Why Queen Elizabeth II was the queen of 15 countries
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 вер 2022
- The Commonwealth, explained.
Subscribe and turn on notifications 🔔 so you don't miss any videos: goo.gl/0bsAjO
After centuries of colonizing much of the world, the British Empire began its fast descent in the 1960s amid a global wave of independence movements. But when Queen Elizabeth II died in 2022, she was not only still queen of 14 countries besides the United Kingdom, she was also still the leader of an organization that on a map looks a lot like the British Empire.
The British Empire created the first iteration of the Commonwealth to appease white settler colonies looking for more autonomy. It granted them more independence to govern themselves but kept them under the crown. As British leaders realized their power might be at risk throughout their colonies worldwide, the monarchy made a play to keep ties and preserve their global influence by allowing newly independent republics to join the Commonwealth too. The only catch: They had to accept the queen as the leader of the organization. With the death of Queen Elizabeth II, this vestige of the British Empire is now under the leadership of King Charles III. So, what exactly is the Commonwealth? Why is it still here? And will it survive?
Correction: A previous version of this video mistakenly showed Myanmar as a member of the Commonwealth on a 1994 map, mislabeled Sierra Leone and Gold Coast for a brief moment on a 1927 map, and omitted Greenland, all of which have now been corrected.
We have also clarified that India became a republic shortly after independence with a new line of narration at 3:12; corrected Queen Elizabeth II’s title at 00:16 and 00:47; and updated the date Barbados became a republic from November 29, 2021, to November 30, 2021.
Sources:
Read about Barbados shedding the queen and becoming a republic:
www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-...
To learn more about the sugar plantations under the British Empire check out this project:
runaways.gla.ac.uk/minecraft/....
To understand 20th-century Britain and the rise of independence movements, check out “The Impact of the Second World War on the Decolonization of Africa”:
scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/vie...
To take a deeper look at how the monarchy started using its image and the media to stay relevant and survive in a changing world, check out Ed Owens’ book:
www.academia.edu/40806538/The...
To understand the role of the Commonwealth today, check out this op-ed by Philip Murray, director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies:
www.theafricareport.com/71058...
For a deeper look at royalty in general and the British Royal family in particular, watch our episode of Royalty, Explained on Netflix:
www.netflix.com/watch/8127375...
Make sure you never miss behind the scenes content in the Vox Video newsletter, sign up here: vox.com/video-newsletter
Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out www.vox.com
Support Vox's reporting with a one-time or recurring contribution: vox.com/contribute-now
Shop the Vox merch store: vox.com/store
Watch our full video catalog: goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Facebook: / vox
Follow Vox on Twitter: / voxdotcom
Follow Vox on TikTok: / voxdotcom
For more on the British monarchy, check out Vox foreign and national security reporter Jen Kirby’s thoughts on how King Charles III might rule: bit.ly/3flbHlp
Elizabeth II was the Queen of the United Kingdom. The Kingdom of England ceased to exist on 1 May 1707, when it united with Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. Queen Anne was the last and final "Queen of England". Further, you're so wrong about India too. It didn't "refuse to have a monarch" on independence in 1947. The republic didn't happen until 2.5 years after independence. The Dominion of India was an independent dominion existing between 15 August 1947 and 26 January 1950. During that period, George VI was the "King of India" (formerly "Emperor of India" before independence ) in the British Commonwealth of Nations -- just like the "independent white settler colonies" of Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
The looted resources allowed Britain to educate its population, create more industries, better housing, etc. -- an expected multiplier effect over centuries.
If back calculations were to be done taking this into account, Brits today might not own even the clothes they wear, yet innumerable of them seem so proud of their past. *Is robbery, murder, etc. something to be proud of?*
*Solution?* The past cannot be undone, so all countries should unite to develop all parts of the planet equally. Militaries would become redundant, and that saving alone would easily pay for all the development. Peace would become permanent.
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL!!!!!!
respect to queen
The monarch doesn't rule they reign.
One thing that isn't properly explained here, is that Commonwealth realms are 100% independent kingdoms like Canada.
and Australia too!
@@beawzonk who Australia 🦘
Australia is probably the most complex example of the realms because while the federal government was an independent realm from the adoption of the Statute of Westminster in 1942 (even though it had been passed in 1931, long story), the state governments technically remained part of the United Kingdom realm with the Governors appointed by the UK Foreign Office til 1986.
Now, each state Governor is independently appointed by the crown like Governor Generals, which is very different to Canada where provincial Lieutenant Governor's are appointed by the Governor General.
@@beawzonk Well yes, and New Zealand! All commonwealth realms!!
@@nicegan8902 Mate, our constitution was in London until 1982, it's not like Australia's codependency is unique 😂
It's so weird to how such a small country had so much power and influence for nearly half of the world. However, let's not forget the atrocities committed towards these countries
REPARATION NOW
@Zaydan Naufal influential to whom?
Naval power is everything
@Zaydan Naufal no
agree uk in the past was brutal
Vox your timeline is wrong (2:30) Queen Elizabeth took the throne in the 1952 India was Independent in 1947. It was a dominion in between 1947-1950. In 1950 India adopted its own constitution and became a Republic dropping the prefix of Dominion and Royal from the Indian Air Force & Indian Navy. You can simplify history for a larger audience but don't water it down by jumping timelines and distorting it.
Just by this the credibility of this video is destroyed
Yeah… Vox is like this occasionally
@@naomiturner2547 vox usually twists history to appeal to a liberal/democrat american audience
Can you point out what the mistake is in your opinion? I don't see it.
@@opusmaximum She wasn't on the throne when India gained independence or became a republic thereby dropping the prefix of Dominion. When she became Queen Pakistan was still a Dominion until 1956 I think. She was the Queen of Pakistan till then, she didn't oversee the partition of the Indian subcontinent that was under King George. They basically glossed over this when they showed that she oversaw the dissolution of the empire and showed the footage of India gaining its independence.
Important yet pedantic correction, you state "she was not just the Queen of England" she was never the Queen of England, the last Queen of England was Queen Anne. She was the Queen of the United Kingdom.
Americans...
Tell me you are an American without telling me you are an American
"There is no Queen of England"
I never understood that joke because obviously there was no Queen of England. Like you said Lizzie was Queen of the whole UK........
There is no Easter bunny.
There is no tooth fairy.
And there is no Queen of England.
@Laurance It's because it's funny to see britbongs get so mad over such a pedantic thing. They still think they're the center of the world. How quaint.
One thing you probably should have mentioned is that while the Queen (and now the King) is the ceremonial head of the Commonwealth, its secretary-general (who leads it on a practical basis) is Patricia Scotland, a black Dominican-born dual British/Dominican citizen and lawyer - she was one of the speakers at the Queen’s funeral, reflecting her importance.
What does that mean? Colonial powers only know one way. Exploitation of all who aren't like them. Having a poc figure head doesn't change their mission. They sold their souls to own the world. They need to use the wealth they stole to beef up their population because it's quickly dwindling.
What a based woman. RIP Queen Elizabeth
Incredible and under-told history.
And? Imperialism is good if a black woman does it?
@@spacecowboy3693 Delusional
The Commonwealth is held in high regard by smaller former British colonies for the diplomatic access they get to big global economic players like the UK, Canada, India and Australia (the big players). The big players see value in extending their geopolitical reach and soft power across the globe.
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL!!!!!!
Everything is a two-way street.
Yes here in New Zealand we see the Commonwealth as a diplomatic community. For example Jamaica may decide to become a republic but we hope they'll stay in the Commonwealth. It won't be any fun without Jamaica.
No just no.
@@emfarah3758Care to elaborate?
Here in India, the monarchy was never liked despite the Queen's visits. Not many Indians today favour the modern british monarchy, only some. Most are strictly on the "forgive but never forget" policy demanding an apology and the Koh-i-noor diamond. Indians don't see the british or the british people as bad or evil, we just don't like how the brits still whitewash their dark history and have never done an official apology. Visits by the royals won't fix anything if they can't apologize in the first place.
They are the least desirable because the world knows best.
Honestly, yeah - you’re quite literally speaking for the whole Subcontinent at this point. I have no remorse for the people who massacred our innocents at Vaisakhi Celebration, like you said, took Koh-i-Noor, used us as literal slaves, and so many other countless atrocities that they have not even said sorry for
Very True, Glad that India outright declared itself Republic
Kih-i-noor diamond belongs to my state karnataka .It was there under Bijapur sultanet. When it was taken from mines in karnataka.
There are pockets of people who do like the modern monarchy. There were some Indians who benefited from British rule. Some were upper-class who were treated very well, went to the best international schools, spent time in the UK, etc.
There were also converts who were able to escape the horrors of the caste system by converting to Christianity. I don't know how many generations ago my family became Christian, but even though I left the religion, I can't discount how helpful it was in my life. Being a native English speaker and educated in a British school has helped me excel in my career and build a very good living. I probably wouldn't have that if not for the British Empire.
India was independent before Queen Elizabeth II took the throne.
One of the driving factors of a country retaining the Queen as their Head of State but not be in the Commonwealth is to have access to the Privy Council, which can hear cases from outside the UK in countries with less developed legal systems.
It would be better to start some type of economic forum in commonwealth to give countries a reson to stay
All the countries which use the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are in the Commonwealth I think.
There are no country's who have the Queen as head of state who are not also in the Commonwealth that's why they are called the Commonwealth Realms
Australia, Canada, New Zealand cannot appeal to Privy Council. I dont know how many of the 11 other countries (excluding UK of course) have also removed it.
@@reddragon100A country needs no reason to stay. It's a voluntary organisation, and a country can choose to leave at any time, depending on its own interests.
ppl commenting how a small country could rule the world let me explain: it's because the Royal Navy was the most powerful naval fleet in the world for centuries, the British succeeded in conquering the world by being technologically, politically and economically strategic in a way no other nation in the world could have been. that's what made the birth of the empire stand out from the rest. however the atrocities would be the downfall of the empire eventually
It is more.of the British Trading co. Like the Dutch East Indies co......use trading firms to establish seats of power along the trading sea route and port of calls using the might of the Royal Navy.......those former local colonies stood no chance.
Let's not forget the contribution of willing local collaborators (or traitors, or bootlickers, whichever you like)
It's not really about technology, or politics. Nations have different features. And these differences make them advantageous at some time. British had a large, comparably superior navy. This navy led them to invade underdeveloped, uncivilised nations.
You're both not explaining why such a small country could achieve this & diminishing the achievements of france spain portugal denmark and russia. All this happened because small kingdoms that could not conquer eachother had an arms race, found the new world, got rich built larger and larger fleets to try defeat eachother, then were suddenly advanced enough to walk in and take over devevoloped kingdoms in asia, the middle east and africa.
between the great empires of europe, they conquerd the entire globe, barring most of china and japan and a few others.
It's all due to a big arms race between the smaller kingdoms within europe, kind of like the US and Russia during the Cold War with their nukes and military hardware.
@Eoin Burke My point is: it's an illusion and lack of historical understanding to think that British had all these colonies because British were more technologically, politically advanced or they had the bigger vision.
There's always other nations at all time, that are more advanced in anything then British. But it may not be logical for all these nations to build biggest navy. Even when it is logical, it may not be logical to invade the lands that British invaded. You get my point, other nations become better in other things.
Its like a cool club. We even have the Commonwealth games, some sort of a mini Olympic games with member countries participating.
Back in 1998, my country Malaysia played host to this games, and the late HM Queen Elizabeth II officiated the closing of the games.
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL!!!!!!
I don't know how "cool" that can be ... maybe now, but not in the past. All those member states are former colonies, most of which were devastated by the British rule. Things are much better these days of course and these countries are now fully independent but ... let's not forget what made them be part of this. I heard about the Commonwealth Games, that's actually a nice thing.
@@Vylkeer The relevance of the Commonwealth was put into question though when New Delhi faced challenges hosting the 19th Commonwealth Games in 2010. Also remembered that unlike in the Olympics where there is a Team GB, England, Scotland, N Ireland, Wales & each Crown Dependency e.g. Jersey, Guernsey each have their own team in the Commonwealth Games
I can't wait for my home Victoria, Australia to host the commonwealth games in 2026!
@@Vylkeer”devastated by British rule”… how out of touch with reality are you? Britain is quite literally the only reason democracy is the most common form of governance. Britain is LAW
Have you ever watched a video and though to yourself
"The person who made this video WAS DEFINITELY NOT SOMEONE WHO IS FAMILIAR WITH THE SUBJECT"
This video screams that feeling lol
I hate to break it to you, but I think vox knows more about this topic than you x
@@finlayperham909 It really depends on the subject.
Vox ultimately is a Western news outlet, it still has to follow Western hypocrisy beliefs
They’ve got quite a few facts wrong in this video just look at the other comments
@@finlayperham909 about twisting the topic? sure
Actually this Commonwealth concept can be a very good thing. The former colonizer empire and colonized nations acknowledging the past and work together for a better future for all. Sure the execution might be far from perfect but it can always be better.
India does not need uk. India litrealy paid for the entire empire.
@Rafael empires 2.0 especially france still controls africa
@@Myanmartiger921 Ah, self-pitying eternal Indian victim detected.
@@Myanmartiger921 the Commonwealth and the UK does not need India as well.
May all our COLONIES (Ireland + Scotland + Wales + CANADA + Australia + New Zealand + South Africa + Malta + Cyprus + India + Singapore + Malaysia + Sri Lanka...) kneel down in this moment!🙏 🙏
May they continue understanding that without English guidance they are nothing !!
God bless KING CHARLES III & the superior ENGLISH EMPIRE! ❤❤
Fiji actually returned to the Commonwealth
My grandfather, the premier historian on the history of the commonwealth, died this month, 11/09/22, age 90. He was buried the same day as the Queen. I can't help but feel there is something symbolic in that, like an "out with the old in with the new" sort of thing.
Nah, it was just his time to go. He was old
Sofie, it was his time to go . and you chose his funeral date to match the Elizabeth's. when someone dies aged 90 you celebrate and you eat. your gran lived a good life but do share some of his findings
Died on 9/11 too
@@PHlophe he wrote like 12 books so lol read them i guess? Prof wd mcintyre
@@nathanhamming3099 No towers?🥺
1:16 why isn't greenland on the map?!!
Ouch
Global warming
Looks like one Editor is not getting paid.
Ran away
Antartica isn’t on it either
It’s a very well… odd arrangement (then again the British generally like keeping odd arrangements out of tradition). For example, it’s possible for 2 Commonwealth realms to theoretically be at war with each other while having nominally the same Head of State. This happened during the Indian-Pakistan war back when both had nominally George VI as their King. This can happen since the Crown is now a mere symbolic institution. I’m reading comments that seem to think that Commonwealth realms remain subordinate to Britain. Canada and Australia are no more subordinate to Britain than they are to America. And though Charles III is currently Head of the Commonwealth, it’s not a hereditary position. The Commonwealth nations approved for now that Charles (then Prince of Wales) would be the next Head of the Commonwealth but they’re not mandated to do that for the next royal heir.
Edit: Another interesting fact is that it’s possible for the King/Queen to perform duties on behalf of other Commonwealth realms. Typically in other realms, the Governor-General does the duties of the Head of State as the Crown’s representative. But George VI for example in his visit to Canada gave Royal Assent to laws of the Canadian Parliament in person. Elizabeth II has made royal tours on behalf of Canada (as the Queen of Canada) although typically state visits from other realms are done by the Governors-General.
Why even have a symbolic head ? Is it not undemocratic
@@offred6013 keep diplomatic ties since the Westminster system allows it, i.e countries can have their own prime ministers (who’s in charge of government) but share one crown together. Since Britain has a permanent seat in the UN, it is a good tie to have
George VI was not the king of India. India is not part of Commonwealth realm, of which he was the king. He was the 'head' of Commonwealth, and India was 'part' of it.
@@AkashArpan There was an Indian-Pakistan war which started 1947. George VI officially stopped being King of India in 1950 (I think).
@@raphaelledesma9393 Yes you are right. I didn't know that. Learnt something new today
Ummm I’m certain that Fiji 🇫🇯 is still part of the Commonwealth, it was suspended but that suspension was lifted almost a decade ago.
It did move from being a realm (ie the Queen as head of state) to a republic though and that hasn't changed.
It is in the Commonwealth, but is not a Commonwealth Realm.
yeah and theres a growing movement to reinstate the british monarchy there, there was a coup a few years ago that led to this
Would have been cool to see a mention of other countries who left the commonwealth, most conspicuously Ireland
It was on the maps but it was basically just a flash across the screen.
Agreed, over 50 years ago they left and became a republic but basically was a minor point.
Ireland was never in it. Britain said they were, but Ireland said it wasnt
May all our COLONIES (Ireland + Scotland + Wales + CANADA + Australia + New Zealand + South Africa + Malta + Cyprus + India + Singapore + Malaysia + Sri Lanka...) kneel down in this moment!🙏 🙏
May they continue understanding that without English guidance they are nothing !!
God bless KING CHARLES III & the superior ENGLISH EMPIRE! ❤❤
Very few have left and stayed away for long
We don't recognize Charles III as King of the UK but King of Canada.
Vox always droppin the best videos 🔥
Except they're full of errors.
@@bayousbambino427 and is worded against the monarchy
@@michaelludlow626 Well, yes, all the aforementioned errors pertain to at least one of the Commonwealth Realms' monarchies.
Half-assed as usual, but yeah sure
@@michaelludlow626 oo
as a Canadian, the only thing i truly like about being part of the Commonwealth is knowing that, if i'm travelling and get into trouble, i can seek out the help of either the British or Australian consolates/embassies if there isn't a Canadian one (as is stated in our passports).
Also, commonwealth citizens can get UK citizenship much easier than everyone else, as these people are not regarded as foreigners by British law.
@@purplerocket4300before 1972 but then those laws became racist and only citizens from white common wealth countries could become citizens comparatively easliy by only allowing common wealth realm countries
Fun fact: Malaysia organized the most glorious commonwealth games at the end of the 20th century, this edition marked the first asia country to held this event. Also the first time this game took place in a nation with a head of state other than the head of commonwealth. And first time the game were held in a country whose majority of the population did not have english as the first language.
Ah, the 1998 Commonwealth Games.
It's still puzzling how Malaysia managed to push through with that event while being in the midst of the Asian Financial Crisis.
it’s time to decolonize and ignore the collapsing UK
Former Malaysian citizen here 😎
malaysia boleh!!
But most Malaysians still speaks English especially in urban areas, also English is still an official language in states like Sarawak.
Long Live the King of Canada and all his other realms 🤘
As someone for a common wealth our education system is the same as well as our legal frameworks meaning for example Architect, Lawyer can work in other commonwealth countries and their credentials are valid.
This is useful for lets say relationships between South Africa and India or Cananda and New Zealand
Very beneficial. I even learned that you can have a swift visa approval in visiting other commonwealth countries, is that true?
Practicing law in another commonwealth country is just very beneficial if you ask me.
@@markvincentbonachita8950 Pretty much everything Macky says in incorrect. Though its true that some Commonwealth countries share similar legal and cultural frameworks, coming from a common British base, but its not true to say a New Zealand trained and registered Lawyer could easily transition into a Canadian legal practice or vice versa. The legal frameworks and processes are now distant enough in the law and building (for instance NZ has much tougher requirements for structural engineering as we are very earthquake prone) than neither Architects or Lawyers could quickly move between different Commonwealth countries without a lot paperwork, reeducation and reregistering. South Africa and India are even more removed from this than the Canada, Australia and NZ. Both countries were confederations even under the British Empire and had laws and systems which came from completely outside common British law. This continues even for mundane things like tourist visas. Every-time I've visited India from NZ, i've had to apply for a tourist visa just like any non-commonwealth person would do, and same on the oppoiste.
@@user-uy6uc5ey5q Thank you for that explanation. Judging from your comment, it is clear that you are a New Zealander. I want to ask, Sir, what are the benefit of being part of the Commonwealth?
Who the f*** said that
@@markvincentbonachita8950 I'm also a New Zealander. For ordinary people there are not much benefits at all, at the political level though it is good as an organisation of countries that share just enough history, language, and culture that they can often effectively coordinate on international issues.
I'm a an Indian and I confirm, there has never been any queen to me. We're a democracy. The world's largest democracy.
You mean a republic?
And the world’s largest call center scammer… I hope your government will do something about that!
How do British still rule over India? Because India is dependent on oil. Every human being is dependent on oil for survival. British created Saudi Arabia by dividing the Ottoman Empire in the 1930s. British also control's America's Federal Reserve. British provides security (weapons) to the Saudi Arabia Royal Family and in return Saudi Arabia agrees to sell its oil to all Asian countries in Dollars only! This means in order for India and any Asian country to buy oil, it must trade with the Western world to obtain Dollars. And because Asia is so populated, everyone in India and other Asian countries are forced to compete and automatically forces downward pricing in order to trade with Europe and America! India must export cheap labor and cheap resources to obtain Dollars in order to buy oil from Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries. HAHAHA!
You only deserve corrupt politicians, you don't a queen like her
@@skfoxjrxzz5051 both
She wasn't queen of India...
"The empire on which the sun never sets". Its reach is pretty awe inspiring. Truly one of the more remarkable feats in world history.
Remarkable, yes. From the perspective of the colonizers , positively remarkable and from that of the colonized, mostly tragically. A phenomenon, truly.
@@ayn8228 I mean yeah. I completely agree.
BMA
because even 'The God' doesn't trust the Britishers during night".
@@ayn8228 I think the women who burned themselves alive when their husbands died in india may be thankful. Everything has 2 sides.
@@joepopplewell680 I’m sure they were. We all are. The millions of men women children who were pauperized, massacred or died in manufactured famines due to decades of systematic de-industrialization weren’t. Like I said and you reiterated, 2 sides to every story. (Also Portuguese banned Sati first and indian reformists like Raja Rammohan Roy lobbied for the EIC to actually go ahead and ban it in their areas of control; EIC itself had a policy of non interference in social affairs of the natives). No one has a problem with the British people. Our problem is with the institution of Colonialism and particularly, being told that it was all sweet and serene for us. Many privileges you have today in Europe are a result of the past oppression of millions of people around the world, not just India. Maybe it’s the contemporary Brits who should develop a more nuanced approach to it, because Indians already do.
Great video. In the past few weeks I've had the same question about Ireland. We've been a republic since 1937 and interestingly, politicians in Ireland and India at the time discussed their paths to freedom.
Ireland was still a monarchy until April of 1949
1948, I think. The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 (No. 22 of 1948) is an Act of the Oireachtas which declared that the description of Ireland was to be the Republic of Ireland, and vested in the president of Ireland the power to exercise the executive authority of the state in its external relations, on the advice of the Government of Ireland. The Act was signed into law on 21 December 1948 and came into force on 18 April 1949, Easter Monday, the 33rd anniversary of the beginning of the Easter Rising.
The Act ended the remaining statutory role of the Crown in relation to Ireland, by repealing the 1936 External Relations Act, which had vested in George VI, in his capacity as a symbol of the cooperation of the nations that were members of the Commonwealth with which Ireland associated itself, and his successors those functions which the Act now transferred to the President.
This question has been on my mind for the past 13 years. Thanks for the explanation 👍
Pranav, 13 years ? that's a lifetime for some of the people now commenting here
@@PHlophe somehow searching for the answer to this question never became a top priority. It was part of those "during shower" questions.
What a shame!!! Queen of other countries???? COLONIZERS! THIEVES!!!!
3:48 You shaded red on Myanmar/Burma as a part of common wealth nation in 1994.
We did not become a common wealth after independence. Our Fathers fought for this dearly. I hope Vox would correct this.
yeah but if you see this now, it was a bad decision to not become a common wealth nation.
Myanmar wouldn't of been allowed in the commonwealth anyway
Your fathers fought against imperialism for a totalitarian state, what a shame 😅
@@Hoootaf Haha.
@@buddyblris3094 In hindsight? We don't know yet.
0:00 Barbados became a republic on November 30, 2021, the same day as our Independence Day. It was exactly at midnight local time, as what had happen back in 1966 when we first became an independent nation.
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL!!!!!!!
a shame; you share a political economic and cultural heritage with dozens of other commonwealth nations. Democracy doesnt prevent anyone from accepting what is a fact. Look at the state of former French/Spanish colonies...a GD disaster. You could be Cuba or Haiti or El Salvador.
can imagine how half the US is surprised 'bout that
The commonwealth is amazing. Helped South Africa end apartheid
Sadly that was about the last good thing it did its gone so far from its original purpose time Britain pulled out
and Australia had a big part in it. Thank you
My father fondly remembered the coronation of Queen Elizabeth when he was an elementary school kid and they had a party and distribution of commemorative medals. I shed a tear when the queen died last year. In Mauritius we have fond memories of the British monarchy. I was born post independence and there were gloomy years post independence where people questioned the idea of independence. But the the tiny country quickly developed in the late 1980's thanks to access to strong British institutions like education ( We take the O-levels and A-levels exams in Mauritius administered by University Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate). We became a Republic in 1992 when the local politicians just made an electoral pledge to accommodate their allies. With hindsight and looking at countries who became independent, I think symbolism matters a lot and maintaining strong ties and access to British institutions greatly helps countries charter their way into their independent future.
Bonjour from Sainte Lucie! Our countries are very much alike in terms of creole culture and history. My country however still retains the monarchy.
I've never knew this as an Malaysian. Very interesting
Because Colonization. Saved you 6 minutes.
It´s true the British had a huge empire but that doesn´t explain why Macron isn´t the head of state of twenty other countries, same with Portugal and Spain.
@@robertjarman3703 Most colonies left British Empire mostly on a good note and didn't have to fight wars. The opinion about Britain is mostly positive in countries like India.
@@Anurag-xe2jp All Indians ever talk about on this platform is the Kohinoor diamond and the made up 45 trillion dollars we apparently stole. Most Indians are super right wing nationalists
That's not why Commonwealth Realms _choose_ to be Commonwealth Realms.
Guess that saving of time came at the expense of accuracy, eh?
@@pulse3554 ?? See any poll or talk to any ordinary person. I am not saying it's right but that's just the truth.
A Vox video with so many mentions of my country absolutely made my day.
Pride and Industry!!! ☺
Since Newfoundland is getting the worst of Fiona and no one from the Rock seems to have commented yet, heads up that your map @1:28 displaying the Empire in 1927 shows Newfoundland as part of Canada - that's incorrect. Between '07 and '33, Newfoundland was a self-governing Dominion, and between 33' and 48' was under direct colonial rule. They joined Canada by referendum that year, the last province to join.
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL!!!!!!!
Canada became an independent Dominion in 1867 but still had to have many of its laws passed by the British house of commons until we repatriated our constitution in the early 1980s. Foreign policy was largely ran out of London right until the Second World War. During the Great War we were commanded to fight with the Empire. In the Second World War we voiced our objection and declared that we must be able to choose to go to war on our own.
Canada became independent when they adopted the 1931 Statute of Westminster.
@@TimeMakerDotPH It was a gradual process.
Canada passed Statute of Westminster in 1931.
So, no.
@@stackhat8624 We had a system of self government prior to confederation. Then a gradual transition to nationhood, autonomy in foreign policy etc. Not a revolutionary war and bold declaration. Much different than the Yanks approach. Many key moments up until the repatriation of the constitution in the early 80s until whatever is next.
Good video but at 1:30 you mixed up the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone.
Thak you. this was beautiful. Especially its conclusion
0:59 Queen was never the monarch of India. India became a republic before she ascended to throne.
Short answer: Colonialism.
The queen was never the head of state to India so you better educate yourself before spreading missinformation
Great work Thank you
Nice video..
Amazing video, can you guys please make a video about what’s happening in Iran right now I would like to learn more about it. Thank you.
Amazingly inaccurate.
Great video
I happen to be from one of those countries and to be honest we have benefited greatly under the monarchy as it brought both political and economic stability.
Very interesting comment. Which country are you from??
God speed all those Brits who faught to end slavery.
More importantly, God speed to all the slaves and native people who were stripped of their humanity and exploited, robbed of their ancestral land, and separated from their families for decades if not indefinitely.
@@beverleywithane Sounds like you're describing the French empire rather than British.
@@beverleywithane These same countries committed atrocities prior to Europeans. The Mongols The Dahomey and the Aztecs are proof of this
@@Parsons360 Exactly, I’m Anglo Caribbean and Hispaniolan. But the French were so brutal their colonies caught Britain’s attention for profit
@@anti.bctards7376 The French were worse but let's not pretend the British didn't also engage in slavery and exploitation
Hi I'm from Guyana we're no longer part of the Commonwealth country we gain our independence in 1966 but we are so glad to be added into your collection
Guyana is apart of the commonwealth, so what are you even talking about?
Guyana is a republic but still a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. Like Barbados.
Wow very good and informative....
Good information
As a Canadian I'd much rather keep the monarchy than ditch it. Having that official tie with UK, Australia and others I think is a valuable thing that I wouldn't want to see go.
As an American I agree. The crown kept Canada civilized and peaceful when compared to the apocalyptic nature of the Anglo Republic just south.
Same brother. Cheers from Oz!!
@@kightsun
_The monarchy has no control in Canada. Its local government who does it aka the Prime Ministers_
But you can be a republic AND be in the commonwealth. As an Aussie I can’t see any valid reason why we should have an antiquated, undemocratic aristocrat in London as our head of state and on our coins rather than an Australian - however I think we should still be a member of the commonwealth
Keep our personal union with those other countries, you mean. Canada, Australia, the UK, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, etc don't all share the same monarchy. They only share the same _person_ as their respective head of state.
Please correct 3:03 that is the Independence Day ceremony of Pakistan, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah founder and first governor general of Pakistan and Louis Mountbatten last British viceroy of India.
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL!!!!!!!
I wanted this to be cleared so bad thanks Vox
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL!!!!!!!
Cosmetic changes. The British has no hand in running Barbados when she became independent, even the president was the last Governor General, nothing basically changed except for titles and a few insignificant details, it’s like changing the packaging but the product inside is still the same
Well the british monarchy is nothing more than fancy packaging anyway. Even in britain nothing much important would actually change, except for tourism.
Quite right.
That such a cool story the British empire was handling business back in the day.
During her lifetime the Queen was Head of State of 31 countries at various times.
we need a real report on iran revolution.
Thank you Vox! Over the last two weeks, there has been at lot of wilful misunderstanding of what the Commonwealth is and does, mainly (I am sorry to say) from American media. it is good to see someone getting it right!
Part of the problem is people confusing being in the Commonwealth with the Commonwealth realms the truth is though the Commonwealth has become a millstone round our necks in the UK now time for one of the other countrys to run it if they still want it and for Britain to leave.
@@simongarthwaite7695 Some people are definitely confusing Commonwealth membership with being a Commonwealth realm. The bigger confusion is what the Commonwealth actually is, with many seeming to think it is just a continuation of the British Empire under a different name. I am afraid you may have falling into this view as the UK does not 'run' the Commonwealth. The UK is just one of 56 equal members of the Commonwealth in voluntary association.
I respect the British empire and their royal family but India should leave the Common Wealth Nation and instead focus on United Nation, BRICS, SAARC and SCO. Common wealth is a mark of shame as Britain never apologized for the atrocities they did to our people.
Agreed
I was hoping this video would explain what are the benefits/disadvantages of being part of the commonwealth. I learnt about it’s origins but nothing else… Wikipedia time I guess. 😟
It did briefly touch on one - being that it gives smaller countries that may otherwise be drowned out in other international forums (e.g. the UN), a forum to amplify thier voices and promote their interests on a stage with big countries
It's club they host Olympic like games known as commonwealth games. Embassies of commonwealth countries within commonwealth countries are called high commissions. They have summit etc.
@@dtn590 There's been more than 2. Any member state which suspends democratic government will have it's Commonwealth membership suspended.
Technically Zimbabwe and South Africa never were suspended as they withdrew before they could be suspended.
Nigeria, Fiji and Pakistan have all been suspended, and for the last 2 multiple times (Fiji 3 times, Pakistan twice) as they have had multiple coups over the years.
Well.... Omission is real. I guess
@@dtn590No neither Zimbabwe or South Africa were expelled. They both left voluntarily, because of the pressure they were under re: their policies
For King and Commonwealth 🔥🔥
Left out traditions that Commonwealth countries still preserve.
1) While Normal countries exchange ambassadors, Commonwealth countries exchange High Commissioners
2) Normal countries have embassies while commonwealth countries have both embassies and High Commissions
3) During the ambassador's dinner in England, Ambassadors arrive in 3 horse carriage while commissioners arrive in 4 horse carriages
4) High Commissioners and Commonwealth heads of state automatically get royal wedding and royal funeral invitations.
5) Commonwealth games
But as time progresses, some of these traditions are fading away. But with the UK out of the EU, maybe there is hope again
I don't think commonwealth countries have embassies. They only have high commissions
@@Shkk High Commission is for fellow Commonwealth countries and embassies is for everyone else
@@Clark_Kent_ZA Okay i got it ..
Elizabeth wasn’t the queen on England. She was the queen on the United Kingdom as King Charles is now. Great that you’re informing but if you can’t even get basic facts right then it comes across as lazy.
If British were not in my country. Our country would be more peaceful.. more respectful..
Something you skate over is the major legal implications for many of these countries if we end our relationship to the Crown. In Canada, the monarch may simply be our ceremonial head of state, but all federal and provincial legislation must receive Royal Assent in order to be made active and enforceable, and many First Nations made treaties with the Crown. If we end our relationship with the British monarchy, we would need to re-write our constitution to enable a different mechanism for legislation coming into force. And those nation-to-nation treaties (those which Canada actually respects, anyway - which is an entirely different matter) between the Crown and First Nations don't default magically to being treaties between the Canadian state and the First Nations. They could become null and void, leaving the First Nations vulnerable and cheating them of hard-won treaty rights. Re-writing the Constitution also means opening up a lot of questions around sovereignty for Québec and now for Alberta. None of this means we shouldn't end the monarchy in Canada. I'm in favour of doing that, and I think it's long past time we did it. But it isn't as simple as saying "no more Queen please".
Gee, its almost like plenty of other countries that were dominions of the UK and constitutional monarchies became republics and made it work ...
I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but Canada does not have a relationship with the British monarchy--that ended with the passing of the Statute of Westminster in 1931--although we didn't get complete political independence until the constitution was repatriated in 1982. Canada has a Canadian monarchy. That means if the UK decided to become a republic, Canada would not automatically follow, and would continue to have a Canadian monarchy until all the provincial governments and the federal government agree to end it as per the constitution. Good luck with that.
Those guys stole 45 trillion from India. 166 million died because of them. And everyone thinks India is poor. They should leave the commonwealth at this point. The country would have been richer than any other, and it’s not only India. It’s every colonized country. The colonized countries deserve a refund and must get a ton of compensation for these atrocities. Just imagine if there were no colonizers. So much more diversity and more cooperation and not as many land disputes.
That is in fact a disproven myth I'm afraid.
It's not just a ceremonial head of state. How the government functions under a monarch matters beyond waving to the crowds.
The best way of describing a Constitutional Monarchy is the Monarch has all the power but chooses not to use it
@@simongarthwaite7695 Not really. The monarchy still has a great deal of power and Lizzie opted not to use it. Largely because it could hurt the institution and could then make it vulnerable to different factions. Including those who want to end the institution. But it doesn't have all of the power. It's power is greatly reduced. The supremacy of parliament. And outside the United Kingdom it is largely and after thought. The governor general and lieutenant governors at the provincial and territorial levels are appointed by the prime minister. And for about a hundred years now they aren't foreign and shipped in to the colonies. They are Canadians. In the Canadian context that is.
@@seanwebb605 I was talking about in Britain where that's certainly the best description in the Realms its more complicated by the Governor Generals etc as you say won't matter soon as there won't be any realms and we can have a British institution that only has to worry about pleasing us.
@@simongarthwaite7695 Yeah and I said you were wrong. And then I spoke about the difference in the Canadian context.
@@seanwebb605 I'm not wrong in a British context though as I say.
This was an interesting video. Although it would be nice to expand on it a little.
Actually, there are several crowns. Scotland has it's own crown separate from the Imperial State Crown. So does New Zealand.
Old Lizzie was really a dynamo at personal (re)branding 😅
her grandson Harry called the crown the "firm". so makes sense that Inkosazana uLizzie would re-brand each time
2:34 look what british did in kenya .And now BBC is lecturing india during NRC.
I wish the monarch gave Kenya the same option they gave Australia, New Zealand and Canada
But why? Love colonialism? 😂😂
thank so miss folasade gowa safiyat much good blessing you todary am?
Good video. I knew a guy named after Barbados
Any good at limbo?
@@Carnyx72 nah it's true, look it up fr
@@Carnyx72 the guy absolutely murdered limbo.. how did you know? That was like his specialty actually, as far as I know.
RIPISS you won't be missed
Troll
Definitely won’t be missed.
Absolutely
Hail the British Empire ! Long reign Imperialism and Colonialism !
Your calousness to this issue is maddening to watch!.
The same most American mistake of using “of England”.
Didn’t India gain independence in 1946? And Elizabeth didn’t become Queen until the 50s so the timeline is way off
India became an independent realm or dominion in 1947 then a Republic in 1950. Elizabeth ascended the throne in 1952 so yes the video is wrong. Pakistan and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) remained realms for a few years after the Queen succeeded
Barbados just wanted to escape Charle’s reign 😂
DRAWING QUEEN ELIZABETH II | IT'S HERE ON THE CHANNEL!!!!!!!
The Crown is personalised in each realm and the sovereign’s powers are limited. The only decision the King makes is what colour pen to use to sign his name when assenting to legislation. There is literally nothing to complain about.
Finally, an insight into QEII reign that was brief, and valid. Thank you.
1:00 why are the Union Terrotories of Kashmir and Ladakh and states Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand shown as separate from India? @Vox media kindly refer to the correct political maps.
It is very weird to think about. Empire started with Elizabeth I and ended with Elizabeth II
At 1:32 Sierra Leone and Gold Coast are mislabeled. They should be switched
Interesting!
I can sum this 6 minute video up in 1 word. “Colonization”
this video explains why they're still monarchies, not why they were in the first place.
Thanks Man I give thanks to GOD WE STILL HAVE SOME INTELLIGENT HUMANS
Vox, in the future, please tell us more about the African, Caribbean, and South Asian political actors you depict. The way the video is now, you treat them like stock photos of politicians without clueing us into larger political dynamics in the region. It's a shallow representation at best.
Yes that’s all very we’ll but would require more than 6 minutes, wouldn’t it now, Rye? More than the purpose of this video.
the entire video is shallow. That's vox's thing lol
I had forgotten that there is a difference between Commonwealth Realms and Commonwealth Members!
thank so miss folasade giwa safiyat good blessing you todary am?
As a Canadian it's going to be really shocking to see someone else's face on our money
If its anything like the UK it will be years yet!
I know. He’s not a Royal I ever particularly liked but no one asked me!!
Funny story for my fellow subjects.. when I was 10 our teacher warned us against defacing the Queen's image, she said even placing a coin heads up on a road where the Queen's face could be run over was a crime. Being 10, my mates and I thought it would be a great idea to go to the train tracks after school and put a bunch of coins heads up on the tracks. Of course the train came and all the coins got fused onto the tracks, we were sure we'd be arrested and fled the scene terrified haha
I'm not a royalist or a monarchy supported by any means, but Queen Elizabeth had such a presence in our lives, it's never going to be the same again
@@natedogg890 the Queen will be greatly missed no doubt about it but let us not forget that people said the same when Queen Victoria died we've had two of our greatest Monarchs since then the Queen and her father the Monarchy will move on in time and change and adapt where it needs to that's the beauty of it.
@@natedogg890 Pretty sure putting stuff on train tracks is a crime all on it own.
Find it weird but not at all suprising that you fail to mention 90% of the good the commonwealth has brough about. You could have easily played any of the speeches for slightly longer and they would have explained what you did in far less time lol
How about a video on Canzuk?
I personally don't want Aotearoa New Zealand to be a republic but that will be a decision for the country to vote on, i would hope we stay a member of the Commonwealth. Also we don't answer to Her Maj (His Maj now) we govern ourselves.
the last part is literally true for every commonwealth realm (and in all practicality for the UK itself), but thanks for participating.
My deepest condolences to the family, relatives, and friends, Rest In Peace Queen Elizabeth II
Condolences for the millions of deaths caused by Queen in her colonies?
@@Praveen9790 I think you mean deaths caused by the British state that Elizabeth II had no hand in because she was a symbolic monarch. Let’s also not forget she’s the monarch who oversaw the dissolution of the empire. Do a little research please.
@@Sparx632 lets not forget that she authorized massacre in radfan uprising. no power my foot. she was Commander-in-Chief of british army. if u dont understand putin is the Commander-in-Chief of russian army.
@@Sparx632 she's not as blameless as you make her to be, either.
@@mihirojha4475 Yes she is, she had no input on the millions of deaths that happened in the colonies.