tax system that applies to her to all the people in the Commonwealth. What's good for some is good for all.
The British accent is a fine example of both social mobility and social immobility, given the fact that it was invented in the late 18th century by a bunch of industrial English commoners who wanted to distinguish themselves from the rest of the commoners with their self-achieved newly-gained wealth.
Sorry slightly confused help me out the British accent was invented in the 18th century, do you mean like a Pan-British middle class accent / BBC standard British accent?
Isn't the BBC accent RP? Yeah, I'm talking about RP. RP first emerged in London and then it made other regional English accents non-rhotic. The middle-class accent was developed afterwards.
Ah yes, righto. With you - with you. Just astoundingly impressed that there is an American who knows his accents from here. I have such an RP/BBC accent, and they can be found all over the British Isles. I was brought up in Ireland and Wales but had a BBC accent rather local one. Well done for not using 'England' as a word synonymous with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Just impressive. Not even your presidents manage that distinction.
Can I ask you some questions..because it's interesting. 1. Are you a real posh person that belongs to the upper class, or just a middle-class or an average man? 2. If it's the former, why did you choose to speak RP over your local ones? Is it socially acceptable for an average man to speak RP? 3. If it's the latter, is it just a natural thing that people of the upper class speak RP, or is it just a matter of choice?
In summary, we cant get rid of the British Royal family because we can't be bothered, its too much effort and we don't know what the alternative would look like. Its clear to see that Jeremy doesn't think the monarchy actually bring anything to this country, they dont really have a purpose in this day and age, but they are "benign" enough to not want to put the effort to get rid of them.
I feel this isn't about principles, it's about progressive taxation. If your parents bequeath you a house worth £500K say, then yes some of that wealth should be returned to the state. Say 50%. But you can keep the rest because, as you say they're hard work should be rewarded. But if you're the Duke of Westminster, and you stand to inherit £18 billion in property, then even if you're taxed at 90% that still leaves you with £1.8 billion - ie. more than anyone could ever need. How's that not fair?
Great Great Great Great Great Granpa Charlie did indeed have legitimate issue. His family ended up in America seeking safety. We are still in America along with the Biblical blessing of the House of David which Covenant will never end. BTW we are Protestant for hundreds of years.
does anyone know what book it is that he mentions on the origins of monarchy that was wrote in 1924? he mentions it at the beginning of his talk but i cant make out what the author is called??
He's too reluctant, its a known fact that Charles writes very strong letters to politicians. Edward VIII di too but after his abdication, its a known fact that he had correspondence with German officials claiming that he believed England would be open to peace negotiations after continued bombing of the civilian population, there was a post war clean up collecting his letters to save embarrassment. A lot of Philip's family had political ties too, he had 3 (or 4) sisters married to Nazi officers, national socialism was clearly a political ideology, his brother and brother in law also had ties. The queen has knighted Powell, Shwatzkopf, Kissenger etc etc...all for political reasons. Its just some bullshit they say to make it seem like a royal family like ours is compatible with a democracy but the bottom line is that nobody is apolitical, professionalism or rather discretion is as close as it gets.
Why a native born British can openly claim to be a republican while an immigrant swearing in to be a resident has to pledge allegiance to the Queen? Should they kick Paxman out of the country?
Republic estimate the cost of the British royal family to be £183 million a year (far higher than the £40 million stated by the Buckingham Palace spin machine). If Paxman doesn't think this is lavish, I'd like to know what he thinks is a lavish lifestyle.
I assume you are referring to the tourism they supposedly generate. That is a myth. Tourists would still come to visit Britain without the royals, and those tourists (not to mention British citizens) would have far greater access to the palaces, parks and art that the royal family currently hog for themselves. Oh, and your assertion that the royals bring in £2bn is risible. Go and do some reading.
stevebrizzle You do know as private individuals the family own counties that they defer income from to the government? You do know about Detroit to? There is a lot more but it would take to long to explain, dodgy islands, Vatican deals, paedophilic billionaires buying country estates to hide from Interpol etc. all brings in the cash for HRM to add to the pot. The £2bn a year is average over the last 20 years from what I saw. Also bud, a lot of the £40m goes toward the upkeep of property that would need nearly as much to run without them. All in, the royals are far cheaper than government and more important in the grander scheme of things. I have defended my queen as she lets me live in her country, you are still entitled to your opinion. Peace.
his argument seems to be 'as long as there is a lower class we should have those with massive inherited privilege to make them feel them better' - not sure paxman not sure at all
Why do people always say, "if not a monarchy, then what - a President? That would be just as expensive.". My question is, why "replace" the monarchy with anything? You already have a Prime Minister. Stay with that and save the tax money spent on palaces and security. Also, I think the monarch exercises political power by showing favor to certain corporate and government entities. If a banker is doing what the old guard aristocracy wants, they will receive royal favor and be invited to parties, clubs, events, etc. Those who go against the tide are punished and shut out. Plus, I think I'd be more concerned about Prince Charles being divorced and still being crowned by the Archbishop instead of worrying about will he still have strong ideas on ecology once he is King.
***** by ending all imperialist activity abroad, just like Germany did. See Germany is not an Empire but the UK still is. See the difference between a peaceful nation and an aggressive Nuclear Empire?
I will not live to see the return of true monarchy, but it is that half that the world needs. The other half? The Christian church. But this begs the question which church? For 1,500 years Europe had only the Catholic Church. With the breakup into many denominations, especially a loosening of the concept of an official church for a nation, we can not have a return to true monarchy. The church was the counterbalance to the monarchy. Without an official church complete with dogmas accepted by that nation, the nation and its monarchy become rudderless. I recall one of those Peter Hitchens' arguments where, as usual, he is always surrounded by leftists, and one, a feminist, thought she could shut down his argument by challenging "But who determines what is right from wrong?" Peter, who never seems at a loss for replies, did not readily answer that question. Peter, as great as he is, has, like his fellow Brits, left or right, their myopic loss at the history of the Catholic Church. Now we, the western nations, have only a freefloating liberty, origins from the Enlightenment, that has given us so-called freedoms unthinkable to allow (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.) In centuries past, and there is more to come. A restoration to uprighting the Catholic Church, with an accompanying monarchy, can only save our civilization, not our delusions of republicanism.
So the royals are no longer relevant but a presidential system seems to put the hopes and dreams and things into a single body; a single leader; The Executive. But the U.K. has a prime minister which is not directly elected and therefore unanswerable to the public. So the answer is a leader but not a leader. So what is the solution??? I guess anarchy or syndicalism or what not...
Well, Gandhi indirectly used the threat of violence but not violence itself. Everything time the colonial government would take an unpopular decision, Gandhi would go on a fast for weeks upon weeks. Now both Gandhi and the colonial government knew that if Gandhi were to die from starvation, it would lead to public unrest, revolts and quite possibly, a revolution. It is for this reason that the government would usually concede to Gandhi's demands because they knew the consequences of not doing so would be far too dangerous.
they are not German-Russian or anything else. By the high middle ages to about the inter-war period, royalty had pretty much morphed into an ethnic group unto itself. How on Earth is the British royal family forever condemned to be considered "German", when the queen has a Scottish mother, English & Scottish grandparents, & a Danish great-grandmother? George I & the so-called "Hanoverians" came to the throne via their descent from King James VI of Scotland, aka King James I of England. By the same logic that is used to call the modern royals German, then one could also call them Scottish.
By that logic then all black/Asian people who have lived in Britain for generations arent British either. Whwn you think about it that's a pretty racist thing you're saying
The only reason if you ignore the tourism thing, to like a monachy is an emotional attachment towards them, the other thing is liking historical things, them 2 things are not good enough reasons to keep a tax funded monachy. No more monachy there will be still billions of profit.
Would any of you like an aggressive extra-continental nuclear power to seize territory and set up a military base off the coast of England? Well that is what the this little queens Empire is doing to Argentina.
Karl Stephens that is what the Pirate Empire would like to thing.. We South Americans are stubborn. You better ask your queen to keep wasting money in keeping that colonial outpost as an useless fortress for the defense of oil.
When Paxman started his lecture I thought he was claiming to be a dyed in the wool Republican . But in the end he is no different and like ALL show biz luvies and political types he has an eye on the Title "Sir " Jeremy .
...it's in the space between breathing in and out...between attention inward and outward...all and nothing...timeless awareness...infinite love...that's were true kingdom hides...yet totally available to anyone...gazillions times a day...every moment...timeless, limitless...not2...herenow...
im certainly not a Royalist, but I think if you are going to replace the monarchy (and house of Lords for that matter), have a practical reason and demonstrably better alternative at hand. I really dont care if people just dont like it on ideological grounds - that's not worth me spending one penny of my taxes on .. and one thing you can be sure of, it would happen at the tax payers expense.
The constitutional monarchy is the symbol, and a safeguard, of British democracy and which is removed from the sordid nature of partisan politics. Having a family at the head of state is a reminder of higher obligations and the relationships of what is important to us. Long may she reign.
...for God's sake......stay away from any one that claims to be God's representative...yet than again...were does intuition, encouragement and creativity come from ?
I do not agree with Paxman that we need more politics by electing in yet another functionary The answer to the problem is not to elect a president but to strengthen the monarchy, and I maintain that the monarchy in the united Kingdom needs strengthen the monarchy and there is no time like the present. The essential argument for President can resolve into a strengthed monarchy and in the case of Britain means strengthening the Privy Council by limiting the membership of the current administration to the Prime Minister, Chancellor and also by increasing the rôle of the Supreme Court. The essence of Parliamentary Democracy is to have an extra-political authority , or a civil reource of last appeal and an ultimate guarantee for convention. I have lived I five countries, and I have enjoyed the greatest measure of liberty in countries which have a monarchy and a state church.. I am a member of the French Communist Party
Its not fair that Portugal had to give up its colonies by force against the world, and uk and france can still have theirs, and america can buy the alaska. Portugal now have their own commomwealth.
Jeremy betrays his unwillingness to accept concrete data preferring his own 'faith-based' rose-tinted view on social mobility in the UK, unsupported by any data. The OECD has many such studies as I'm sure he was aware at the time... www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-mobility-data-charts#zoomed-picture
Paxman needs a history lesson on the origins of European royalty. His comment that all the dynasties got started because of their descent from some asshole with an army who decided to invade some country & put his/herself on the throne is simply NOT true. Most people get their notions concerning the concept of royalty & nobility & the institution of monarchy from fictional movies, books &/or TV shows. Shows like Game of Thrones, not to mention the absurd history put forward in the otherwise excellent movie Braveheart, make people think that becoming a monarch &/or establishing a royal dynasty or bloodline is a simple matter of some asshole with an army conquering some country & saying "I'M THE KING NOW!" In Europe, it rarely ever went down that way. No person from the fall of ancient Rome all the way to the first World War ever succeeded to a throne without any legal &/or blood claim to it in the first place, except for Napoleon, who set himself up as "Emperor of the French" & proceeding to remove several monarchs from their thrones & put his relatives or generals on them as he marched hi grand armé across Europe...but he was promptly overthrown & so were his generals & relatives, except of course for General Bernadotte, who was elected king of Sweden & established the royal dynasty that still remains enthroned in Sweden to this day. The other is a bit of a grey area, & that is William the Conqueror, who not only established the numeration of monarchs in England/Britain but also established the bloodline that still reigns to this day. He was most likely designated as heir to the English throne by his cousin Edward the Confessor, who had no natural heirs of his own. The throne was usurped by Edwards brother-in-law Harold Godwinson when Edward died, causing William to invade.
There is no one answer but a large and sad answer is that a sufficient number of people remain intoxicated by deference and supplication, by the sense that certain others are superior in some thrillingly ineffable way, and by the confirmation of that putative superiority in wealth, property, baroque ceremony and an ultra-privileged, ultra-leisured life. Why adults continue to find those things intoxicating or even interesting - let alone acceptable - is a sorrowful mystery.
OMG!! i'm frankly surprised that the absurd comment: "Monarchy is not social immobile, because Kate Middleton was a commoner" went unchallenged. The word "COMMONER" in itself is indicative of a social division between a lower and a self-entitled superior class, and just because every 30 years or so, one member of the privileged class gives a golden ticket to one of the "common folk" to join their group, is NOT proof of social mobility. I find the word "COMMONER" very offensive and incompatible of what a democratic society should be.
House of Commons.
----------------
Everyone who is not royal is common, no matter how posh they be in your eyes.
David Erif kate middleton is a "commoner".
+fieldmajorstyre She used to be.
+Eskify Check her background, I was surprised, she's anything but "common"
david howard
Doesn't being common just mean you aren't a member of the aristocracy?
Nobody should be treated any different from birth, end monarchies is a step closer to really ensuring all men/women are treated equally.
***** As much as I think that race, class, faith and so on should not enter into a discriminative minds. They unfortunately do and republicans excasibate this more than most they take away national pride and relace it with xenophobia, they squander money and give none back. They abuse their powers and it is the poor and middle class that are left out to hang when the shit hits the fan. Monarchy is not the best system and depends on where you are but in most cases it is better than republics.
Our present Queen has been the very best Monarch leading by example. Presedential Republics by comparison all through history have been currupt,
+Stewart wylie Except Lincoln, Washington,Bismark.
1798UnitedIrishMen
Hell no
Long live the Monarchy
what a horrible and unrealistic attitude.
yes why do we still have a monarchy
we dont need one
@ the masses giving their hard earned taxes to keep the landed gentry in their palaces..bizarre to continue with a practice from the Middle Ages. Each country to their own
A curious fact to ponder: all the Germanic countries, except the two which lost them after losing WWI, still have monarchies. England imported not only spouses but kings from Denmark, Germany, and Holland.
+Frank Dunbar England is a Germanic country, what?
.....and yet those "imported" monarchies were "imported" because of their own descent from the English royal house. The bloodline has never been deviated from in well over 1000 years, whether it was sons, daughters, siblings or cousins who succeeded the previous monarch(s).
@@TheEvilscotsman123 : Yes, essentially England is basically a Germanic country.
@@TheEvilscotsman123 The Anglo Saxon people, who settled in Britain after the Roman withdrawal, were 'germanic', culturally and linguistically.
I think the crown should rightly pass to the one most deserving of it and that would be Anne, the Princess Royal. She is the unsung workhorse of the family with the best head on her shoulders. In no way has disgraced her family. Parliament can have a say in it if they think Charles has become too corrupt to become king. Check out his speech on "The WILD Places" I am not sure if he is sound?
The royal family have brought great financial wealth to the UK over the years. The bile says to pray for them, not to pray they are gotten rid of.
Ive got too much respect for Paxman's intellect to be taken in by half of what he says here. Around 55 mins he states that other countries don't see the Commonwealth as a power position and that our seat on the UN security council is more prominent...i wasn't a political commentator or journalist like him and yet i'm fully aware that it was our ties with the commonwealth that actually gave Keynes his bargaining power to stand up to Harry Dexter White at Bretton Woods which was where the UN, IMF and World Bank were formed. Hence the UK permanent position on the UN security council that he mentions is a direct result of our ties to the commonwealth. Its all public record and easily verifiable online and if someone whose primary focus is social sciences like myself is aware of it a political commentator with a background like Paxman who claims to have researched what he is talking about is well aware.
The English / British monarchy is an antiquated irrelevance. Like the Catholic church, it held its "subjects" in nothing but contempt for much of its history, using them to pay for their palaces, fund their wars and meating out harsh justice when they disobeyed. Now in this enlightened age when they rely on people's goodwill to secure their survival, they have taken on a ceremonial role but its still the little people that keep them in their thrones. Western democracies are no role models but to think Obama fulfils a similar role in many ways, works incredibly hard to boot and gets paid a relative pittance....... god feckin bless murica!
+rivolinho it's meting out not meating out. Sorry for the pedantry.
most votes don't even count in britain...'democracy' lol...when for example did the ppl of Britain ever vote for or grant their consent to the eternal project of 'multiculturalism'? Never. Yet this massive change is foistered on us under the pretense of 'democracy'
As a Canadian I can say we in the common wealth see British monarchy as a largely harmless but ultimately meaningless legal techniquicality.
You do not can not speak for all of us.
Ain't harmless if the building of Canada/colonization/imperialism happened at the expense of generations of Indigenous peoples of the land.
@@drumnbasskim They're talking about in the modern day, hardly going to dig up all the imperialists and get them to say sorry are they?
Simply saying its 'benign' is no good because we are actively financing it with money that is desperately needed for NHS, schools etc.
I totally agree with you. Anyone who calls monarchy benine clearly has no specific information regarding their finances.
Paxman, what a legend. Lot of intergrity and this talk has clarified the whole issue to me. Nice one !
Can't see a transcript - what's the upshot of the video?
oh I haven't watched right through but up until the halfway point he's just delineating his research he did for a book about monarchy, like the religious angle, the military angle and what not. saved it in my watch later file but my attention on these type of things is well-meaning but a bit scattered.
No-one wanted to be King of Albania becuase they knew they could get a knife in the back. I think a lot more would apply for King of England! However, what a piss-poor excuse for the rationale of wanting a Royal Family that arose from a feudal system. A monarch goes against the basic philosophy of democracy and only serves in present times to perpetuate the aristocracy. Just look at the latest of the tribe, M.P. Benyon, who is now out to exploit the property market for his own dirty gain: as if he hasn't already got enough money and assets (20,000 acres in UK). Why do you think that in the last year or so, the richest 1,000 have doubled their wealth whilst companies are paying pathetic wages for the now popular zero-contract hours. Soon it will be better to go to China and the like for better salaries. The old system wants to keep you poor. In the meantime, the Royal Family sit by without comment unless it is big-mouth Charles and his dad bleating on about global warming or their Poundbury Village.
he is a cxxt
Rather surprised at Paxman's lack of knowledge of European Heads of State. If a University Challenge contestant had not known the name of the Irish President Paxman would have sneered.
Growing on me Paxman. Enjoying your Empire series too.
Same here.
zeztro Me too! I have seen him in several documentaries and read On Royalty. I think he focuses too much on the social relevance of monarchy and not enough on its institutional relevance. But I suppose that is for Bagehot and other political scientists.
That series is a good watch. Very informative.
The best advert for keeping the monarchy is to take a look at the vile people who oppose it.
The USA opposed it and had a war of independence and got rid of them, are you suggesting the the whole of the USA is vile?
@@johnwayne1464America is probably the best advert for retaining the monarchy. God save the king!
@@Rob_Sausage Prince Andrew is the best advert to get rid of the bunch of freeloading no goods sods.
Prince Andrew still gets public money and who paid for the “hush” money of about £11 million to shut that woman up, no innocent person would do that. He is also shitting his pants now that Jeffrey Epstein documents will be made public next year. What about Blair, Brown ( sold the gold reserves for a song), Camoron, May, and let’s not forget Truss who lasted a month and finally Sunak who nobody elected. Your CONservative (conservative in name only) have had more leaders in the past few short years than Prince Andrew has had underage girls.
@@johnwayne1464 The US war of independence wasn’t specifically about getting rid of the monarchy. The people considered themselves English but without political representation and from being taxed. Go check out some history.
Spot on again, and please keep raising these issues. Your videos should be on national TV in the form of public information programmes. The indigenous population of this rapidly failing country need educating of the grim reality in regard to immigration.
Every society needs a checkmate in the event of stalemate. Supreme Courts are not sufficient. Monarchies today can be limited to such a rare checkmate to save the nation which is why monarchies exist.
Really annoyed that the question of money wasn't broached, we are still in the dark as to the cost of security. which could completely flip the idea that they are value for money
I don’t know if you’ve seen them around at events but apart from the soldiers, who are on military wages, they don’t have an overwhelming amount of security.
You could take the Queen's crown or her golden chair that she sits on and do SO much good and help SO many with the money
+Matt Webber Once the monarchy goes, they lose value. The Royal Family already do a lot of good and sponsor charities. If it went back to the government then there's no saying where the money would go.
Just as SO many were helped SO much by the selling of Britain's gold reserve by the Labour government. The real problem power in the UK is it's 'popularity contest' political figures. The Monarchy costs us around £40 million a year. The US president costs the US more than $1 billion. Replacing them with a republican system does not necessarily equate to a saving. Even the French, who removed their monarchy, allegedly pay double the amount we do for a president no one has heard of.
+Muppeteer Yes, other countries spend a lot on their presidents, but that is due to their own choice and is not a necessary requirement for a president (head of state).
Matt Webber the charities you speak of are bogus charities and are little more than money laundering tax free havens for them the make even more money. those who have the ability to eradication problems would rather perpetuate or maintain them as it is financially beneficial but the masses are ignorant, indenial and deluded which enable a smooth operate for the most part. If you research much deeper than the surface you'll realise the powerful socially approved and accepted facade that these 'elites' have in operation, which is would say is direct proof of their power if nothing else.
yes and sell the constitution or all art institute and museum items. hell sell all heritage and give to masses who will consume it and end up with nothing
At 43:00 Jeremy makes a case against monarchy lol
He sees "no evidence" very easily throughout this piece, even when contrary evidence is brought up ... and repeatedly. Good conversation to hear though.
Now one will know what the meaning of 'boring as batshit'
is upon watching this video.
The question that nobody asked that should have been asked: if monarchy is so harmless and beneficial, how come the majority of countries have become republics?
+Matthew McVeagh
In my opinion, it's only really beneficial to have a monarchy as opposed to a republic if you are the monarch. Otherwise, I'd prefer a republic. To be clear though, if I can be the king, and particularly if I can live in a palace and be supported by taxes, I have a strong preference for a monarchy. As an American, I support a monarchy insofar as only if I am the monarch in question.
+Matthew McVeagh Yes most countries in the world are republics, but it's only fair to ask are they doing better than the monarchies the minority? Some statistics : democracy index no1 : Norway, corruption perceptions index : Demark. Life expectancy : Monaco . GDP per capita : Qatar. ...... On the other hand, 10 poorest countries in the world are all republics. Therefore sir I don't think your question is fair based on majority while the majority are not doing better than the minority.
+Matthew McVeagh Yes most countries in the world are republics, but it's only fair to ask are they doing better than the monarchies the minority? Some statistics : democracy index no1 : Norway, corruption perceptions index : Demark. Life expectancy : Monaco . GDP per capita : Qatar. ...... On the other hand, 10 poorest countries in the world are all republics. Therefore sir I don't think your question is fair based on majority while the majority are not doing better than the minority.
+Matthew McVeagh Sorry typed twice, computer froze.
+Matthew McVeagh Sorry typed twice, computer froze.
So the monarchy provides an ideal, yet dysfunctional, family for the nation, that no one could possibly relate to? Yeah that's worth 60 mil per year.
This discussion, I think, is rather very relevant even to this day. And I have to say that I agree with Paxman on this.
Take my country for example. Right now in our presidential election season, we have Hillary Clinton (unapologetic crook), Ted Cruz (Theocratic Messiah), and Donald Trump (dear lord, where do we start?).The President of the United States is both the head of government and head of state, and thus lends itself to be the goal for the most radical and greedy among some of the most powerful people in the most powerful country in the world.
Had we a monarchy whose only real powers mainly serve to be an augment to morale, national unity, and largely apolitical positive influence, we might not be undergoing our current political breakdown in America right now.That gentleman who brought up the presidency of the US (and Ireland) might not have a very informed of just how incredible broken our system (which was created and built primarily out of spite and greed) really is compared to the UK. Literally billions upon billions of dollars spent every election season to buy seats and politicians through air-time via for-profit media (illegal in UK elections).
Plus, we have a senate, rather than a House of Lords. And our senate is just as corrupt as our House of Representatives. Better that they be appointed subject-matter experts like your current system in the House of Lords (though not perfect, as Cameron is desperately filling it with his party) than our system that will do all they can to try and get re-elected, rather than standing their ground to do the right thing if it's at all against the corrupted powerful already in office.
I really missed Cyberton
Please move to the UK.
Nobody will miss you.
Thank you.
I get his argument but he is completely ignoring the fact that GB makes a lot of money with the Royals as a brand. Instead of answering that to the student's question he denies the Royals to be lavish. This is not really a well backed-up argument.
They left India in 1947, abolished kingship and maharajahs but kept it in Britain what a farce!
55:58 Ugh! Elizabeth is not "queen" of the Commonwealth. She is only the head of the organization and she plays no part in its executive functions-. That is done by the Commonwealth Secretariat with the respective ministers of member states. Moreover, her role in it is not a substitute for the UK and her role in it is wholly independent of the UK. Ugh!
Jeremy...old school to the bone....glad to see no journalism interfering there...
the NARRATOR ... of 1 of 5 series of British Empire i finished listening to first to last ... beautifully done Sir and good morning too
The idea that democracy would increase if we elected head of state is a myth. Ireland and US countries in which republicanism is a large part of their heritage have roughly just over 50% turnouts to elect their head of state, democracy isn't just voting at elections and nor is it making every position of authority elected democratic, should we move to electing our judiciary?
I suppose in some ways it is difficult to defend the hereditary principle, do we want hereditary dentists? No but id rather have a hereditary dentist than an elected one.
Final idea that we can have a popular elected non partisan president is also a myth. All those words contradict eachother, who does he obby for campaign funds, does a party come out and support a candidate? Do they represent all of us if a large chunk of people vote against or are apathetic to the winning candidate? Food for thought I guess
I Don't really think anyone will benefit if they are gotten rid of but as a matter of principal we won't have a bunch of half witted parasites getting money and praise just for being born into an inbred family.
Stu M And you know what, I don't give a fuck about principle for principles sake. The monarchy are a great symbol of the United Kingdom, a link to tradition and a brilliant tourist attraction.
Abolishing the monarchy in the face of this is shear madness.
A link to what tradition? You mean when their ancestors conned people into thinking they were a conduit for god to help keep their power and charge taxes and gather land, basically steal land from people.
Tradition my arse. And you think this tradition is worth her getting 36 million a year and for mindless people to worship her? Worship her because of the family she was born into not because she achieved anything.
The highest academic achieving royal with all their money and benefit, private tutors, best schools is William who got a 2:2. A bunch of inbred halfwits who live in luxury whilst most people struggle through life.
Yes these are just some matters of principal, also add to that the article about some of the bad things they are involved in and just getting rid of them is being kind.
Stu M you know the entire royal family costs each UK tax payer 56p. even four cans of special brew don't cost that. If you were born into a blue blooded family you wouldn't be complaining
Rebecca Broad Yep I wouldn't be complaining, I don't necessarily dislike them apart from them being a bit dim and pretty useless. But don't you think it is wrong that they live a life of luxury for doing well nothing and worse that some people worship them? And of course how their ancestors came to be in power. They are outdated. Also consider that if Queenie was allowed to sell all the land they don't officially own but really do the money would be enough to educate and provide healthcare for everyone on the planet.
Why should any of them be treated special because of an accident of birth. I don't mean the money here I mean them being so worshipped, the mentality of people who put them on a pedestal is idiotic.
Ask yourself how or why they were friends with Saville, the secret service will thoroughly vet every person they are connected with so they would no doubt of had a binder full of info, rumours, hearsay on that sick SOB yet they still befriended him publicly. I was never a fan of Diana but was she murdered by them? Are the accusations against Andrew in the US true?
Everyone else pays inheritance tax over a certain amount so should the royals pay inheritance tax on all the palaces when they inherit them which must be worth billions or do they get round that by them officially being owned by the state....?
*No idea what special brew would cost but that seems quite cheap for 4 cans.
How can Paxman claim that it's such an awful job to be a member of the royal family. I don't see many of them opting out.
Blah b Rubbish. They can just walk out of the job any time they please. The only thing that's stopping them is that they'd have to work for a living. It's been done before.
I've never asked them? What a shit-for-brains ignorant statement!
I deal in facts not fantasies. Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 and lived for the next 36 years in relative anonymity. It's happened. It's a fact. What do you think would happen to the royal family if the monarchy were to be dissolved? Nobody would give two shits about an inbred thicko called Charles Windsor or his equally halfwit sprogs two weeks later.
And what the fuck are you calling me a republican for? What the fuck is a republican in this context?
I know what a republican is, I wanted to know what you meant by trying to label me one in this context. A republic is a state where the power resides in the people and their elected representatives rather than a monarchy. Given that, how much power do you think the Queen (let alone the rest of the inbreds) has in reality? None. If she started to try and impose her will against the elected democracy then the whole country would erupt. She believes in homeopathy and her son, next in line to the throne, can hardly tie his shoe laces by himself.
*****
No, you're talking about a democracy. Not all republics are democracies, and a great many democracies are not republics.
For example North Korea is a republic, but who would dare claim its people are the ones in power?
Also, didn't I already say I'm not interested in your bittered republican fantasies? If I wanted to hear lies, don't you think I'd just buy a gossip magazine?
Here's the dictionary excerpt: republic noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
So you're wrong. Check your facts little one!
If you're looking for stability, have a parliament and you'll find a much higher chance of stability. A Monarch or the lack of it doesn't really make much of a difference.
Chris Watson well it does because pretty much one of the main branches of government is stable. Rock stable. Doesn’t really change, simply pure stability. And it’s stable because it knows their position is precarious, and without popular support it’ll all fall apart. Without one then a head of state becomes unstable along with the Parliament. A democracy is by nature, unstable, a monarchy provides stability. In the modern day, when was the last time a constitutional monarchy became seriously unstable. Like Revolution/civil war unstable. I can’t really think of any examples, at least in Europe.
@@jamiengo2343 stable countries have parliaments, look it up.
Chris Watson and monarchies. Both of them together create a very stable system of government
@@jamiengo2343 well if monarchies help they don't help much, look at Finland, Switzerland, Iceland and Germany.
We should talk about how stable Parliaments are before going onto monarchies.
Chris Watson Switzerland’s... Switzerland, Iceland’s... Iceland, Finland’s... Finland lol and Germany didn’t have one during Weimar. They learned lessons and created a better democracy. Unfortunately the lessons learned came at the expense of just about everywhere in the world. I mean the U.K. Parliament has survived since the Glorious Revolution. Probably one of the most stable in the world and in history. With a constitutional monarch
What weak arguments for retaining a monarchy; because they are a fallible example of a family? A point of focus that represents the nation? Yeah, that makes all the difference to my life. Patronising and tenuous.
Britain's Queen Elizabeth II not Real Heir to the Throne
The Accession Council declared her to be Queen in 1952. That makes her the lawful monarch.
Bullshit
Christian Magnusson The British monarch is determined by an Act of Parliament (Act of Settlement 1701) which states the monarch is the most senior successor of Sophia of Hanover. Sophia's successor is determined by the Accession Council, which in 1952 declared that to be Queen Elizabeth II.
bullshit
rodde wip Depends on whether this 'rightful heir is protestant or not. I refer you to the glorious revolution
could someone please answer this question: is there a known case of a openly opposed to monarchy individual being knighted by the Queen in recent history? much obliged
Sorry for have to state the bloody blindingly obvious but if asked = a refusal
Reasons for and against retaining the monarchy can be made and many have merit. But what is England without them? What is English identity and connection to it's own history once the royals are removed and the historical statues are gone and the castles become tacky hotels........not so Great Britain.
the royals are no longer relevant
***** That's a glib answer. Saying FNC is good TV because of ratings they get. Pfft
***** I'm sure the monarchy-based tourism would continue in a British republic. They could still function and pretend to be a Royal Family and all that wouldn't change. The head of the family just wouldn't automatically become Head of State, that's all.
***** There would be the end of discrimination. Why should more than 99% of the population be excluded from being Head of State? That's not fair
***** have you ever heard of stockholm syndrome
***** People still love the Colosseum despite there being no actual entertainment there, people still love the pyramids despite there being no Pharaohs there to commission them anymore, people still love feudal Japan despite there being no Shoguns anymore. If we took away constitutional power away from these people we would still get the tourism. every major historical monuments that still attracts millions of tourists from all over the world proves this.
Nice to see Paxman talking extemporaneously outside the confines of his _Newsnight_ interview mode. He makes a compelling case (albeit one that's ironically apathetic) for the monarchy that I heartily endorse. The figurative Head of State should never be a grubby, scheming politician.
What about a grubby scheming monarch?
Why do you assume an elected head of state would be a politician? Other countries have elected academics, playwrights and trade unionists. Monarchy is long outdated and should be replaced.
And I absolutely agree that the US is a highly class based society. I've worked there quite a lot recently and was shocked at the endemic contempt that even liberals have for the poor. Like it's somehow your own fault to be born into poverty. It's much worse than the UK in its attitudes to poor people. I was recently in LA and saw a very unfortunate looking homeless man crossing the road and being blasted by the horn from a stretch limo based on the Cougar armored car. Utterly shameful.
I suppose the reason some people have “contempt,” as you say for poor people, and I don’t agree that they do, it’s most likely because there is no class system. Therefore there is no excuse, especially since society provides ample opportunity for free education, endless grants and scholarships for university, and has spent billions for welfare. A lot of homeless people are simply mentally I’ll people who refuse to take their medication or are drug addicts who won’t seek help. Society can’t totally mother you your entire life. I’m a liberal, and the problem of poverty is very complex and the more money you throw at the problem the more you find that there are certain points when it is up to the individual to take some manner of responsibility
Fascinating to hear someone call Kate Middleton “a commoner”, and that wasn’t commented upon
Shows the type of people in the room
it means she isn't the member of any royal family
Monarchy manically and desperately rebranding - hence kate and marcle recruited to the Firm.
It’s as simple, cynical and desperate as that.
Ridiculous atavism - disband it now. It effectively symbolises all that’s wrong with an anti-democratic structure.
The king on the throne at the time of the suffragette movement, deliberately involved himself in the fight against the women having the right to vote.
The Queen should roll out the same "Voluntary Contribution" tax system that applies to her to all the people in the Commonwealth. What's good for some is good for all.
The British accent is a fine example of both social mobility and social immobility, given the fact that it was invented in the late 18th century by a bunch of industrial English commoners who wanted to distinguish themselves from the rest of the commoners with their self-achieved newly-gained wealth.
Sorry slightly confused help me out the British accent was invented in the 18th century, do you mean like a Pan-British middle class accent / BBC standard British accent?
Isn't the BBC accent RP? Yeah, I'm talking about RP. RP first emerged in London and then it made other regional English accents non-rhotic. The middle-class accent was developed afterwards.
Ah yes, righto. With you - with you. Just astoundingly impressed that there is an American who knows his accents from here. I have such an RP/BBC accent, and they can be found all over the British Isles. I was brought up in Ireland and Wales but had a BBC accent rather local one. Well done for not using 'England' as a word synonymous with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Just impressive. Not even your presidents manage that distinction.
Can I ask you some questions..because it's interesting.
1. Are you a real posh person that belongs to the upper class, or just a middle-class or an average man?
2. If it's the former, why did you choose to speak RP over your local ones? Is it socially acceptable for an average man to speak RP?
3. If it's the latter, is it just a natural thing that people of the upper class speak RP, or is it just a matter of choice?
Always loved Jeremy Paxman. Whatever he does he makes life interesting and gets answers.
Paxman is so clever and funny.
In summary,
we cant get rid of the British Royal family because we can't be bothered, its too much effort and we don't know what the alternative would look like.
Its clear to see that Jeremy doesn't think the monarchy actually bring anything to this country, they dont really have a purpose in this day and age, but they are "benign" enough to not want to put the effort to get rid of them.
I feel this isn't about principles, it's about progressive taxation. If your parents bequeath you a house worth £500K say, then yes some of that wealth should be returned to the state. Say 50%. But you can keep the rest because, as you say they're hard work should be rewarded. But if you're the Duke of Westminster, and you stand to inherit £18 billion in property, then even if you're taxed at 90% that still leaves you with £1.8 billion - ie. more than anyone could ever need. How's that not fair?
Great Great Great Great Great Granpa Charlie did indeed have legitimate issue. His family ended up in America seeking safety. We are still in America along with the Biblical blessing of the House of David which Covenant will never end. BTW we are Protestant for hundreds of years.
The Queen Mother had a £4m overdraft when she died. At the age of 101
If only the monarchy were value for money
does anyone know what book it is that he mentions on the origins of monarchy that was wrote in 1924? he mentions it at the beginning of his talk but i cant make out what the author is called??
2022 the uk monachy will be abolished ❗️
I think the speaker of the house of commons should be the head of state
Paxman is a willing atheist & reluctant republican like me.
Me too
He's too reluctant, its a known fact that Charles writes very strong letters to politicians. Edward VIII di too but after his abdication, its a known fact that he had correspondence with German officials claiming that he believed England would be open to peace negotiations after continued bombing of the civilian population, there was a post war clean up collecting his letters to save embarrassment. A lot of Philip's family had political ties too, he had 3 (or 4) sisters married to Nazi officers, national socialism was clearly a political ideology, his brother and brother in law also had ties. The queen has knighted Powell, Shwatzkopf, Kissenger etc etc...all for political reasons.
Its just some bullshit they say to make it seem like a royal family like ours is compatible with a democracy but the bottom line is that nobody is apolitical, professionalism or rather discretion is as close as it gets.
It's a shame he's so condescending about Albania. Embarrasing really.
Why is the question at 36:50 edited out?
do we still need micro-phones?
24:04 Never forget we're in the happiness business
Why a native born British can openly claim to be a republican while an immigrant swearing in to be a resident has to pledge allegiance to the Queen? Should they kick Paxman out of the country?
At least Charlie has an opinion - queenie does bugger all but bear her teeth.
A fascinating lecture on monarchy and it really digs deep.
Republic estimate the cost of the British royal family to be £183 million a year (far higher than the £40 million stated by the Buckingham Palace spin machine). If Paxman doesn't think this is lavish, I'd like to know what he thinks is a lavish lifestyle.
Even at £200m they bring in x10 that each year. Both directly and through connections. They're good for business.
I assume you are referring to the tourism they supposedly generate. That is a myth. Tourists would still come to visit Britain without the royals, and those tourists (not to mention British citizens) would have far greater access to the palaces, parks and art that the royal family currently hog for themselves. Oh, and your assertion that the royals bring in £2bn is risible. Go and do some reading.
stevebrizzle You do know as private individuals the family own counties that they defer income from to the government? You do know about Detroit to? There is a lot more but it would take to long to explain, dodgy islands, Vatican deals, paedophilic billionaires buying country estates to hide from Interpol etc. all brings in the cash for HRM to add to the pot. The £2bn a year is average over the last 20 years from what I saw. Also bud, a lot of the £40m goes toward the upkeep of property that would need nearly as much to run without them. All in, the royals are far cheaper than government and more important in the grander scheme of things. I have defended my queen as she lets me live in her country, you are still entitled to your opinion. Peace.
How do you think Republic estimate their figures? It's entirely made up. Those people are mentally ill
his argument seems to be 'as long as there is a lower class we should have those with massive inherited privilege to make them feel them better' - not sure paxman not sure at all
Jeremy Paxman is the biggest G in Britain
I agree never understood people mourning people they don't know ..and privileged ones at that !
Why do people always say, "if not a monarchy, then what - a President? That would be just as expensive.". My question is, why "replace" the monarchy with anything? You already have a Prime Minister. Stay with that and save the tax money spent on palaces and security. Also, I think the monarch exercises political power by showing favor to certain corporate and government entities. If a banker is doing what the old guard aristocracy wants, they will receive royal favor and be invited to parties, clubs, events, etc. Those who go against the tide are punished and shut out. Plus, I think I'd be more concerned about Prince Charles being divorced and still being crowned by the Archbishop instead of worrying about will he still have strong ideas on ecology once he is King.
01denese so lets burn down the castles and build two a penny council flats?
Nobody told you you don't abolish an Empire by decree?
***** by ending all imperialist activity abroad, just like Germany did. See Germany is not an Empire but the UK still is. See the difference between a peaceful nation and an aggressive Nuclear Empire?
I will not live to see the return of true monarchy, but it is that half that the world needs. The other half? The Christian church. But this begs the question which church? For 1,500 years Europe had only the Catholic Church. With the breakup into many denominations, especially a loosening of the concept of an official church for a nation, we can not have a return to true monarchy. The church was the counterbalance to the monarchy. Without an official church complete with dogmas accepted by that nation, the nation and its monarchy become rudderless. I recall one of those Peter Hitchens' arguments where, as usual, he is always surrounded by leftists, and one, a feminist, thought she could shut down his argument by challenging "But who determines what is right from wrong?" Peter, who never seems at a loss for replies, did not readily answer that question. Peter, as great as he is, has, like his fellow Brits, left or right, their myopic loss at the history of the Catholic Church. Now we, the western nations, have only a freefloating liberty, origins from the Enlightenment, that has given us so-called freedoms unthinkable to allow (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.) In centuries past, and there is more to come. A restoration to uprighting the Catholic Church, with an accompanying monarchy, can only save our civilization, not our delusions of republicanism.
So the royals are no longer relevant but a presidential system seems to put the hopes and dreams and things into a single body; a single leader; The Executive. But the U.K. has a prime minister which is not directly elected and therefore unanswerable to the public. So the answer is a leader but not a leader. So what is the solution???
I guess anarchy or syndicalism or what not...
Such a good question
42:19 Gandhi. I know he's could be a special case, but one counterexample is enough to refute the questioner's point.
Well, Gandhi indirectly used the threat of violence but not violence itself. Everything time the colonial government would take an unpopular decision, Gandhi would go on a fast for weeks upon weeks. Now both Gandhi and the colonial government knew that if Gandhi were to die from starvation, it would lead to public unrest, revolts and quite possibly, a revolution. It is for this reason that the government would usually concede to Gandhi's demands because they knew the consequences of not doing so would be far too dangerous.
the monarchy are german russian not british
they are not German-Russian or anything else. By the high middle ages to about the inter-war period, royalty had pretty much morphed into an ethnic group unto itself. How on Earth is the British royal family forever condemned to be considered "German", when the queen has a Scottish mother, English & Scottish grandparents, & a Danish great-grandmother? George I & the so-called "Hanoverians" came to the throne via their descent from King James VI of Scotland, aka King James I of England. By the same logic that is used to call the modern royals German, then one could also call them Scottish.
porridge wogs? even worse!
By that logic then all black/Asian people who have lived in Britain for generations arent British either. Whwn you think about it that's a pretty racist thing you're saying
reason for them to go
The only reason if you ignore the tourism thing, to like a monachy is an emotional attachment towards them, the other thing is liking historical things, them 2 things are not good enough reasons to keep a tax funded monachy.
No more monachy there will be still billions of profit.
Love Paxman.
Asking questions like the first mentioned on the poll seems awfully tasteless to me.
Would any of you like an aggressive extra-continental nuclear power to seize territory and set up a military base off the coast of England? Well that is what the this little queens Empire is doing to Argentina.
Punish the persecutors of the 30,000 disappeared before trying to decide on the destiny of others.
I think the matter of soverinty was settled by the Royal Marines in 1981.
How come it is that I've seen you on like 4 videos talking about how you hate England/the Queen? You're pathetic.
Karl Stephens that is what the Pirate Empire would like to thing.. We South Americans are stubborn. You better ask your queen to keep wasting money in keeping that colonial outpost as an useless fortress for the defense of oil.
Tulaenelorto Are you an argentine? You have the Irish flag up there so you're probably ashamed of it.
God save the Monarchy,and forgive the greedy people !
out with royals
we dont need one
Many people have things they don't need, but keep them because they love them √
Paxman has changed my view for the better (for the monarchy)
When Paxman started his lecture I thought he was claiming to be a dyed in the wool Republican . But in the end he is no different and like ALL show biz luvies and political types he has an eye on the Title "Sir " Jeremy .
...it's in the space between breathing in and out...between attention inward and outward...all and nothing...timeless awareness...infinite love...that's were true kingdom hides...yet totally available to anyone...gazillions times a day...every moment...timeless, limitless...not2...herenow...
im certainly not a Royalist, but I think if you are going to replace the monarchy (and house of Lords for that matter), have a practical reason and demonstrably better alternative at hand. I really dont care if people just dont like it on ideological grounds - that's not worth me spending one penny of my taxes on .. and one thing you can be sure of, it would happen at the tax payers expense.
Jeremy you misled us and changed your mind
The constitutional monarchy is the symbol, and a safeguard, of British democracy and which is removed from the sordid nature of partisan politics. Having a family at the head of state is a reminder of higher obligations and the relationships of what is important to us. Long may she reign.
Thomas William Ruston LOL 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
down with the royals.
The earliest form of religion was worship of fire and water. Kings, or leaders at least, did come before that.
...for God's sake......stay away from any one that claims to be God's representative...yet than again...were does intuition, encouragement and creativity come from ?
After our Queen and Philip retire ( Pass away ) it is time to put the royals to bed I for one will find the Royals no longer relevant .
well said
The monarchy is a huge tourist attraction and I'd say they generate a lot more income for Britain than they cost.
Bollocks, France did away with their monarchy and now have many more tourist than we do- particularly to places like Versailles.
Vive la republique
Good. I'm all in favour of people getting money for nothing, somewhat at random.
Or, you could bring back the Pope, as head of the Church!!!!!
I do not agree with Paxman that we need more politics by electing in yet another functionary The answer to the problem is not to elect a president but to strengthen the monarchy, and I maintain that the monarchy in the united Kingdom needs strengthen the monarchy and there is no time like the present. The essential argument for President can resolve into a strengthed monarchy and in the case of Britain means strengthening the Privy Council by limiting the membership of the current administration to the Prime Minister, Chancellor and also by increasing the rôle of the Supreme Court. The essence of Parliamentary Democracy is to have an extra-political authority , or a civil reource of last appeal and an ultimate guarantee for convention. I have lived I five countries, and I have enjoyed the greatest measure of liberty in countries which have a monarchy and a state church.. I am a member of the French Communist Party
For a communist, you sure like unelected people in power with much greater privilege compared to the working class
Its not fair that Portugal had to give up its colonies by force against the world, and uk and france can still have theirs, and america can buy the alaska.
Portugal now have their own commomwealth.
Enjoyed it, his lectures are mind blowing
Jeremy betrays his unwillingness to accept concrete data preferring his own 'faith-based' rose-tinted view on social mobility in the UK, unsupported by any data. The OECD has many such studies as I'm sure he was aware at the time...
www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-mobility-data-charts#zoomed-picture
Why do we still have Jeremy Paxman?
Paxman needs a history lesson on the origins of European royalty. His comment that all the dynasties got started because of their descent from some asshole with an army who decided to invade some country & put his/herself on the throne is simply NOT true.
Most people get
their notions concerning the concept of royalty & nobility &
the institution of monarchy from fictional movies, books &/or TV
shows. Shows like Game of Thrones, not to mention the absurd history put
forward in the otherwise excellent movie Braveheart, make people think
that becoming a monarch &/or establishing a royal dynasty or
bloodline is a simple matter of some asshole with an army conquering
some country & saying "I'M THE KING NOW!" In Europe, it rarely ever
went down that way. No person from the fall of ancient Rome all the way
to the first World War ever succeeded to a throne without any legal
&/or blood claim to it in the first place, except for Napoleon, who
set himself up as "Emperor of the French" & proceeding to remove
several monarchs from their thrones & put his relatives or generals
on them as he marched hi grand armé across Europe...but he was promptly
overthrown & so were his generals & relatives, except of course
for General Bernadotte, who was elected king of Sweden & established
the royal dynasty that still remains enthroned in Sweden to this day.
The other is a bit of a grey area, & that is William the Conqueror,
who not only established the numeration of monarchs in England/Britain
but also established the bloodline that still reigns to this day. He was
most likely designated as heir to the English throne by his cousin
Edward the Confessor, who had no natural heirs of his own. The throne
was usurped by Edwards brother-in-law Harold Godwinson when Edward died,
causing William to invade.