@@JohnDoe-wv7epI mean likely he's felt this way about the state of the monarchy for as long as he's been a royalist, and I wager the same is true of most anyone who would describe their idealistic political sympathies that way. Whatever man, pray for the return of the King, somehow, some way! Have hope brothers!
"Abolishing the actual (the real) House of Lords, and conceding the Government's argument that the Lords are there only thanks to an accident of birth, ensures that the argument will be applied both to the King directly and to the entire British population." Chilling.
The argument is already being used against the British population. It's so common to hear stuff like there is no such thing as an indigenous British population and that we're all migrants that came here from somewhere thousands of years ago. Besides, "you're only British due to an accident of birth", therefor it makes no sense to have hard borders and have a sensible policy on migration to keep others out.
Yeah that was the best part of the video. Perfectly sums up what is happening and why it should be opposed. I'll have to memorize that line for when I'm talking about the monarchy.
It was very poignant by AM to point out that the very name 'Windsor' was born out of spinelessness and the British monarchy's cowardice to defend itself and its history
No. It was an acknowledgement that the Germany of Goethe & Beethoven had been eclipsed by an unprecedented evil - an evil which still remains in Germany.
@@MGJS71 I'd really love to know what remains of the old Kaiserreich in Germany today. Ashes of ashes and maybe not even that. Haven't you got the first and second world-war mixed up? Even if so, I wouldn't agree with your sentiment, but it would make more sense to me
AM essentially argues here for a stance against the current monarch of the United Kingdom. If you are a true monarchist, the monarchy of the UK is the abosulte antithesis of what a monarchist desires. It is the death of monarchism by its own existence.
"For the authentic revolutionary conservative, what really counts is to be faithful not to past forms and institutions, but rather to principles of which such forms and institutions have been particular expressions, adequate for a specific period of time and in a specific geographical area." - Julius Evola
Speaking from across the pond, I think us Right Wingers have a tendency towards formalism, that can sometimes backfire. The monarchy, at current moment, is semi popular but toothless. There's no need to expend political capital on taking down something that, at worst, is a very minor impediment. If the Left makes a big push to end the monarchy, how should the Right respond, is a more open question.
I see it’s toothlessness as a perk. They would bend to a monarchist party in government. Much like the the police being selected for order following above all other things. We only need win once
@@ndalum75 AM is pointing out that the Lefts republicanism will inevitably move on the monarchy. Therefore by moving ahead we can turn that movement into our own tool and drive the direction of the future republicanism.
The inevitable decline of Democracy brings forth Oligarchy, which in turn will inevitably give way to Tyranny. There will be a King again in England, one day. Once and Future, perhaps.
I wish people would stop using the word democracy. We have never had a democracy . We have a bureaucracy controlled by lawyers . What we need is a modern democracy using the modern tech we have today. The last thing we need is a vote a king/president and his clique of best friends who will dictate to you what's best for you
What remains of the Winsor's are but a husk. Nihilism has truly crept into every fabric and strata of our civilization, our spiritual leaders bow before the belief in nothingness, preach on the altar of self-immolation. We are reaching the end of a cycle. And the beginning of another spring.
The Monarchy has abandoned the nation and is rotting from the head down , I was once a loyalists, now I say down down with the the mitre and the crown. It is time for a renovation .
The conservative party was the head of a rotting fish, but now that they are out of power, is England any better off? To see issue in the office of monarch, or indeed of anyone else, is a false mirage, for they are not the source but mere symptoms, any system under good people is good, and under bad ones bad. It was never about the crown, or parliament, or PMs, or NGOs, or anything else, it was always a question of people, their spirit, their stock, their loyalties and their honour. Ideology, governmental systems, hierarchies, these must spring from people, they cannot exist in a voyd. Down or up with the King? What king is there that does not rule? What matters it if he is in or out of his post? What good does it bring anyone to get rid of this man that is not a man?
the weak monarchy in my view is a good thing. They will bow to the will of a monarchist parliament. Thats all that is needed they need to stay in power until a monarchist party regains power, whether that is soon or in a century or two.
I'm curious, what is exactly is a "proper monarchy" according to you? Are you talking about an absolute monarchy or an Imperial German-style semi-constitutional monarchy? A constitional monarch with veto power? I mean, the Japanese have a purely ceremonial monarchy that is even less powerful than the British monarchy and they seem to be happy with it. Same thing with the Cambodians and the Malaysians.
I am no fan of Charles III, and I have to say I, largely agree with AM. For myself I would like a King from the House of Alfred the Great and Harold, or even a Plantagenet, rather than a 'Windsor'.
how do you decide who is the legitimate ruler of a dynasty which hasn't been ruling for 1000 years . is there anyone who descends from the house of Wessex still around seriously, can you think of 1 example of a house which hasn't been in power for 1000 years returning to Power ? and no North Korea doesn't count because it's a "republic?
Better that a new dynasty rise than that some random Aussie liberal gets thrown in a palace with a crown and some robes and told to rule England with his blood of Cnut or whoever. Kings must be worthy of the station, firstly they must be willing to use their powers for the sake of their obligations, the strength of will and purity of character to do that is very rare, and we need people for whom that is literally in their blood. Let the children of Charlemagne hold his crown, not whichever farmhand can boast the closest descent from Augustus.
I would hold an empty throne and a hollow crown in higher regard than watch England tarnished by the grotesques that prod and grasp at her. Albion needs our protection. Deus vult
Amazing video, I agree. If he gives his ascent on this 1) He will not be forgiven by the Lord 2) He is Betraying the populous of which are subject to him.
I accept the premise of thr argument and the problems laid out, but I'm not yet sold on the solution. As someone else stated, the union of the three kingdoms would likely be jeapordized. As someone else stated, the heir(s) could turn out to be better. There's a lot to think about here, the excerpt from Les Mis is playing over and over in my head. AM, I don't necessarily like the solution but I like the essay for making me think. Let us not cling to the corruptible crown to the point where we lose our incorruptible crown. Charles, King and Martyr, pray for us!
England's decision to fight Germany in World War II underscores the harsh reality that choosing the wrong side can lead to one's destruction, as "the wages of sin is death."
WW1 is much, much, more relevant to this conversation, given that it destroyed the last of Rome (with the reconstituted German Reich, the Austrian Hapsbergs and the Tsar of Holy Russia all being brought to dust by the liberals).
England was trying to impress America, just as it does so today by "threatening" Russia. When did it all go wrong ? Even in Victorian times, all that strolling in the park was decay .... 1500 is most likely the date of death.
I abhor republicanism, but I am afraid you are correct. I know they have violated their oaths but what would we do about our own people who are bond by oaths of fealty towards this dynasty, perhaps even those are neutered by the apostasy of those to whom they were made. A new Cromwell is our only hope, and I don't know whether I can even call it unfortunate when I look at where we are and where we must go. But whatever happens are first loyalty must be to God and his people, those we are obligated towards by ties of kinship. May God have mercy on us, and on those who continue misplace their faith, hope and loyalties. God help us in the coming struggle, not because our grandchildren will continue it but so that they will.
I'm terrified that you are right, although actively campaigning for the end of 1000 years of British monarchy will not bring about a British Caesar or coax Arthur out of his tomb. Perhaps better to allow the pantomime of existing monarchy to play out and for parliament to become the irrelevant joke that is swept aside by our Augustus?
17:13 This is reminiscent of the French expression "plus royaliste que le Roi" (i.e., "more royalist than the King"). It essentially means protecting someone's interests more than the person herself does.
Is the King really a monarch if he refuses to be an archon id est refuses to rule? He is the primus inter pares, the first citizen, yet holds non of the power that such a title was used to obscure.
Question: Do you think that the British state could survive at all as a republic given that for many unionists in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales the basis of their unionism is loyalty to the Crown? Without the Crown this personal sense of sentimental attachment may dissappear, and I foresee a growth in nationalism, particularly in Scotland, since the independence referendum was very close. What of the channel islands and other Crown Dependencies? For the U.S. the "glue" that holds their Union together is their constitution, for Britain it is the British monarchy that holds your union together. Without it, the union would dissolve. Do you disagree? Or perhaps you agree, but consider it a good thing?
There’s very little sense of patriotism left in Britain to rally around, so cutting out the crown would damage the union. It would be a further cutting of ties and remove even the weakest embers of cultural unionism.
The union is barely hanging on as it is. You might as well take a chance. Scotland will eventually go independent and north Ireland will unite with Ireland. It’s demographics. Welsh nationalism is on the rise too, as is Cornish and Manx. Then there is regionalism of northern England…and finally English nationalism itself. They have to do something. Perhaps restoring the kingdom of England.
This is all based on current trends, if a government arises that seeks to solve the countries problems many of those sceptical of remaining will jump on board. Even the Irish would rather live in a based Britain than a Ireland that is Ireland no longer. People want jobs and safety, politicians closer to home are not much cared for even if there is plenty of money and noise in it.
You are a genius AM. As a long time listener from Canada everything you are saying on this stream resonates with me on a profound level. If I lived in the UK I would be encouraging you to try to become an active participant in politics as nobody else can articulate the problem as well as you can.
Fellow Canadian, good tidings brother! AM is actively involved in politics, in precisely the sort of way that is most effective for a man like him. Share his streams.
Doesn’t a British Republic already exist in the USA and it is not exactly something to be admired or desired. Republics also have this habit of praising their every action 🤮. It took Rome roughly 350 years to return to Monarchy (kicking and screaming every part of the way) and a highly dysfunctional one at that as it still held onto many of its republican ideals. I think that Britain becoming a republic would be evil and not necessary. Much like the papacy, dissatisfaction with the incumbent can be changed by their heir presumptive, but if you tear down the institution, restoration is going to be a whole lot more difficult than if an anti-pope or a pretender reared their head.
Rome peaked under the republican period. Rome wasn’t dysfunctional during the imperial period because of remnants of republicanism but because of its opulence and diversity.
A British Republic did exist in America, it hasn't existed for a long time now. Probably because its founding British stock has become a minority a long time ago.
They are both awful forms of government that have been played out. Yet both rightists (English nationalists) in both countries are not allowed to have their own representation. It’s basically governing a giant stepfamily of people who don’t like you no matter what you do. An English coal minor in West Virginia, accountant in Tennessee, farmer in Georgia etc will always vote for understated English nationalism (GOP) no matter what, just like an Englishman in Suffolk, Cornwall, Scotland, London will always vote for understated English nationalism (Tory, until maybe now). Yet we would never have our forced representatives as our neighbors or in-laws (Sunak, Badenoch, Vivek, Scott etc). The absolute best system possible were the English ethno-states in New England: forced church attendance, no intermarriage, patriarchy, no democracy. AM should do a stream on this.
@@fyrdman2185 The founding stock sold out the country the same way they sold out the land of natives from under them. The trinkets and debts of rootless cosmopolitans became too much of a temptation for neither the Puritan stock nor the Cavalier stock to ignore.
I am very nervous about this. For its many MANY flaws the monarchy has a very deep hold on my heart as an Englishman and an ulsterman. While I wish for a return to proper executive monarchy’s I’ll take the limp wristed one for now over a republic.
AM is certainly angry. But I blame parliament and the progression of parliamentary and commons sovereignty over the monarchy in these past centuries. I cannot blame a captured monarchy for sins not of its making
@@skadiwarrior2053 saying that the monarchy allowed itself to be undermined like this is very misleading. At least depending on who we are talking about. The Hanoverians certainly were not about to make enemies of the parliament who placed them on the throne. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. The Jacobites certainly fought against this usurpation, and they could have won, but in the end they were defeated. This was a gradual process, but it became further reinforced with each Hanoverian succession to the throne. Once Queen Victoria came along the game was practically over.
While the sentiment is nice, there’s really only one outcome of supporting republicanism in the UK: abolition and replacement with a presidential model that will do the exact same thing the current government does except with open and enshrined disdain for traditional institutions. The world is rapidly moving towards a complete progressive takeover with no viable right-wing resistance, and encouraging republicanism will only hasten this.
I’m glad that you share my perspective, deliverance will not be brought by turning the wheel of liberalism back a couple iterations, and hoping that it will not begin to turn again, the sword must cleave through the spiderwebs of deceivers
King of the communities. Does Charles really think there's a place for him and his family in that structure if they ever get the numbers on the natives? Silly man.
I strongly and vehemently disagree with this stance, which strikes me as frankly fantastical and petulant. One is either a Monarchist or one is not. My monarchism is not conditional. It is not predicated on a particular monarch doing what I wish they would do. All monarchy, ANY monarchy, in any form, is infinitely preferable to any form of Republicanism. No republic in Britain. Down with ALL republicanism, of the Left or the Right. I have no interest in some childish, wishful fantasy of the 'Return of the King'. Or in some imaginary, phantasmagorical 'Caesar' or 'Arthur' who will never come. The 'interregnum' has not 'already begun' just because you happen to intensely dislike the person of the present Sovereign. What abject nonsense. This isn't the 'Big Brain' 4D Chess move you seem to think it is.
The idea that any monarchy is better than any republic is very abstract, we live in reality and it reality we have people to protect and a tradition to conserve. Our loyalty must be to God and our people moreso than the worship of forms.
I'm assuming this is an Abrahamic sort of test of loyalty. The angel will come and prevent the sacrifice of Isaac if the viewers endure this trial..., right?
A British Republic would go exactly like the 0 seats project i'm hope this video will be about how the "far right" should be Republican so that way Republicanism is seen as a far right extremist ideology
'Upon the king! let us our lives, our souls, Our debts, our careful wives, Our children and our sins lay on the king!'- Shakespeare makes the best argument for republicanism here: placing responsibility on the state rather than the individual people remain subjects rather than citizens. (Henry V, 4.i.)
More royalist than the King, as so often has been the case since the fall of eagles. What then be the point? More Catholic than the Pope, more imperialist than the Imperator? There is but one true monarch and to aspire to such heights these things will no longer do, nor are they fit for purpose in a world under the boot of merchants, who already proved their point by toppling our monarchs in the first place.
Thank you for this. You are pushing me towards a conclusion I’ve been pondering for some time. The monarch is the head of the tribe, head of a people. If he doesn’t feel he’s that, and can’t even be persuaded to fake it for public purposes, he has to go.
Sad but interesting take AM, was wondering if your ever consider doing a stream on Lebanon 🇱🇧 and it’s constant power balance between Christian’s and Muslims (and other minority groups) thanks again
I believe the UK needs a Frances Urquhart. “Bring down the monarchy? No! The ideal is abhorrent to me. But to force the abdication of a particular King, that has been done before. And if the country's good required it of me, I wouldn't shrink from it.”
We saw how that turned out, history does not conform to the 'right time', if there is ever one of is made so. He was also in a better position in that the legitimate King was not just present but available via telegram, eager and tested.
Makes me sad as a Canadian (whose nation was founded by those loyal to this line in opposition to American republicanism) to have to say this but this is true
@@deutschermichel5807 much much worse. He’s right on his way out at the moment but nobody else in our parliament is much better. The current tory leader is a chud which is cool but he’s also a crypto libertarian unfortunately.
I’ve been very impressed by everything I’ve heard from you so far and to learn you’re a a Jacobite sympathiser? Brilliant. It’s certainly not a popular opinion in Britain but I think what happened to the Stewarts was a real travesty. The monarchy was doomed from when British parliamentarians brought over a foreigner to take the role over a rightful king.
@@deutschermichel5807While he might have a more legitimate claim than other descendants, I don’t think he would necessarily have to be the choice. With such a disconnect from the last Stewart monarch, I think a lot of descendents could be chosen depending on their suitability. Ideally, someone who grew up in or is otherwise infatuated with British culture. Of course any Stewart descendant getting the throne is very unlikely but we can dream.
@@themk4982 Maybe I am a little out off touch with monarchism but why donʼt people rally around any good man from royal descend? Does he need to be the most senior heir or doesnʼt it suffice when he at least is a descendent if any English / Scottish king?
I'm a great admirer of the constitutional monarchy system. It’s extremely smart because it separates to some degree the ceremonial from the political. And with the weekly meeting that take place between King or queen and prime ministers they are a sort of humbling confession. You can imagine how useful it is psychologically, in some sense for the prime minister who has monarchical temptations They are the embodiment of our country they are our culture personified.
There's no serious challenge to the status quo in the UK, let alone a left-lead collaboration with the monarchy. We've lived within neo-liberalism for 40 years, you only have to follow the money.
I find what he says to be quite reasonable, though I am no englishman myself it is evident that the Monarchy has been hollowed out, it is not simply unwilling to defend itself or its subjects but actively working against both, to remove the tree which has grown rotten would allow it to once again grow healthy.
You are missing a few steps, it goes: >Parliament/Labour do something he disagrees with >Monarch supports Parliament/Labour decision >Blames Parliament and the Monarch and calls for their reform/dissolution.
I'm out of work at the moment, so I'm willing to give King a go. Three month trial period, but I would insist that the national anthem be changed to Kinky Afro by the Happy Mondays.
In all I honestly even thought I am monarchist and have nothing to do with Britain’s expat as theoretical framework to exam my world view I still think it is better for us monarchists for the abdication of British monarchy as they only exit at this point to prevent any serious talk about monarchy and their nesserity it is like being exile in your own castle for generations and generations to come
It would be an education (and pleasure) for you and David Starkey to debate these constitutional issues. You are to this often irritated follower the most interesting and compelling historian of our increasingly barbarous times and you merit the salt of challenge. I was fascinated to see another contender (who might have had the courage to take up the challenge)Tom Holland started this evening with half the attendance for his more or less simultaneous emission. Midwit or cancelled High Table Queen. Choices...
A people who abandon their history and traditions are nothing but that: a people. Without our traditions, our history, we are not British, just a bunch of people. Sure, the monarchy is just one tradition, but what makes one tradition more objectively valuable than another? Either all traditions are sacred, or none are. I agree that we need a new royal family, but abolishing the institution of monarchy to do it? No. It’s not like we need it to be the same family anyway, William 1 set the precedent for that (as in he had no claim to the throne) so why not just change the royal family?
Wrong. Britain really went off thr rails when the Legions withdrew in the fifth century. It took us a thousand years to deal with the ensuing barbarism.
I wish we could see a Catholic Monarchy. I feel though, that this could end up playing into their hand. We the people shoud pressure him into abdecation or abandonment of the Church of England.
I think a discussion about the legitimacy of the Monarchy is needed. I live in Western Canada and until 2 years ago I had no idea how much the British Monarchy has interfered with the genuine human-supporting progress of Canada. The Monarchy has done more to sabotage rather than support. 🍁
Just because you don’t like the current monarch, doesn’t mean you should abolish the institution as a whole. I’m a monarchist, and no, I don’t like Charles, but I won’t jeopardise my principles due a dislike of one man. Could you replace the current monarch? Yes. Could you just wait for the current royal family to pass to a generation that is not woke? Yes. Abolish it entirely? No.
The Dark AM arc has begun 😳
I like the implications of this.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Imagine your monarchy being such a disgrace that you lose a committed royalist like AM.
@spmcg_
Thought it's been a while already, AM's Elizabeth II : Queen of the Ashes was 2 years ago already.
AM is always 2 steps ahead
@@JohnDoe-wv7epI mean likely he's felt this way about the state of the monarchy for as long as he's been a royalist, and I wager the same is true of most anyone who would describe their idealistic political sympathies that way.
Whatever man, pray for the return of the King, somehow, some way! Have hope brothers!
"Abolishing the actual (the real) House of Lords, and conceding the Government's argument that the Lords are there only thanks to an accident of birth, ensures that the argument will be applied both to the King directly and to the entire British population."
Chilling.
The argument is already being used against the British population. It's so common to hear stuff like there is no such thing as an indigenous British population and that we're all migrants that came here from somewhere thousands of years ago. Besides, "you're only British due to an accident of birth", therefor it makes no sense to have hard borders and have a sensible policy on migration to keep others out.
Yeah that was the best part of the video. Perfectly sums up what is happening and why it should be opposed. I'll have to memorize that line for when I'm talking about the monarchy.
Yeah replace people who, are not tied to anyone, as they’re in the House by right of birth, with the governments funders and friends, is dystopian
It was very poignant by AM to point out that the very name 'Windsor' was born out of spinelessness and the British monarchy's cowardice to defend itself and its history
It's what the British get for allowing their aristocracy/oligarchy to determine their royalty, instead of keeping the Stuarts.
@@RA9U1 let's not get bogged down in Jacobite nonsense, the monarchs were chosen by the aristocrats and elites long before they were foisted on us.
@@RA9U1 the Stuarts chose their fate with their mulish obsession with Continental superstitions such as "Divine Right" etc.
No. It was an acknowledgement that the Germany of Goethe & Beethoven had been eclipsed by an unprecedented evil - an evil which still remains in Germany.
@@MGJS71 I'd really love to know what remains of the old Kaiserreich in Germany today. Ashes of ashes and maybe not even that. Haven't you got the first and second world-war mixed up? Even if so, I wouldn't agree with your sentiment, but it would make more sense to me
AM essentially argues here for a stance against the current monarch of the United Kingdom.
If you are a true monarchist, the monarchy of the UK is the abosulte antithesis of what a monarchist desires.
It is the death of monarchism by its own existence.
The King is locked in the Forbidden City and the Eunuchs are in control.
Perhaps it is just laying low until America collapses ....
"For the authentic revolutionary conservative, what really counts is to be faithful not to past forms and institutions, but rather to principles of which such forms and institutions have been particular expressions, adequate for a specific period of time and in a specific geographical area." - Julius Evola
We are in an evil time.
Speaking from across the pond, I think us Right Wingers have a tendency towards formalism, that can sometimes backfire. The monarchy, at current moment, is semi popular but toothless. There's no need to expend political capital on taking down something that, at worst, is a very minor impediment. If the Left makes a big push to end the monarchy, how should the Right respond, is a more open question.
I see it’s toothlessness as a perk.
They would bend to a monarchist party in government.
Much like the the police being selected for order following above all other things.
We only need win once
@@ndalum75 AM is pointing out that the Lefts republicanism will inevitably move on the monarchy. Therefore by moving ahead we can turn that movement into our own tool and drive the direction of the future republicanism.
The inevitable decline of Democracy brings forth Oligarchy, which in turn will inevitably give way to Tyranny. There will be a King again in England, one day. Once and Future, perhaps.
How can there ever be any distinction betwixt democracy and oligarchy?
Or you could just increase the tax rate. Remove carried-interest fudges, shell companies. Basic governance.
I wish people would stop using the word democracy. We have never had a democracy .
We have a bureaucracy controlled by lawyers .
What we need is a modern democracy using the modern tech we have today.
The last thing we need is a vote a king/president and his clique of best friends who will dictate to you what's best for you
The modern states were built in the twentieth century at the direction of oligarchies.
There wasnt a decline. They started there.
What remains of the Winsor's are but a husk. Nihilism has truly crept into every fabric and strata of our civilization, our spiritual leaders bow before the belief in nothingness, preach on the altar of self-immolation. We are reaching the end of a cycle. And the beginning of another spring.
There will be a large rest before spring, on the scale of millions of years.
A scathing but well deserved autopsy of the British Monarchy😢.
Great video AM, it’s good to hear the righteous anger in your voice, to stir me from my apathy towards these horrendous events.
The Monarchy has abandoned the nation and is rotting from the head down , I was once a loyalists, now I say down down with the the mitre and the crown. It is time for a renovation .
The conservative party was the head of a rotting fish, but now that they are out of power, is England any better off? To see issue in the office of monarch, or indeed of anyone else, is a false mirage, for they are not the source but mere symptoms, any system under good people is good, and under bad ones bad. It was never about the crown, or parliament, or PMs, or NGOs, or anything else, it was always a question of people, their spirit, their stock, their loyalties and their honour. Ideology, governmental systems, hierarchies, these must spring from people, they cannot exist in a voyd.
Down or up with the King? What king is there that does not rule? What matters it if he is in or out of his post? What good does it bring anyone to get rid of this man that is not a man?
the weak monarchy in my view is a good thing.
They will bow to the will of a monarchist parliament.
Thats all that is needed they need to stay in power until a monarchist party regains power, whether that is soon or in a century or two.
@@James-sk4db Oligarchs have no reason to use 'democracy' to enthrone another house of genuine power.
I think both the current royalty and parliament need to go. To replace it I would like a proper Monarchy.
I'm curious, what is exactly is a "proper monarchy" according to you? Are you talking about an absolute monarchy or an Imperial German-style semi-constitutional monarchy? A constitional monarch with veto power?
I mean, the Japanese have a purely ceremonial monarchy that is even less powerful than the British monarchy and they seem to be happy with it. Same thing with the Cambodians and the Malaysians.
A Christian monarch, the patriarch under God of a people.
The sleep community won't be happy about this...
Normally as calm and stoic as a serene and pristine lake, "Dark and Angry" AM is something I didn't expect, nor I knew I needed.
Hear him, hear him!
Make way for the Chairman
I am no fan of Charles III, and I have to say I, largely agree with AM. For myself I would like a King from the House of Alfred the Great and Harold, or even a Plantagenet, rather than a 'Windsor'.
how do you decide who is the legitimate ruler of a dynasty which hasn't been ruling for 1000 years . is there anyone who descends from the house of Wessex still around
seriously, can you think of 1 example of a house which hasn't been in power for 1000 years returning to Power ?
and no North Korea doesn't count because it's a "republic?
@@avus-kw2f213 There are various, more less distantly related, people to King Harold, and thus Alfred the Great and the House of Wessex.
Better that a new dynasty rise than that some random Aussie liberal gets thrown in a palace with a crown and some robes and told to rule England with his blood of Cnut or whoever.
Kings must be worthy of the station, firstly they must be willing to use their powers for the sake of their obligations, the strength of will and purity of character to do that is very rare, and we need people for whom that is literally in their blood. Let the children of Charlemagne hold his crown, not whichever farmhand can boast the closest descent from Augustus.
Alfred was of the Cerdicingas, the kingstrand of Cerdic. Their standard was the Golden Dragon.
@@99IronDuke Who exactly ?
AM, you're probably my biggest political influence out of anyone still living.
I would hold an empty throne and a hollow crown in higher regard than watch England tarnished by the grotesques that prod and grasp at her. Albion needs our protection. Deus vult
Amazing video, I agree. If he gives his ascent on this 1) He will not be forgiven by the Lord 2) He is Betraying the populous of which are subject to him.
British Republic: evil? yes, neccessary? absolutely not
I accept the premise of thr argument and the problems laid out, but I'm not yet sold on the solution. As someone else stated, the union of the three kingdoms would likely be jeapordized. As someone else stated, the heir(s) could turn out to be better. There's a lot to think about here, the excerpt from Les Mis is playing over and over in my head. AM, I don't necessarily like the solution but I like the essay for making me think. Let us not cling to the corruptible crown to the point where we lose our incorruptible crown. Charles, King and Martyr, pray for us!
England's decision to fight Germany in World War II underscores the harsh reality that choosing the wrong side can lead to one's destruction, as "the wages of sin is death."
going to war and staying in war are 2 separate things
WW1 is much, much, more relevant to this conversation, given that it destroyed the last of Rome (with the reconstituted German Reich, the Austrian Hapsbergs and the Tsar of Holy Russia all being brought to dust by the liberals).
The point is, even today, England has spread more degeneracy as a country than France, surpassed only by the USA and other Anglo nations.
England was trying to impress America, just as it does so today by "threatening" Russia.
When did it all go wrong ?
Even in Victorian times, all that strolling in the park was decay .... 1500 is most likely the date of death.
I've now had two comments referring to the great war deleted under this comment. The censor bot is fickle to say the least.
Cromwell 2.0 ?
cucked cromwell
I abhor republicanism, but I am afraid you are correct.
I know they have violated their oaths but what would we do about our own people who are bond by oaths of fealty towards this dynasty, perhaps even those are neutered by the apostasy of those to whom they were made.
A new Cromwell is our only hope, and I don't know whether I can even call it unfortunate when I look at where we are and where we must go. But whatever happens are first loyalty must be to God and his people, those we are obligated towards by ties of kinship. May God have mercy on us, and on those who continue misplace their faith, hope and loyalties. God help us in the coming struggle, not because our grandchildren will continue it but so that they will.
I'm terrified that you are right, although actively campaigning for the end of 1000 years of British monarchy will not bring about a British Caesar or coax Arthur out of his tomb. Perhaps better to allow the pantomime of existing monarchy to play out and for parliament to become the irrelevant joke that is swept aside by our Augustus?
17:13 This is reminiscent of the French expression "plus royaliste que le Roi" (i.e., "more royalist than the King").
It essentially means protecting someone's interests more than the person herself does.
If you listen to AM’s stream on QEII he quotes this at the end
Is the King really a monarch if he refuses to be an archon id est refuses to rule?
He is the primus inter pares, the first citizen, yet holds non of the power that such a title was used to obscure.
AM sounds pissed
Question: Do you think that the British state could survive at all as a republic given that for many unionists in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales the basis of their unionism is loyalty to the Crown? Without the Crown this personal sense of sentimental attachment may dissappear, and I foresee a growth in nationalism, particularly in Scotland, since the independence referendum was very close. What of the channel islands and other Crown Dependencies? For the U.S. the "glue" that holds their Union together is their constitution, for Britain it is the British monarchy that holds your union together. Without it, the union would dissolve. Do you disagree? Or perhaps you agree, but consider it a good thing?
There’s very little sense of patriotism left in Britain to rally around, so cutting out the crown would damage the union. It would be a further cutting of ties and remove even the weakest embers of cultural unionism.
The union is barely hanging on as it is. You might as well take a chance. Scotland will eventually go independent and north Ireland will unite with Ireland. It’s demographics. Welsh nationalism is on the rise too, as is Cornish and Manx. Then there is regionalism of northern England…and finally English nationalism itself. They have to do something. Perhaps restoring the kingdom of England.
This is all based on current trends, if a government arises that seeks to solve the countries problems many of those sceptical of remaining will jump on board. Even the Irish would rather live in a based Britain than a Ireland that is Ireland no longer.
People want jobs and safety, politicians closer to home are not much cared for even if there is plenty of money and noise in it.
You are a genius AM. As a long time listener from Canada everything you are saying on this stream resonates with me on a profound level. If I lived in the UK I would be encouraging you to try to become an active participant in politics as nobody else can articulate the problem as well as you can.
Fellow Canadian, good tidings brother!
AM is actively involved in politics, in precisely the sort of way that is most effective for a man like him. Share his streams.
Doesn’t a British Republic already exist in the USA and it is not exactly something to be admired or desired. Republics also have this habit of praising their every action 🤮.
It took Rome roughly 350 years to return to Monarchy (kicking and screaming every part of the way) and a highly dysfunctional one at that as it still held onto many of its republican ideals.
I think that Britain becoming a republic would be evil and not necessary. Much like the papacy, dissatisfaction with the incumbent can be changed by their heir presumptive, but if you tear down the institution, restoration is going to be a whole lot more difficult than if an anti-pope or a pretender reared their head.
Rome peaked under the republican period. Rome wasn’t dysfunctional during the imperial period because of remnants of republicanism but because of its opulence and diversity.
A British Republic did exist in America, it hasn't existed for a long time now. Probably because its founding British stock has become a minority a long time ago.
@@fyrdman2185 Agreed. It's nearly a crime now not to have non Anglo Saxon roots.
They are both awful forms of government that have been played out. Yet both rightists (English nationalists) in both countries are not allowed to have their own representation. It’s basically governing a giant stepfamily of people who don’t like you no matter what you do. An English coal minor in West Virginia, accountant in Tennessee, farmer in Georgia etc will always vote for understated English nationalism (GOP) no matter what, just like an Englishman in Suffolk, Cornwall, Scotland, London will always vote for understated English nationalism (Tory, until maybe now). Yet we would never have our forced representatives as our neighbors or in-laws (Sunak, Badenoch, Vivek, Scott etc). The absolute best system possible were the English ethno-states in New England: forced church attendance, no intermarriage, patriarchy, no democracy. AM should do a stream on this.
@@fyrdman2185 The founding stock sold out the country the same way they sold out the land of natives from under them. The trinkets and debts of rootless cosmopolitans became too much of a temptation for neither the Puritan stock nor the Cavalier stock to ignore.
I am very nervous about this. For its many MANY flaws the monarchy has a very deep hold on my heart as an Englishman and an ulsterman. While I wish for a return to proper executive monarchy’s I’ll take the limp wristed one for now over a republic.
The parliament is the biggest problem in my opinion
How can it get any worse than it is now? You benefitted from republicanism under Cromwell.
@@TickleMeChelmno Cromwell was not a republican and neither was his commonwealth. He was a military dictator and a Proto-Fascist if anything
@@fyrdman2185 based. we should have kept it going.
fyrdman2185
You make him sound even more awesome. English nationalism is the way.
First time I see AMs pulpable rage and disgust
Punished Apolostic Majesty begins...
AM is certainly angry. But I blame parliament and the progression of parliamentary and commons sovereignty over the monarchy in these past centuries. I cannot blame a captured monarchy for sins not of its making
A monarchy allowing itself to be captured in the first place is not really a monarchy.
@@skadiwarrior2053 saying that the monarchy allowed itself to be undermined like this is very misleading. At least depending on who we are talking about. The Hanoverians certainly were not about to make enemies of the parliament who placed them on the throne. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. The Jacobites certainly fought against this usurpation, and they could have won, but in the end they were defeated.
This was a gradual process, but it became further reinforced with each Hanoverian succession to the throne. Once Queen Victoria came along the game was practically over.
@@aaronfire359Why donʼt you blame the Briʼish “people”, the populace for their sins? In a democracy it is the people that is responsible
While the sentiment is nice, there’s really only one outcome of supporting republicanism in the UK: abolition and replacement with a presidential model that will do the exact same thing the current government does except with open and enshrined disdain for traditional institutions. The world is rapidly moving towards a complete progressive takeover with no viable right-wing resistance, and encouraging republicanism will only hasten this.
My favourite jacked bodybuilder, doomer historian strikes again. I feel your pain AM, God bless.
I’m glad that you share my perspective, deliverance will not be brought by turning the wheel of liberalism back a couple iterations, and hoping that it will not begin to turn again, the sword must cleave through the spiderwebs of deceivers
King of the communities. Does Charles really think there's a place for him and his family in that structure if they ever get the numbers on the natives? Silly man.
I strongly and vehemently disagree with this stance, which strikes me as frankly fantastical and petulant. One is either a Monarchist or one is not. My monarchism is not conditional. It is not predicated on a particular monarch doing what I wish they would do. All monarchy, ANY monarchy, in any form, is infinitely preferable to any form of Republicanism. No republic in Britain. Down with ALL republicanism, of the Left or the Right. I have no interest in some childish, wishful fantasy of the 'Return of the King'. Or in some imaginary, phantasmagorical 'Caesar' or 'Arthur' who will never come. The 'interregnum' has not 'already begun' just because you happen to intensely dislike the person of the present Sovereign. What abject nonsense. This isn't the 'Big Brain' 4D Chess move you seem to think it is.
The idea that any monarchy is better than any republic is very abstract, we live in reality and it reality we have people to protect and a tradition to conserve. Our loyalty must be to God and our people moreso than the worship of forms.
@@vorynrosethorn903render to Caesar what is Caesarʼs and to God what is Godʼs
epic rebuttal epic rebuttal
Still under the Norman Yoke, they've kept all that land for 1000 yrs. . . .hate em
I'm assuming this is an Abrahamic sort of test of loyalty. The angel will come and prevent the sacrifice of Isaac if the viewers endure this trial..., right?
A British Republic would go exactly like the 0 seats project
i'm hope this video will be about how the "far right" should be Republican so that way Republicanism is seen as a far right extremist ideology
Zero seats worked fine babe.
@@anatolyadyatlov7301 did it ?
@@cheeseburgersarecool6600 Yes. Why did it not?
Britain has been a "Crowned Republic" from time immemorial.
@@anatolyadyatlov7301 labour is worse then conservative
AM is going to become the English Patrick Pearse.
'Upon the king! let us our lives, our souls,
Our debts, our careful wives,
Our children and our sins lay on the king!'- Shakespeare makes the best argument for republicanism here: placing responsibility on the state rather than the individual people remain subjects rather than citizens. (Henry V, 4.i.)
its only a matter of time, until the pomp and ceremony of the monarchy is embarrassing...
I am an ultra royalists
Ultra-cuckholdry isn't that appeal, my Brother in Christ.
More royalist than the King, as so often has been the case since the fall of eagles. What then be the point? More Catholic than the Pope, more imperialist than the Imperator? There is but one true monarch and to aspire to such heights these things will no longer do, nor are they fit for purpose in a world under the boot of merchants, who already proved their point by toppling our monarchs in the first place.
Strange question, but what font is British Republicanism on the thumbnail in?
Bravo, Brilliant, and Be of good cheer even in this dark hour. ❤
Thank you for this. You are pushing me towards a conclusion I’ve been pondering for some time. The monarch is the head of the tribe, head of a people. If he doesn’t feel he’s that, and can’t even be persuaded to fake it for public purposes, he has to go.
i wish even one of the wests politicians were as bright and learned as AM.
Sad but interesting take AM, was wondering if your ever consider doing a stream on Lebanon 🇱🇧 and it’s constant power balance between Christian’s and Muslims (and other minority groups) thanks again
I believe the UK needs a Frances Urquhart. “Bring down the monarchy? No! The ideal is abhorrent to me. But to force the abdication of a particular King, that has been done before. And if the country's good required it of me, I wouldn't shrink from it.”
What of horthys model? A kingdom without a king, so continuity is maintained when the monarchy is eventually restored?
We saw how that turned out, history does not conform to the 'right time', if there is ever one of is made so. He was also in a better position in that the legitimate King was not just present but available via telegram, eager and tested.
Makes me sad as a Canadian (whose nation was founded by those loyal to this line in opposition to American republicanism) to have to say this but this is true
Isnʼt your Prime Minister equally as bad as Starner?
@@deutschermichel5807 much much worse. He’s right on his way out at the moment but nobody else in our parliament is much better. The current tory leader is a chud which is cool but he’s also a crypto libertarian unfortunately.
I’ve been very impressed by everything I’ve heard from you so far and to learn you’re a a Jacobite sympathiser? Brilliant. It’s certainly not a popular opinion in Britain but I think what happened to the Stewarts was a real travesty. The monarchy was doomed from when British parliamentarians brought over a foreigner to take the role over a rightful king.
Sadly, the current Jacobite pretender is Prince Francis of Bavaria. Iʼve heard heʼs in an openly honosexual relationship
@@deutschermichel5807While he might have a more legitimate claim than other descendants, I don’t think he would necessarily have to be the choice. With such a disconnect from the last Stewart monarch, I think a lot of descendents could be chosen depending on their suitability. Ideally, someone who grew up in or is otherwise infatuated with British culture. Of course any Stewart descendant getting the throne is very unlikely but we can dream.
@@themk4982 Maybe I am a little out off touch with monarchism but why donʼt people rally around any good man from royal descend? Does he need to be the most senior heir or doesnʼt it suffice when he at least is a descendent if any English / Scottish king?
Honestly would Burke even disagree these days?
AM might be the most based person on UA-cam
100% based and spot on as always 👍
This monarchy is rotten to the core.
I love this channel, every episode it reinforces my belief that we should be pushing antinatalism at every chance we get.
what does it mean to push it?
Seems like a Barmey take. I’m ready to be pleasantly surprised. Long live the King
Agreed.
Excellent pice! I always enjoy your scathing essays on the state of Western institutions.
I'm a great admirer of the constitutional monarchy system. It’s extremely smart because it separates to some degree the ceremonial from the political. And with the weekly meeting that take place between King or queen and prime ministers they are a sort of humbling confession.
You can imagine how useful it is psychologically, in some sense for the prime minister who has monarchical temptations
They are the embodiment of our country they are our culture personified.
There's no serious challenge to the status quo in the UK, let alone a left-lead collaboration with the monarchy. We've lived within neo-liberalism for 40 years, you only have to follow the money.
I have thought for some time that we need a Cromwell to do away with the evils that beset us.
A republic without a Lord Protector is no English republic
This might be your best commentary yet. Much to ponder over.
To be honest i think that the anglican church is not christian anymore
Quite, they are liberal.
Was it ever? They are now headed by a gewe, but it was never an apostolic Church.
The Anglican church is very much christian. Don't confuse anglicanism with the church of England which is controlled by the british liberal state.
@@kennethruskin2710The anglican church literally has apostolic succession
@@henriqueesteves7162 copium
Based he is back 🙏🏻
Wanting, perhaps, perfection in a world that is far from perfect?
Brilliant analysis.
>Parliament/Labour do something he disagrees with
>Blames figurehead monarch and calls for its dissolution
Come on, man.
I find what he says to be quite reasonable, though I am no englishman myself it is evident that the Monarchy has been hollowed out, it is not simply unwilling to defend itself or its subjects but actively working against both, to remove the tree which has grown rotten would allow it to once again grow healthy.
The very fact he is a figurehead in the face of such desecration puts the lie to his monarchical oaths and obligations.
You are missing a few steps, it goes:
>Parliament/Labour do something he disagrees with
>Monarch supports Parliament/Labour decision
>Blames Parliament and the Monarch and calls for their reform/dissolution.
Masterful
The Eternal Anglo Strikes Again😞🤢🤢….
Error upon error. Thomas Carlyle was fundamentally a Scottish Presbyterian: his Goethean tendencies were more cosmetic than anything else.
Of course, join the AM Discord to continue the conversation:
discord.gg/ePbYckMx
It's clear that Britain is a profoundly sick society, I feel even as Zoomer I will be an old man before any hope of change for the better
I'm out of work at the moment, so I'm willing to give King a go. Three month trial period, but I would insist that the national anthem be changed to Kinky Afro by the Happy Mondays.
Why not just become a Jacobite?
let's hope the title is rage bait
your Words are Magical 😮
In all I honestly even thought I am monarchist and have nothing to do with Britain’s expat as theoretical framework to exam my world view I still think it is better for us monarchists for the abdication of British monarchy as they only exit at this point to prevent any serious talk about monarchy and their nesserity it is like being exile in your own castle for generations and generations to come
It would be an education (and pleasure) for you and David Starkey to debate these constitutional issues. You are to this often irritated follower the most interesting and compelling historian of our increasingly barbarous times and you merit the salt of challenge. I was fascinated to see another contender (who might have had the courage to take up the challenge)Tom Holland started this evening with half the attendance for his more or less simultaneous emission. Midwit or cancelled High Table Queen. Choices...
Forever Regency till the come of the One True King, Christ Jesus
That would be a repeat of interwar Hungary as farce.
@@vorynrosethorn903as farce? My sibling in Christ, every monarchy is just a regency in preparation of the second comming
A people who abandon their history and traditions are nothing but that: a people. Without our traditions, our history, we are not British, just a bunch of people. Sure, the monarchy is just one tradition, but what makes one tradition more objectively valuable than another? Either all traditions are sacred, or none are.
I agree that we need a new royal family, but abolishing the institution of monarchy to do it? No. It’s not like we need it to be the same family anyway, William 1 set the precedent for that (as in he had no claim to the throne) so why not just change the royal family?
I would like to see a commonwealth.
Bingo AM! You nailed it. The seeds of this catastrophe were planted by Henry VIII.
Wrong. Britain really went off thr rails when the Legions withdrew in the fifth century. It took us a thousand years to deal with the ensuing barbarism.
@@MGJS71what do you mean? Do your hate the Germanic heritage?
Fantastic Video!
But i wonder how was this not true 10 years ago or even 70 years?
Scathing
I wish we could see a Catholic Monarchy. I feel though, that this could end up playing into their hand. We the people shoud pressure him into abdecation or abandonment of the Church of England.
Just contribute to the reversion of Britain to Catholicism
How fitting it would be to title the video "A Cruel Necessity."
The King is dead.........
There shall be a return of the King, it’s just a question of when?
I think a discussion about the legitimacy of the Monarchy is needed. I live in Western Canada and until 2 years ago I had no idea how much the British Monarchy has interfered with the genuine human-supporting progress of Canada. The Monarchy has done more to sabotage rather than support. 🍁
Just get rid of the Windsors
Enoch Powell was the enabler of the 1975 referendum - it was the price he extracted from Harold Wilson for his "Vote Labour" intervention in GE1974/1.
This does deserve a response and I hope we hear it: what's the evidence you have in mind?
@@hugor1338 if you're asking about Powell's central role in securing the 1975 referendum, the "evidence" can be read in the Heffer biography.
@@hugor1338 BTW, is that the Royal "we" you were employing?
@@MGJS71 Cheers - does seem inconsistent with AM's view.
@@MGJS71 I meant a response from AM, and I was just speaking for the collective audience - if not me, then who? 🙂
Evil?nobody has the right to take life.
Just because you don’t like the current monarch, doesn’t mean you should abolish the institution as a whole. I’m a monarchist, and no, I don’t like Charles, but I won’t jeopardise my principles due a dislike of one man.
Could you replace the current monarch? Yes. Could you just wait for the current royal family to pass to a generation that is not woke? Yes. Abolish it entirely? No.
Abolish the Monarchy and bring back the nation to God.