I've noticed this sort of thing 3 times, once when I was first told about Monarchism, second when I became a Monarchist and 3rd here, it seems Monarchism and the adaptation into speaking with RP as opposed to the "street speak" that takes up the majority of my home town goes hand in hand.
@@carolinecampbell4032 HA ha ha. I'm American (but a linguistics enthusiast) and I suspected there was something off about his accent. It didn't sound like natural RP, but like somebody with a different native accent trying to put on a fake RP accent.
@@leaderofthebunch-deadbeat7716 OK Ned, I'm sure you have plenty of solid and reasonable points for why we should have a monarchy that aren't "but it makes us british"
@@emtheslav2295 a debate about monarchy is inherently political, and it is true that politics are infused with feelings, imagery and the like, but at the end of the day it’s far more functional than it is metaphorical
Well one is a monarchist so if the video played for more than 2:32 and if you applyed any sort of logic or pressure to his point of view it would sound like the ramblings of a homicidal lunatic
Yes the current Thai king is hated (yet his father is loved), by law, Thailand is a constitutional/limited monarchy but it's more of a "Shogunate" because the king is figurehead & the "army rules!" (Prayut Chan-o-cha) but it's far from failing state like the Republic of Myanmar. Thailand haves same growth as, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, & Vietnam.
In New Zealand we have the same debate from time to time whether to switch our constitution to that of a Republic or to keep to the Constitutional Monarchy. At the moment there is still a decent amount of support for the monarchy but I think that may change after the Queen dies.
@@anthonywillis7634 well that just sounds like glorified colonialism to me. Why should a person from britain (who, might I add, isn't even british) be the head if state of a country on the other side of the world? What right does she or her successors have to the title of the NZ, AU or CN sovereign?
@@joshguest1104 The issue is that you see them as "foreign". The UK is a multinational country and as such has transcended the idea of foreign peoples being separated for a more favourable idea of like-minded peoples being united such as is the case for the Commonwealth Realms.
@@shivaspatel2024 No, the Republicans in America are left-wing, but pro-borders. Hence the mix-up. (Democrats in America are neither left-wing nor right-wing, since their political strategy is to enlist all minorities for a vote, and most minorities are more conservative).
As an American, the monarchy guy sounds and looks like every American stereotype of the British. (And this is coming from a guy with actual English family.)
Fun fact the monarchy guy's real name is Tommy Muscatello and is actually from New York City. You can Google him or put his name into UA-cam (he was on Last Week Tonight)...
The monarchist argument is great until the heir is an idiot, unpopular, or politically active. Queen Elizabeth has been a stable and uniting figurehead, but eventually, be it one or twenty generations from now, someone will be born in direct line to the monarchy who will be unfit, and whether the monarchy can survive that, or whether it should survive that, is highly questionable.
And it's going to be one, not twenty. But I think the monarchy will survive, because of Charles' age. People will just be waiting for him to croak so William, who seems very suitable, can take over.
Lord Slashington III, true, but in the past that usually came at the cost of a civil war. While that is unlikely to happen today, there would almost certainly be civil unrest. If the heir has a mental disorder, I could see parliament stepping in being relatively uncontroversial, but what if the heir is political? Half the nation may support the monarch's view, while the other half feels alienated by their sovereign. That is rarely a recipe for stability when the ruler's term limit is for life.
Well republics on the other hand have opposing sides and parties, and both sides have the power to oppose any projects or bills that are being proposed, and the sad fact is that, they oppose it not because it's bad for the nation but it's a disadvantage to the opposite party, and leaders and presidents are being replaced every 4 to 6 years achieving limited successes and achievements. I'm for dictatorships with good governance and transparency, but it's totally impossible since every dictator that had the power abused their authority.
Minions Fact: Obviously King Bob was a great King during his 8 hour reign on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, during which he made Banana, the largest imported goods for the UK.
Hilariously, he's a bred and born American from New York, currently applying for British citizenship. His birth last name is Muscatello, he's an Italian-American. Hollywood would have rejected this script, but of course, reality is far stranger.
I'm American and don't want a monarchy in America (that would be a bit ridiculous since we have no monarchist tradition here whatsoever) but I think monarchies are cool if your country has a history of having them. They are a cultural thing and should be seen as such. The British monarchy does no harm since they can't do anything and they have elected officials who are actually in charge of running the country. So why the fuss?
DoesNotExist305 Because in theory they can do something. I wouldn't mind the monarchy as much if their constitutional roles were removed. This Queen has been very responsible in not using her power...we might not be so lucky next time.
Joshua McCarthy I mean what can they do? If King Charlie decided to go rogue the Parliament would remove him. The monarch can’t dissolve Parliament, dismiss the judiciary, or appoint a PM unilaterally.
Peter Charles In theory yes they can. The Queen has used her executive powers around 30 times, mostly trying to stop the Iraq War. Her powers do include dissolving Palrliament and appointing the PM. Parliament in the UK is not Sovereign and so can be removed at will. The Queen and Church is Sovereign.
Joshua McCarthy I think you will find that the 39 times when consent from the Queen/Charlie was required they were following the advice of ministers. This really is a debate about prerogative powers and the extent they are not codified and are abused by ministers. The Queen did not veto going into Iraq, rather Ministers informed Parliament that the bill did not have permission because it changed prerogative powers and they did not consent to this. Ultimately no PM would now decide no go to war without approval from the Commons, the power has informally shifted. The Queen can’t dissolve Parliament because the Fixed Term Parliament Act has extinguished that royal prerogative. Finally she could appoint anyone PM but considering how the aforementioned Act works, they would need the support of the Commons or they will find their time in office to be very short.
DoesNotExist305 you are from UNITED STATES, don't think we want republic in all america, it's ridiculous, South America is naturally monarchist, we don't have monarchies in South America because a lot of coups d'état orchestrated by USA! PS: sorry for my bad english
Keep believing you'll be something someday. You'll always be sub-human for them, you are their birth right technically a peasant. Try opposing them and you'll see how good they are.
Sooooo elected people CAN be power thirsty but they can be unelected... But a monarch can't be so we just gotta hope a life long of superiour position doesn't get to them and they get power thirsty... The double standard is real
"I cannot lead you into battle. I do not give you laws or administer justice but I can do something else - I can give my heart... and my devotion to these old islands and to all the peoples of our brotherhood of nations. I believe in our qualities and in our strength, I believe that together we can set an example to the world." -Her Majesty The Queen
The question that brings up is what sort of example have they actually set. Even with all the advantages provided on the backs of the British public, they’ve still exhibited all the worst qualities of any family without those advantages. Possibly it may even be their position that has enabled their deficiencies or limited any personal achievement any one of them might have aspired to.
1:08 Yes, but the honours system does need to be far more reflective of 'ordinary' people who do extraordinary things.... not just CEOs and sports personalities.
Turns out the monarchist guy was born and raised in New York started speaking in a made up English accent wile staring in a school play of Oliver haha.....honestly google him!
Reasons to keep the monarchy: 1. Tourism income; all those damn castles and every time there is a jubilee or birth/wedding/funeral they earn their tax money back. 2. Diplomatic duties; the Queen dines with world leaders, extra opportunity to woo world leaders; the Queen is also the symbolic head of state of Australia, NZ and Canada which links these countries and encourages greater ties and cooperation 3. Charity; they do lots of charity, more than you can imagine 4. The monarchy makes Brits more patriotic in a positive way like sports do as well; some countries encourage patriotism in negative ways such as religious fervor and going to freaking war/genocide but the monarchy is a pretty harmless way to improve the national psyche 5. We all wish we were born rich, personally, I have no problem allowing one family to live this dream at minimal state expense. Without the monarchy, very little money would actually be saved in the grand scheme of things so why not allow one family the joy of being rich? Especially if they instill a sense of heritage and history in the British people and act as a symbol of the good and the bad of what Britain once was
My only issue with the British Republican theory is that you're most likely to replace the Queen's role with a President, like France, or Russia, or Germany. The only difference is now you have a system that closer resembles an electoral monarchy, rather than a true Republic.
The issue is that some Republicans see the Royal Family as taking wealth from the people unjustly. They make us a net profit and thus lower taxes through tourism to their estates alone. They legally own most of their properties as of inheritance passed down and so if abolished would retain that income and be able to spend it instead of put it towards the country. Many also see the Royal Family as "foreign". The UK is a multinational country and as such has transcended the idea of foreign peoples being separated for a more favourable idea of like-minded peoples being united and that is demonstrated with the Commonwealth (Realms)
@@yoloswaggins7121 Do some basic research, the Sovereign Grant the Royal Family receives every year is not from taxpayers' money but from the 25% Crown Estate income (75% goes to the British government so in the end, the British people wins), all of their lavish life are sustained via the Crown Estate, ZERO comes from taxpayers.
Rewarding people for what they are and not what they got in their bank. Monarchist, The royal family have literally been put in that place because of what they have in their bank
0:58 You know, it really doesn't inspire me to think "this guy is open to changing his mind" when he, as a monarchist, has a figure of the queen on his window sill.
He clearly doesn't get the idea of a constitutional monarchy and that is simply 1 of the monarchist arguments also casually going to forget the last time Britain was a republic they started a dictatorship and banned Christmas i don't trust out politicians with any more power than they have now we have a speaker in parliament so it doesn't turn into a b*tching session lol
So? Just because they HAVE a monarch doesn't mean their democratic success is BECAUSE of the monarch... false cause fallacy. Their success comes from a number of factors, tax reform welfare, etc..
This is a cultural identity problem presented as a political problem, which is kind of stupid. Because either way, the power balance will stay the same. I would understand why the Economist would make this video though, since they are British
It's both, the fact that we have a Monarchy and it's popular strengthens right wing politics in this country. It means we'll never be truly civilised and are always stuck with one foot in this ridiculous past, we know better now things have to move on.
@@NickSBailey The royal family is to blame for right wing politics? Look at the public voting in tory government after tory government. Its got to the point that our unelected officials are more left wing than our elected officials.
TrequartistaFM Hold your pitchforks, but I hardly think the founding fathers were "some of the greatest men" and I'm American. If you read biographies, you'll find that some were decent people, like Franklin. Others, like Jefferson, I find to have been morally corrupt. I would not sit at the same table as Jefferson if he were alive today.
mimi Gandhi smacked his kids and was racist to blacks, mlk vehemently disagreed with homosexuality, Malcom x called for violent struggle. All those things I’m against, yet you’re crazy if you think I wouldn’t sit at the same table as them. While the founding fathers might not be good characters all the time no historical figure really was. I mostly respect them for their political beliefs which I believe in to this day
Having the Queen as head of state actually makes a lot of sense. The Queen doesn’t serve any political body, so whenever an issue genuinely comes down to her politically she will make the choice that is best for the country. I understand someone wanting a democratically elected head of state for the obvious reason of being able to choose who it is, setting aside keeping the monarchy about as a symbolic thing the queen actually serves a useful neutral political use as head of state who’ll act in her country’s best interests. As a Canadian I hope the commonwealth keeps her around.
A monarch without political power is not "above" politics, but below it. The role of a monarch is to rule, You either rule, or you are ruled over. A monarch that doesn't rule is nothing more than a national, real-life soap opera show. Above all, I pity the kids that are born into these families who are put on public display from a very young age, and who are never allowed to just be kids.
Well said. Royal families are nothing but state celebrities at this point who exist for us to gawk at. Lavish weddings and multiple child-births that will be displayed over every celebrity magazine in the country. What's the point?
I'm loving the fact that a CEO, a CEO, is calling a institution "elitist", when he himself is part of a economic elite. The royal family isn't there to "serve" some politicians, they're there exactly to stop them if necessary, as an apolitical head of state should do.
@@mathew1 Queen Elizabeth worked as a medic and mechanic during WW2, many of the members are military, Prince Harry and William even fought in the afghanistan war
I’m British and proud having a monarchy is what makes us British if I speak to someone foreign and they bring up our monarchy I feel a great sense of pride in the fact they respect us, keep the monarchy, God Save The Queen
@@leonlawson2196 cease* And perhaps no. But while we’re at it, they did end up with a dictator. Then a nation shattering war. Then lots of revolutions. Then a nation shattering war. Then 2 dictators. Then a nation shattering war. Then another Revolution. And now we come to today: they’re sacking cities because they have to work two more years. Wow it’s almost as if republicanism is a disunifying system! England has already fought a war over this, in which the parliamentarians won. And a dictator took over. Then they decided they’d like their king back actually.
People go to Buckingham Palace for the same reason they go to the Louvre in Paris, the Smithsonian in D.C. or Versailles in France. These places are tourist attractions, great museums, fascinating places. You don’t need the soap opera of the family who resides there to attract the people.
There’s a reason people want to see Buckingham palace and not a castle in France. The British still have a monarchy the French ones been long gone hint it’s boring and not relevant. A lot of the tourism to Britain would completely die off if the monarchy going to be deposed.
The issue is that some Republicans see the Royal Family as taking wealth from the people unjustly. They make us a net profit and thus lower taxes through tourism to their estates alone. They legally own most of their properties as of inheritance passed down and so if abolished would retain that income and be able to spend it instead of put it towards the country.
@@JDValles What are you talking about? France's palaces get way more visitors than British palaces. If we abolished the monarchy, all of their palaces could be opened to the public, like Versailles, which would obviously increase the number of tourists. Don't just repeat things you hear online without thinking about it for yourself.
@@mumflrpumble9107 You are wrong on both points. First, the tourism argument falls apart if you think about it for like 5 seconds. Tourists do not come to the UK to see the Royal family. They have no effect on tourism. As for the Crown's lands. Abolishing the monarchy would involve the government confiscating the land because the Royals have no right to own that land. You decided to arbitrarily leave them with this land, but the monarchy would not be negotiating from a position of power. The government could just forcibly take all of the Crown Estates. And this should happen because the monarchy is an unfair and frankly, unnecessary institution that wastws hundreds of millions of pounds in taxpayers money every year
In the UK republicans believe in republicanism. In the US the Republican Party is actually monarchist, they believe in hereditary power, Trump is rich because his dad was rich for instance.
No I think he means someone like a president. It has to be some apolitical which isn't possible for the prime minister given that they're the leader of a party.
I have been a Royalist all my life , however TODAY I have decided to walk away due to the hypocritical royals . Our Queen has served us well and Philip but after they leave its time for a republic .
The British monarchy isn't a monarchy, obviously. At least not the Christian monarchy. A monarch is supposed to be political, to actually rule, authoritatively. A monarch is a a person anointed by God, to rule over his(exclusively HIS) people, and his territory. The monarchy is the mirror of celestial order of things, as God is the lord of the heavens, so is a father a lord of his family, and so is a monarch lord of his people. A monarch is chosen by God, not by the faceless masses. A monarch therefore, must be a man, not a woman(a woman can be regent). The British monarchy is a joke, and a parody and inversion of what a monarchy is supposed to be. Much like the Anglican Church with it's female and homosexual bishops and weddings. “In Hell there is Democracy, in Heaven there is a Kingdom” - Saint John of Kronstadt
If you have a parliamentary system with real power in the hands of the prime minister, would it make a difference if the ceremonial head of state is a president or a monarch? Becoming a republic only makes sense if you have an American-style executive presidency, otherwise you're not actually changing the system of government, just the title and selection method of a powerless figurehead
@@hrmpug1092 Does it? Who's the real power in Germany--the President or the Chancellor? The same could be asked of Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Greece--the list is actually short because most republics are either presidential or semi-presidential (last one still not fully parliamentary)
The king doesn't have any "extra rights"--he's the puppet of the prime minister. The truly best person can be elected prime minister even in a monarchy@@Octochiken
@@Grimmbros1214 It's just a fact that the vast majority of people in the UK support the monarchy, a party running on a republican ticket has always failed to win a national election
Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills (real name, Thomas James Muscatello) - a New York born self appointed fanatic about the monarchy who moved to the UK in 2012 and set up the British Monarchist Society... The Economist legit couldn't find anyone else to represent the case for the monarchy...lol
No he's just the only person in the UK who makes a big enough deal about the monarchy because to the vast majority of people it's just a common belief to support the monarchy.
The crown is not outside the political frame work. This is something that is told to the public but the reality is that the crown as the power to dismiss any prime minister.
That makes no sense what so ever. Just because you politically don't like Tony Blair you want to keep the monarchy? The point is that if you have a president Blair you have a democratic right to vote against him if you choose to. That's how a true democracy works. The monarchy is anti-democratic by its very nature.
@@gogaioan Monarchy is politics without the discussion. Seems to be ideal if you don't want a say in your country. We are lucky enough to limit the power of the monarch so she is less involved in politics. But your argument for monarchy was just opinion without reason anyway.
In regards to the monarchy hindering a egalitarian society: Some of the worlds most egalitarian countries societies out there are still upholding the monarchy, like Norway, Sweden, Denmark.
The castles will still be there. The Royals don’t have to be there. No one gets to see them in any case. Tourists will still visit & would be able to go inside. The Royal don’t bring that much money into the economy. Look at France, they get more tourists since the monarchy was abolished. We can elect someone to meet & greet & hand out tin medals. Ludicrous that the royals themselves have a chest loadIt’s a big ask to continue to pay for the monarchy when they should self fund or be abolished!
Is France your only example out of european republics? France get more tourists because there are more tourist attractions, France is larger and because it was not centralized until 18th century, there are a lot of sights in every corner of France.. you literally could see roman architecture in many towns in south France, hundreds of medieval and early modern chateaus... it also borders 6 or 7 countries most of them are the richest countries in Europe and schengen made it relatively easy for them to cross the border by car until covid issue while UK is an island it does not borders any major european country Also the reason why the France get more tourist since their monarchy was abolished, is simple. The monarchy was abolished in 1870 and their main tourist attractions like Eiffel Tower were made in late 1880s, much of their chateaus were not fully reconstructed and it was not even considered ethical in 19th century to visit castles like some tourist attractions. France did not have Disneyland and other amusement parks before, did not have Moulin Rouge until late 1890s. French tend to really hate their presidents. All four last presidents of France (Chirac, Sarkozy, Hollande and Macron) have had an approval ratings lower than 30% when being compared to scandinavian or benelux countries which are all monarchies and most of them are top richest countries not only in Europe but the whole world and they are not known for having a lot of sights for tourists. Royal Family in UK are a big source of tourism actually... people from all the world usually come just to witness royal events like royal wedding, diamond jubilee etc but not even they are a big source of tourism for UK they are unlike politicians embodiment of unity of the UK, because the head of state has no say in politics unlike republic were the views and opinions of presidential candidate divides the nation. Unlike the Queen whose reign is a duty, president is politician and therefore ambitious and motivated by greed. Fortunatelly the head of state is someone who was born into it and could not simply refuse for the respect of his/her lineage and the whole country than someone who spent millions on billboards and disinformation campaign to get temporary into the seat of power.
루시우스 If we didn’t spend so much on the Royals we could develop more tourism in the U.K, certainty more castles would be open. Buckingham Palace has a wonderful pool but currently only used by the Royals, that could be opened up as part of a leisure complex. At the moment the taxpayer is refurbishing it & it’s unlikely the Queen will return so why not combine repurposing with renovations? Why do you think the UK being an island is a disadvantage? £896.42 is the Westminster council tax (Band H) for Buckingham Palace. Compare that to band H in Brent. £3290 & you can see it’s not very fair. Ironically you would pay more if you live in Westminster by Queens Park £1,560.56
@@Dana-ml7sy The tourism is not in need of development more than any other sectors.. The country is literally of the top most visited countries in the whole Europe and the royal family are one of the biggest reasons. Do you realize that in republics everything related to presidential election and its preparations are also paid by taxpayers? Also in republics we can usually end up with 5 living former presidents all receiving special pension as they formerly held the highest office of state while in monarchy you usually have max one living former monarch (if he choose to abdicate)
@@Dana-ml7sy as I said France as your example is surrounded by other rich european countries while being in Schengen that means the citizens of these neighborhood countries can come to France easily by car and bring their capital inside. Britain is an island isolated from continental Europe. The point is that Royal family is sort of tourist attractive itself and they bring a lot of money inside especially during these royal events (people around the world usually do not visit other countries because of their independence day or other national holidays) I could agree certain taxes should be lowered but getting rid of monarchy would not make a profit for the country.
Monarchists don't need a republic for tyranny exist. From forgieners I know from england say england is not meritocracy like USA. You work hard you get rewarded, same doesn't apply in england.
@Andrew Scott If Prince Charles becomes King and Camilla becomes Queen, You British will VERY much understand why We Americans, the United States of America, Became a Republic after suffering intense Freedom-snatching Laws from the British Government and the British Monarchy, as a British Colony overseas.
@@whdstudios2441 The Americans were quite literally the best treated subjects in all of the British Empire at the time. Plus if you weren't a colony once you wouldn't exist.
Republicans just love to point at Charles, Charles does more work than Ireland's head of the state and frankly he's not going to be reigning for long enough to have an impact on public view and then William will be the King
@@lordludichris4594 Prince William is SO MUCH better than Charles. I wish You Charles Lovers would REALIZE that! And not to mention, William looks like a King, Catherine looks like a Queen, Charles looks like one of those spoiled old rich billionaires and Camilla looks like some old lady who just can't get over the fact that Princess Diana is the woman for Hope and Peace in royalty, NOT HER!
The Queens silence as her countryman's quality of life declines so as not to appear political is a political statement & the idea that a Monarch could ever be apolitical is laughable. It's true that Republicans are in the minority but that could change a 2022 YouGov poll found that only 31% of 18-24 year olds support the Monarchy.
As a citizen of the U.S. I can tell you that a Republic is very difficult to maintain. We have ceased to be a true Republic long ago. I do believe it is the best of all political systems but alas human nature always gets in the way.
The us is not failing because of human nature, it's failing because the corrupt few percent are dividing the people over minor differences so they don't see their common enemy
@@lead_sommelier You're right, we are still a true republic in way of laws and the system of election. But some (on the right and left) have ramped up tribalism and is trying to make it out the the ominous "other side" is going to destroy their way of life.
I would like us to be more like the Swiss, as in have a council, which has members of different Parties; apolitical isn't a good thing, as wherever a bad legislation get through the commons and lords, the monarchy will still have to sign it or abdicate
@@vicenteromerovega1480 easy! You just need to value yourself as a human being and own half a working brain to realise what a ridiculous concept a monarch is… unless you are the monarch. And don’t get me started on people that have the joy of living in a country without a king and admire the countries that still have one.
No, not all men are created equal. The issue is that some Republicans see the Royal Family as taking wealth from the people unjustly. They make us a net profit and thus lower taxes through tourism to their estates alone. They legally own most of their properties as of inheritance passed down and so if abolished would retain that income and be able to spend it instead of put it towards the country.
@@mumflrpumble9107 they aren't spending their millions that doesn't help the enconomy and not saying any one person couldn't be doing what the queen does but that people should be put in tht positions not given a birthright which they probably gave themselves.
@@brandonprince4366 Anyone could be trained to be a royal. It's just that she was born into inheriting property her ancestors bought. Without obligation the monarchy to be monarchy and have budgets controlled they'd be merely oligarchs at most. That would be a waste of something quite valuable that allows our country to punch above its weight somewhat. What makes the monarchy an apolitical symbol of our country is because they are taught how to represent us and aren't elected for their policies. They're modelled to the role
I appreciate I may only be a thick individual who doesn't fully understand the nuances of the argument but could somebody please explain to me the point of electing an individual to a post that isn't political? Surely by the mere act of election we will lose one of the huge benefits that the post of monarch (Head of State) we currently possess?
Mark the idea is we can have an independent, unifying head of state that represents the people rather than just being born into their position. You cannot have a free society if your entire constitution is based on the idea that one person is inherently superior to another simply based on the family they were born into.
@@LukeWatson99 I didn't they say did. But 1) the crown still has a lot of power and influence it doesn't deserve. 2) it goes against modern ideals and values. 3) it is a waste of a position. Head of state is an important job, and we should have a head of state that actually does stuff, rather than being mostly symbolic.
@@alexturlais8558 So you'd rather politicise the role of head of state, have a grey haired "Democratically Elected" mp replace her, remove the monarchy causing out rage from the 75% of the British population which supports the monarchy, cause political confusion and uproot the parliament of the commonwealth realms, and cut over 3,000 jobs from soliders maids, house keepers, advisors, just because it "doesn't fit" in a modern society. It does, The Queen, Charles, William and Kate, Harry and Megan are all modern royals, and integrate that into their duties and roles. The Queen does do things, knighting people, charity functions, CEO of the British Parliament. The royal family produces 1.8 billion in tourism revenue for the country yearly, I'd say that's worth keeping for our country
The Crown is Anglican sectarianism at its worst. How can anyone be expected to respect that when it’s simply not egalitarian! Time for a republic I sense, purely on principle.
Keep the Royal Family! Christ it's the only thing England has going for it now. Tradition, everything else now gone. So what there rich, so what they have what they want, when they want, there the Royal Family!!! I'm a, working class, 30 year old male, hard worker and a no-body in layman's terms. But... The Royal's bring this country together, I'm proud we have them, I'd say Megan should never of been added into the Royals, they should of looked for proper English country girl from a decent family. But keep the Royal Family, keep something going we can dream and look up too.
Yes, how dare Harry love who he wants? He should've been married to a silverspoon born into a dying aristocracy bc hurr durr can't have *plebeians* or worse, *non-white plebeians*
I contend that when you really get down to it, monarchism is based on aesthetics and nothing more. I think the monarchist in this video supports my thesis pretty well.
Europe has no more monarchies, WW1 stripped them of their power or, in the case of the Romanovs, killed them off. The European nations with monarchs are almost exclusively ceremonial, and the few who do have _some_ political power (such as the UK) still have a lot less then whatever the state's body of "representatives" has (I put that in quotes as the majority of the time they don't actually represent the people). From a social stability standpoint, Europe was much better under monarchies. Europe is falling apart now, and it hasn't even hit 250 years yet, while it remained stable under monarchs for a millennia. This was because... 1: The monarch was in for life, they could invest in long-term projects and also did not have to worry about reelection (reelection takes a significant amount of time and resources). 2: The monarch owned the nation, so it was in their best interest to keep it in good shape, rather than politicians who really don't seem to care since they can just move out after. 3: The monarch had boatloads of wealth, so bribing a monarch was exceedingly difficult and only foreign monarchs and international banking cabals could. 4: The monarch had absolute authority, which means absolute responsibility. When something went wrong, people knew who to point the finger at. Unlike politicians who point at the other party. 5: The monarch had heirs, which meant the people knew what to expect, it added a sense of stability. Monarchs are often portrayed as wicked or cruel within media, with good ones being an exception to the rule. In reality it was the other way around, cruel monarchs are the ones remembered most _because_ they were not the norm. Not to mention there is probably a little propaganda mixed in to demonize them.
Socrates, like Platon and Aristotle, did not hate democracy in general but the very system called democracy of the attic polis, which was very different from what we have today. But none of them advocated for a monarchy.
@@mmm7528 So it's "status quo" meaning retain the constitutional monarchy, not giving more powers to the monarch just like absolute monarchy but not also turning into republic.
2:15 that's an excuse... because the monarchy has 1000 years of history it doesn't mean that it should stay like that... during this 500 or 300 years things changed a lot and monarchies were abolished..same in France same in Russia and nobody said lets respect the crown they freaking destroyed their respectively old regime but the problem in the UK the monarchy survived because of historical events .. ah and also the same thing on italy 1947 ...(woow so close ...)
I kinda like the monarch in UK since it attracts tourist and may discipline the country cuz you already know our society's people today are kinda dumb or repetitive.
@@dudemevill1699 They don't attract tourists, the sights and sounds do. Palaces in France with no monarchies get way more tourists than Buckingham, gross and per capita.
You do know that the royal family still owns all the crown lands, castles, and palaces. They have simply allowed parliament to use and benefit from them in exchange for an annual salary. If you remove the Monarchy the British economy will collapse as the monarchs will in turn become a private citizen, and their property private property. The money the British government makes off of these properties is millions more than what they spend on the royal family. Also an elected official is never a unifying figure.
@@davidhanna9003 simply nationalize the property and unifying figure is in quotes, because guess what, neither a monarch nor a head of state in general is truly unifying
@@davidhanna9003 Confiscate the property. You are essentially making the argument that a monarchy could stop its own destruction by saying "actually we own all the land so you can't get rid of us." Imagine the laat French monarchs monarchs saying this to the revolutionaries.
That 17% has my vote. As an American and flagrant Anti-Monarchist, my hats off to the minority of British Republicans. All of you are indeed, very brave men and women working for a more egalitarian society.
I am a British anti-monarchist, and honestly sometimes it feels like you can say whatever you want to a monarchist and they won’t change their mind. My brother and mum are monarchists, and I have said everything to them, but nooo, figurehead go brrrrr
Bagehot wrote the English Constitution more than 150 years ago and his ideas are still prevalent in British society. The unifying (diverting) factor is always mentioned by neo-monarchists as did Bagehot. The strategy seems to have worked well.
@@lead_sommelier "to not have to work a day in your life" and what would you qualify as not working? because The Queen has very little time to herself.
Putting my opinions on this aside, the monarchist _really_ sounds like someone who would be a monarchist
I've noticed this sort of thing 3 times, once when I was first told about Monarchism, second when I became a Monarchist and 3rd here, it seems Monarchism and the adaptation into speaking with RP as opposed to the "street speak" that takes up the majority of my home town goes hand in hand.
Fun fact, that guy is American. Look it up.
i.e a bootlicker
Gee I wonder why?
@@carolinecampbell4032 HA ha ha. I'm American (but a linguistics enthusiast) and I suspected there was something off about his accent. It didn't sound like natural RP, but like somebody with a different native accent trying to put on a fake RP accent.
The final 7% want absolute monarchy
me_irl
Me too
Even is the monarchy was absolute popular sovereignty still rules and therefore the people rule. I’ll refer to King Charles I and his trial.
That's me
The Magna Carta was a mistake
Put a monarchist and an anarchist in a room and watch the fireworks it's awesome
The average anarchist wouldn't last 10 seconds
@@leaderofthebunch-deadbeat7716 OK Ned, I'm sure you have plenty of solid and reasonable points for why we should have a monarchy that aren't "but it makes us british"
@@jackreynolds43 do you know what an anarchist wants? It's not the same as just not wanting monarchy
Actually anarcho capitalists and monarchistes have great relations
@@ashenone7649 anarcho capitalism is anything but anarchism.
Fun fact: the Monarchist guy (Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills) was actually born Tommy Muscatello in New York
Loyalist from New York here, I wish Britain won the revolutionary war.
@@ThervingianGoth nah a united Anglosphere would be better
King of Kings & Ruler of Rulers isnt That what would likely happen if Britain won the revolutionary war tho?
@@spikethompson2000 kind of but I meant a reunion or reconquest
@@ThervingianGoth You really don't my guy
The monarchist guy looks like he calls people a "Delinquent" as an insult.
you mean "delinquent", right?
Thats not even a word.
Ok fine i spelled it wrong, i was trying to make a joke.
@@spo666tty Yes it is
@@xleplex7070 he misspelt and then edited the comment. Brainlet alert
Monarchist: the monarch is apolitical
Republicanist: it's a debate about politics
Bit of a disconnect not seems
It’s because they use unrelated (not inherently bad) arguments
@@emtheslav2295 a debate about monarchy is inherently political, and it is true that politics are infused with feelings, imagery and the like, but at the end of the day it’s far more functional than it is metaphorical
The notion that monarchs are apolitical is such a naive bullcrap.
@@Ignisan_66 *publicly.
@@Ignisan_66 Of the highest order. A quick Google search completely dismantles that whole idea
Both guys at least seem reasonable and civil so fair play to them.
Thank goodness we are not in Thailand....
Well one is a monarchist so if the video played for more than 2:32 and if you applyed any sort of logic or pressure to his point of view it would sound like the ramblings of a homicidal lunatic
And Thai people said "thank goodness we are not in Republic of the union of Myanmar.
Yes the current Thai king is hated (yet his father is loved), by law, Thailand is a constitutional/limited monarchy but it's more of a "Shogunate" because the king is figurehead & the "army rules!" (Prayut Chan-o-cha) but it's far from failing state like the Republic of Myanmar. Thailand haves same growth as, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, & Vietnam.
@@olidojosephd.9054 but I think now Thailand is nearly from falling state.
@@thecloudpeoplearecoming399 Something tells me you aren't a very open-minded person politically
In New Zealand we have the same debate from time to time whether to switch our constitution to that of a Republic or to keep to the Constitutional Monarchy. At the moment there is still a decent amount of support for the monarchy but I think that may change after the Queen dies.
There is a cohesiveness and obligation for each other. The only time NZ should become a republican is when it outgrows GB, which is never.
I agree, I cannot see Charles being successful
And the more countries leave the monarchy, the less need Britain has for it
@@anthonywillis7634 well that just sounds like glorified colonialism to me. Why should a person from britain (who, might I add, isn't even british) be the head if state of a country on the other side of the world? What right does she or her successors have to the title of the NZ, AU or CN sovereign?
@@joshguest1104 The issue is that you see them as "foreign". The UK is a multinational country and as such has transcended the idea of foreign peoples being separated for a more favourable idea of like-minded peoples being united such as is the case for the Commonwealth Realms.
A monarchist and a republican go head to head.
Ireland: Trust me it won't end well
BISMARCKKKK I LOVE YOU
Bismark ein Ehrenmann!
I'm glad you're not here to see Germany today
Republicans in America meeting Republicans in England:
*say sike right now*
LOOOOL 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The two probably aren't that different, I'd imagine
@@shivaspatel2024 that’s weird. Republicans in the US would almost definitely be UK Republicans against the wasteful and antiquated monarchy
@@shivaspatel2024 No, the Republicans in America are left-wing, but pro-borders. Hence the mix-up. (Democrats in America are neither left-wing nor right-wing, since their political strategy is to enlist all minorities for a vote, and most minorities are more conservative).
@@Гриб-к1я you’re ignorant. both parties are right wing capitalists. democrats want a little more of a safety net but they’re rotten too.
As an American, the monarchy guy sounds and looks like every American stereotype of the British. (And this is coming from a guy with actual English family.)
Fun fact the monarchy guy's real name is Tommy Muscatello and is actually from New York City. You can Google him or put his name into UA-cam (he was on Last Week Tonight)...
Ur black .... how cn u hv english family ?
@@jameseuwen3253 your a bit of an awful person
@@Fleeb-pb7zo how? English blood is white. It's not racist to state facts... we are an ethnic group. Doesn't imply any hate
@@tanyabailey6527 shut it, you Norman
The monarchist argument is great until the heir is an idiot, unpopular, or politically active.
Queen Elizabeth has been a stable and uniting figurehead, but eventually, be it one or twenty generations from now, someone will be born in direct line to the monarchy who will be unfit, and whether the monarchy can survive that, or whether it should survive that, is highly questionable.
Justafan IV
There's always the uncle, or cousin who can take over my friend and is fit to rule
This has happened more then once throughout history
And it's going to be one, not twenty. But I think the monarchy will survive, because of Charles' age. People will just be waiting for him to croak so William, who seems very suitable, can take over.
Lord Slashington III, true, but in the past that usually came at the cost of a civil war. While that is unlikely to happen today, there would almost certainly be civil unrest.
If the heir has a mental disorder, I could see parliament stepping in being relatively uncontroversial, but what if the heir is political? Half the nation may support the monarch's view, while the other half feels alienated by their sovereign. That is rarely a recipe for stability when the ruler's term limit is for life.
Well republics on the other hand have opposing sides and parties, and both sides have the power to oppose any projects or bills that are being proposed, and the sad fact is that, they oppose it not because it's bad for the nation but it's a disadvantage to the opposite party, and leaders and presidents are being replaced every 4 to 6 years achieving limited successes and achievements. I'm for dictatorships with good governance and transparency, but it's totally impossible since every dictator that had the power abused their authority.
yay juiws "dictatorships with transparency" as you said that's rather utopic, my friend
Minions Fact:
Obviously King Bob was a great King during his 8 hour reign on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, during which he made Banana, the largest imported goods for the UK.
i would want king bob to be our king
even though im a republican
The monarchist actually has a triple barreled surname. Because of course he does.
Hilariously, he's a bred and born American from New York, currently applying for British citizenship.
His birth last name is Muscatello, he's an Italian-American.
Hollywood would have rejected this script, but of course, reality is far stranger.
I'm American and don't want a monarchy in America (that would be a bit ridiculous since we have no monarchist tradition here whatsoever) but I think monarchies are cool if your country has a history of having them. They are a cultural thing and should be seen as such. The British monarchy does no harm since they can't do anything and they have elected officials who are actually in charge of running the country. So why the fuss?
DoesNotExist305 Because in theory they can do something. I wouldn't mind the monarchy as much if their constitutional roles were removed. This Queen has been very responsible in not using her power...we might not be so lucky next time.
Joshua McCarthy I mean what can they do? If King Charlie decided to go rogue the Parliament would remove him. The monarch can’t dissolve Parliament, dismiss the judiciary, or appoint a PM unilaterally.
Peter Charles In theory yes they can. The Queen has used her executive powers around 30 times, mostly trying to stop the Iraq War. Her powers do include dissolving Palrliament and appointing the PM. Parliament in the UK is not Sovereign and so can be removed at will. The Queen and Church is Sovereign.
Joshua McCarthy I think you will find that the 39 times when consent from the Queen/Charlie was required they were following the advice of ministers. This really is a debate about prerogative powers and the extent they are not codified and are abused by ministers. The Queen did not veto going into Iraq, rather Ministers informed Parliament that the bill did not have permission because it changed prerogative powers and they did not consent to this. Ultimately no PM would now decide no go to war without approval from the Commons, the power has informally shifted. The Queen can’t dissolve Parliament because the Fixed Term Parliament Act has extinguished that royal prerogative. Finally she could appoint anyone PM but considering how the aforementioned Act works, they would need the support of the Commons or they will find their time in office to be very short.
DoesNotExist305 you are from UNITED STATES, don't think we want republic in all america, it's ridiculous, South America is naturally monarchist, we don't have monarchies in South America because a lot of coups d'état orchestrated by USA!
PS: sorry for my bad english
People still believe in illusion of democrazy.
Democracy better than Putin’s Russia or any dictatorship or absolute monarchy
'Democracy is the worst sytem of government besides all others'-Winston Churchill.
I know he was a monarchist but his words still stand.
@Buro Dackel I don't see your point. My values are based on the will of the people.
@Buro Dackel Sure buddy.
@Buro Dackel How is that relevant to the discussion?
Politics is corrupt. People elected leaders that sometimes thisty for power. For me monarchy is good as long the people is good
Keep believing you'll be something someday. You'll always be sub-human for them, you are their birth right technically a peasant. Try opposing them and you'll see how good they are.
And what if the English people white British people are being replaced?
Sooooo elected people CAN be power thirsty but they can be unelected...
But a monarch can't be so we just gotta hope a life long of superiour position doesn't get to them and they get power thirsty...
The double standard is real
@@bigboyrambo2009 What?
I want my Kaiser back. :(
Steven003 same
I want my emperor back too :(
@@leopa5881 Are you from Brazil?
Me too :-(
I want my king :(
The queen doesn't decide what awards she gives out, the government does that
Time to give Her Majesty that authority again
This is mostly true. The sovereign does still personally decide who receives an Order of Merit.
Your an absolute idiot, do you really think the government decides who becomes ‘Sir’ or ‘OBE’? The queen decides that 🙄
I agree james elder.
"I cannot lead you into battle. I do not give you laws or administer justice but I can do something else - I can give my heart... and my devotion to these old islands and to all the peoples of our brotherhood of nations. I believe in our qualities and in our strength, I believe that together we can set an example to the world."
-Her Majesty The Queen
WOW. What a powerful statement!
She also could give you her money, though, and I bet most would take it over her heart if she gave them a choice
@@enuma-elise Why would I want that money, I haven't earnt it.
@@dabtican4953 You have though. All of her money is coming out of your taxes.
The question that brings up is what sort of example have they actually set. Even with all the advantages provided on the backs of the British public, they’ve still exhibited all the worst qualities of any family without those advantages. Possibly it may even be their position that has enabled their deficiencies or limited any personal achievement any one of them might have aspired to.
Once a peasant, always a peasant.
Says the peasant.
he knows from experience he cant do anything about it
once a peasant always a peasant
You sound like a royal ass kisser
Maybe we should follow what France did in the 18th century then.
republic : born a peasant die a president
BASED monarchists. The monarchists is 100% right that power comes down to crude money-power without systems such as monarchies
Tommy Muscettelo from New York
1:08 Yes, but the honours system does need to be far more reflective of 'ordinary' people who do extraordinary things.... not just CEOs and sports personalities.
Turns out the monarchist guy was born and raised in New York started speaking in a made up English accent wile staring in a school play of Oliver haha.....honestly google him!
He lost me right at the beginning with the utter nonsensical tripe of 'the crown is apolitical'.
How is it not😂 republitard located
It is about as apolitical as Texas is a New England state.
honestly, what will changing britain to a republic actually change?
nothing
Only a rebellion or a conquest
So far only the Roman Empire conquered them, including William the conqueror
It would make it easier to become a proper Islamic republic. It will happen sooner or later.
It'll make corruption easier to achieve. Also it's get rid of a lot of those "pesky" tourist and those tour dollars.
壹貳 it'll just lead to a dissolution of the union and England Wales Scotland and northern Ireland becoming independent nations.
Solar the Porpoise sure sure
Reasons to keep the monarchy:
1. Tourism income; all those damn castles and every time there is a jubilee or birth/wedding/funeral they earn their tax money back.
2. Diplomatic duties; the Queen dines with world leaders, extra opportunity to woo world leaders; the Queen is also the symbolic head of state of Australia, NZ and Canada which links these countries and encourages greater ties and cooperation
3. Charity; they do lots of charity, more than you can imagine
4. The monarchy makes Brits more patriotic in a positive way like sports do as well; some countries encourage patriotism in negative ways such as religious fervor and going to freaking war/genocide but the monarchy is a pretty harmless way to improve the national psyche
5. We all wish we were born rich, personally, I have no problem allowing one family to live this dream at minimal state expense. Without the monarchy, very little money would actually be saved in the grand scheme of things so why not allow one family the joy of being rich? Especially if they instill a sense of heritage and history in the British people and act as a symbol of the good and the bad of what Britain once was
My only issue with the British Republican theory is that you're most likely to replace the Queen's role with a President, like France, or Russia, or Germany. The only difference is now you have a system that closer resembles an electoral monarchy, rather than a true Republic.
Exactly!
I wouldn’t replace the monarchy with anything. We’ve already got a prime minister. If you really want a mascot then we could just elect one.
Isn't there a prime minister? It would just funtion like a normal parliamentary Republic even if there is a President.
Still better than having a head of state for life. President in many countries is only for 4 or 5 years or something like that.
There's no such thing as a true republic. A Republic is whatever the framers of the Republic want it to be.
"a political entity is apolitical" off to a great start
I look at royalty as a living symbol of the nation...nothing more... but a symbol I would like to keep
The issue is that some Republicans see the Royal Family as taking wealth from the people unjustly. They make us a net profit and thus lower taxes through tourism to their estates alone. They legally own most of their properties as of inheritance passed down and so if abolished would retain that income and be able to spend it instead of put it towards the country.
Many also see the Royal Family as "foreign". The UK is a multinational country and as such has transcended the idea of foreign peoples being separated for a more favourable idea of like-minded peoples being united and that is demonstrated with the Commonwealth (Realms)
I'm from northern Ireland and see it as a symbol of imperialism, colonialism, oppression and genocide
@@mumflrpumble9107 Because they do take wealth from the people
@@yoloswaggins7121 most of their wealth comes from privately owned estates through inheritance
@@yoloswaggins7121 Do some basic research, the Sovereign Grant the Royal Family receives every year is not from taxpayers' money but from the 25% Crown Estate income (75% goes to the British government so in the end, the British people wins), all of their lavish life are sustained via the Crown Estate, ZERO comes from taxpayers.
Rewarding people for what they are and not what they got in their bank. Monarchist,
The royal family have literally been put in that place because of what they have in their bank
Monarchy fan 🇬🇧🇬🇧
Here🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
President Thatcher? President Blair? President May? Hmm maybe not.
President Major ftw
Wilson Fisk and finally President Johnson. :)
Technically it doesnt have to be president, France is a republic but still has a prime minister
@@izzyb5092but it also has a President. I’m a Republican but I don’t really understand your argument.
Ireland has a fine tradition of presidents, we don't want the US or French systems.
I'm a republican but not when it comes to the UK. I just cannot imagine Britain without its Crown.
@Derka Derka lol
I'm sure many felt the same way in France during their Revolution, or in Russia during their revolution
@@Britishdarnlib and germany without their kaiser 🍷🗿
0:58 You know, it really doesn't inspire me to think "this guy is open to changing his mind" when he, as a monarchist, has a figure of the queen on his window sill.
And the Royal Crest on his wall...and his tie...and brest pocket...and a number of photos of the Queen that convinces me he's on a watchlist.
Yeah
@@matthewharold5897 the republican is on a different kind of list...
1:30 That made me lol
He clearly doesn't get the idea of a constitutional monarchy and that is simply 1 of the monarchist arguments also casually going to forget the last time Britain was a republic they started a dictatorship and banned Christmas i don't trust out politicians with any more power than they have now we have a speaker in parliament so it doesn't turn into a b*tching session lol
The honours system is absolutely rigged - look at where the top honours go to.
My cousin got knighted after he bulldozed a village because he didn't like it
still love that scandinavia (Sweden, Norway and Denmark) are all monarchies yet have one of the best democrocies in the world
So? Just because they HAVE a monarch doesn't mean their democratic success is BECAUSE of the monarch... false cause fallacy. Their success comes from a number of factors, tax reform welfare, etc..
@@strugglingcollegestudent So? He never said anything about cause. You inferred an argument you wanted to have
@@strugglingcollegestudent It kind of disprove the whole "monarchy = no democracy" line that Republicans so eagerly rely on
Norway, Sweden and Denmarj’s monarchies aren't responsible for the death of millions
@@adamender9092 They are and have been. You seem to forget the Vikings, the Swedish empire
This is a cultural identity problem presented as a political problem, which is kind of stupid. Because either way, the power balance will stay the same.
I would understand why the Economist would make this video though, since they are British
It's both, the fact that we have a Monarchy and it's popular strengthens right wing politics in this country. It means we'll never be truly civilised and are always stuck with one foot in this ridiculous past, we know better now things have to move on.
@@NickSBailey The royal family is to blame for right wing politics? Look at the public voting in tory government after tory government. Its got to the point that our unelected officials are more left wing than our elected officials.
@@NickSBailey Cringe leftists, ridiculous thought coming from you.
@@Timathius17 Right- wing politics is infused with Queen and Country mentality.
As an outsider in the USA, the monarchist argument sounds more persuasive.
ElCadejo172 learn about your own history and be proud of it. Some of the greatest men fought against a monarchy for good reason.
TrequartistaFM Hold your pitchforks, but I hardly think the founding fathers were "some of the greatest men" and I'm American. If you read biographies, you'll find that some were decent people, like Franklin. Others, like Jefferson, I find to have been morally corrupt. I would not sit at the same table as Jefferson if he were alive today.
mimi Gandhi smacked his kids and was racist to blacks, mlk vehemently disagreed with homosexuality, Malcom x called for violent struggle. All those things I’m against, yet you’re crazy if you think I wouldn’t sit at the same table as them. While the founding fathers might not be good characters all the time no historical figure really was. I mostly respect them for their political beliefs which I believe in to this day
Because you’re an outsider and know nothing on the subject
I am also an outsider in the USA and for me the republicans argument seems more reasonable.
Having the Queen as head of state actually makes a lot of sense. The Queen doesn’t serve any political body, so whenever an issue genuinely comes down to her politically she will make the choice that is best for the country. I understand someone wanting a democratically elected head of state for the obvious reason of being able to choose who it is, setting aside keeping the monarchy about as a symbolic thing the queen actually serves a useful neutral political use as head of state who’ll act in her country’s best interests. As a Canadian I hope the commonwealth keeps her around.
She grossly influences politics without accountability. Even dead 😂
@@HuplesCat You are a big fool.
A monarch without political power is not "above" politics, but below it. The role of a monarch is to rule, You either rule, or you are ruled over. A monarch that doesn't rule is nothing more than a national, real-life soap opera show. Above all, I pity the kids that are born into these families who are put on public display from a very young age, and who are never allowed to just be kids.
Well said. Royal families are nothing but state celebrities at this point who exist for us to gawk at. Lavish weddings and multiple child-births that will be displayed over every celebrity magazine in the country. What's the point?
Purple robed circus
@@grahamallen1304 they keep status and pride away from actual power hungry politicians .
For some reason I thought it was a british monarch arguing with an american republican
Are you from the US?
@@gonkmaster717 yes, that's why it was my first thought
It’s actually an American monarchist arguing with a British Republican. The Monarchist is from New York.
@@sicgc7658 and I had it flipped
I'm loving the fact that a CEO, a CEO, is calling a institution "elitist", when he himself is part of a economic elite.
The royal family isn't there to "serve" some politicians, they're there exactly to stop them if necessary, as an apolitical head of state should do.
Lucas S. Ribeiro he worked his way to the top, the royal family have inherited all of their wealth.
@@dod6031 You speak like if the royal family didn't work
@@b3ygghsas They didn't.
@@mathew1 Queen Elizabeth worked as a medic and mechanic during WW2, many of the members are military, Prince Harry and William even fought in the afghanistan war
@@mathew1 Plus, they still supervision all the government actions, and every approved law needs the queen's signature
I’m British and proud having a monarchy is what makes us British if I speak to someone foreign and they bring up our monarchy I feel a great sense of pride in the fact they respect us, keep the monarchy, God Save The Queen
As an American Monarchist I think a Americana-Anglo Monarch Union between the Commonwealth and North America and American territories.
Did the French seize to be French in 1799?
@@leonlawson2196 cease*
And perhaps no. But while we’re at it, they did end up with a dictator. Then a nation shattering war. Then lots of revolutions. Then a nation shattering war. Then 2 dictators. Then a nation shattering war. Then another Revolution. And now we come to today: they’re sacking cities because they have to work two more years.
Wow it’s almost as if republicanism is a disunifying system!
England has already fought a war over this, in which the parliamentarians won. And a dictator took over. Then they decided they’d like their king back actually.
People go to Buckingham Palace for the same reason they go to the Louvre in Paris, the Smithsonian in D.C. or Versailles in France. These places are tourist attractions, great museums, fascinating places. You don’t need the soap opera of the family who resides there to attract the people.
There’s a reason people want to see Buckingham palace and not a castle in France. The British still have a monarchy the French ones been long gone hint it’s boring and not relevant. A lot of the tourism to Britain would completely die off if the monarchy going to be deposed.
The issue is that some Republicans see the Royal Family as taking wealth from the people unjustly. They make us a net profit and thus lower taxes through tourism to their estates alone. They legally own most of their properties as of inheritance passed down and so if abolished would retain that income and be able to spend it instead of put it towards the country.
@@JDValles France literally has better tourism numbers for its palaces, what are you on about
@@JDValles What are you talking about?
France's palaces get way more visitors than British palaces.
If we abolished the monarchy, all of their palaces could be opened to the public, like Versailles, which would obviously increase the number of tourists.
Don't just repeat things you hear online without thinking about it for yourself.
@@mumflrpumble9107 You are wrong on both points.
First, the tourism argument falls apart if you think about it for like 5 seconds. Tourists do not come to the UK to see the Royal family. They have no effect on tourism.
As for the Crown's lands. Abolishing the monarchy would involve the government confiscating the land because the Royals have no right to own that land. You decided to arbitrarily leave them with this land, but the monarchy would not be negotiating from a position of power. The government could just forcibly take all of the Crown Estates.
And this should happen because the monarchy is an unfair and frankly, unnecessary institution that wastws hundreds of millions of pounds in taxpayers money every year
Look the lady has 76% approval ratings let's get on with the real problems
I’m an American and was initially very confused.
In the UK republicans believe in republicanism. In the US the Republican Party is actually monarchist, they believe in hereditary power, Trump is rich because his dad was rich for instance.
The Monarchists support the Monarchy as it exists today. They don’t want to get rid of democracy
American Republicanism isnt really Republicanism at all... alot of europe mock it because it's basically the opposite of what it really is.
@@Vmvmvmvmvn very odd argument. I guess you're against inherited wealth? Will your kids be receiving any money from you?
@@tanyabailey6527 I hate trump, but I agree. I see the republicans as more the party of political corruption than the party of monarchism specifically
0:20 What, like a Prime minister? WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE
No I think he means someone like a president. It has to be some apolitical which isn't possible for the prime minister given that they're the leader of a party.
What Graham Smith wants is basically the monarchy but democratically elected
@@flourishes4u you can't have apolitical politician lol
I have been a Royalist all my life , however TODAY I have decided to walk away due to the hypocritical royals . Our Queen has served us well and Philip but after they leave its time for a republic .
The British monarchy isn't a monarchy, obviously. At least not the Christian monarchy. A monarch is supposed to be political, to actually rule, authoritatively. A monarch is a a person anointed by God, to rule over his(exclusively HIS) people, and his territory. The monarchy is the mirror of celestial order of things, as God is the lord of the heavens, so is a father a lord of his family, and so is a monarch lord of his people. A monarch is chosen by God, not by the faceless masses. A monarch therefore, must be a man, not a woman(a woman can be regent). The British monarchy is a joke, and a parody and inversion of what a monarchy is supposed to be. Much like the Anglican Church with it's female and homosexual bishops and weddings.
“In Hell there is Democracy, in Heaven there is a Kingdom”
- Saint John of Kronstadt
The British conservative party has to be the least conservative party I have ever seen.
"Four independent nations in the UK?" No one told the SNP obviously.
Well it's more 3 plus a province
@@Captain_Yorkie1 Correct.
To be honest, they aren't really wanting independence from the UK but the parliament or the government
I knew something was up with that monarchists accent, he's from New York.
If you have a parliamentary system with real power in the hands of the prime minister, would it make a difference if the ceremonial head of state is a president or a monarch? Becoming a republic only makes sense if you have an American-style executive presidency, otherwise you're not actually changing the system of government, just the title and selection method of a powerless figurehead
Yes it would.
More power ends up in the hands of a president than a priminister.
@@hrmpug1092 Does it? Who's the real power in Germany--the President or the Chancellor? The same could be asked of Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Greece--the list is actually short because most republics are either presidential or semi-presidential (last one still not fully parliamentary)
The difference is that in a republic no one inherits extra rights. If the king is truly the best head of state he can just get ellected for that.
The king doesn't have any "extra rights"--he's the puppet of the prime minister. The truly best person can be elected prime minister even in a monarchy@@Octochiken
“the monarchy isn’t elitist, it rewards people based on merit”
ignoring that the monarch is not the monarch based on any legitimate merit
Bro you don't understand, it's actually a meritocratic system because you need to prove your merit as a royal before you get born.
It's legitimised by the british parliament and therefore the people. 76% atleast
@@lewis123417 so true, its a north korea system where its definitely democratic it just happens to follow the heir of the previous leader
@@Grimmbros1214 It's just a fact that the vast majority of people in the UK support the monarchy, a party running on a republican ticket has always failed to win a national election
Well napoleon crowned himself Emperor based on merit and his Marshalls and their sons were given merit in hereditary form
a bootlicker vs a republican
"must be difficult to be a minority not believing in a system of government"? "We must respect the crown"? I'm even more of an abolitionist now!
He thinks the crown and country are one. We republicans can separate the crown from the country. Monarchists can't.
Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills (real name, Thomas James Muscatello) - a New York born self appointed fanatic about the monarchy who moved to the UK in 2012 and set up the British Monarchist Society... The Economist legit couldn't find anyone else to represent the case for the monarchy...lol
No he's just the only person in the UK who makes a big enough deal about the monarchy because to the vast majority of people it's just a common belief to support the monarchy.
0:10 Tony Mace Archer Mills real name is tony muscado and hes from new york.
"See both sides of the argument" - in less than a minute? What a joke. The standards at the Economist aren't very high are they?
Y is this monarchist so like a monarch
The crown is not outside the political frame work. This is something that is told to the public but the reality is that the crown as the power to dismiss any prime minister.
When has this ever happened?
The idea of having a president Blair is the perfect argument for keeping the monarch.
The idea of having King Henry VIII is the perfect reason not to have a king.
That makes no sense what so ever. Just because you politically don't like Tony Blair you want to keep the monarchy? The point is that if you have a president Blair you have a democratic right to vote against him if you choose to. That's how a true democracy works. The monarchy is anti-democratic by its very nature.
@@shutupwithnail I guarantee you this person would prefer President Blair over a King Blair. Monarachy is stupid.
@@bunceman4613 Monarchy is wonderful , Politics is more stupid , Changing and Changing and Changing
@@gogaioan Monarchy is politics without the discussion. Seems to be ideal if you don't want a say in your country. We are lucky enough to limit the power of the monarch so she is less involved in politics. But your argument for monarchy was just opinion without reason anyway.
Here's my take on this issue:
[shrug]
Me too ‘ and about 30 million more “ but who cares about what we think 🤔 I’ve so many things to get on with.
Thanks 🙏
We can shrug it off because we know that in no way on this earth are we returning to monarchies.
@@daemonzap1481 monarchies are inherently better than Republics in any way
@@bocchithean-cap3404 sorry but anime pfp = opinion invalid
@@bocchithean-cap3404 you gonna...explain why?
Thomas is actually an Italian from Brooklyn
Man a loyalist 2.5 centuries too late
In regards to the monarchy hindering a egalitarian society: Some of the worlds most egalitarian countries societies out there are still upholding the monarchy, like Norway, Sweden, Denmark.
Exactly. The only thing that is unattainable is being the monarch.
The castles will still be there. The Royals don’t have to be there. No one gets to see them in any case. Tourists will still visit & would be able to go inside. The Royal don’t bring that much money into the economy. Look at France, they get more tourists since the monarchy was abolished. We can elect someone to meet & greet & hand out tin medals. Ludicrous that the royals themselves have a chest loadIt’s a big ask to continue to pay for the monarchy when they should self fund or be abolished!
Is France your only example out of european republics? France get more tourists because there are more tourist attractions, France is larger and because it was not centralized until 18th century, there are a lot of sights in every corner of France.. you literally could see roman architecture in many towns in south France, hundreds of medieval and early modern chateaus... it also borders 6 or 7 countries most of them are the richest countries in Europe and schengen made it relatively easy for them to cross the border by car until covid issue while UK is an island it does not borders any major european country
Also the reason why the France get more tourist since their monarchy was abolished, is simple. The monarchy was abolished in 1870 and their main tourist attractions like Eiffel Tower were made in late 1880s, much of their chateaus were not fully reconstructed and it was not even considered ethical in 19th century to visit castles like some tourist attractions. France did not have Disneyland and other amusement parks before, did not have Moulin Rouge until late 1890s.
French tend to really hate their presidents. All four last presidents of France (Chirac, Sarkozy, Hollande and Macron) have had an approval ratings lower than 30% when being compared to scandinavian or benelux countries which are all monarchies and most of them are top richest countries not only in Europe but the whole world and they are not known for having a lot of sights for tourists.
Royal Family in UK are a big source of tourism actually... people from all the world usually come just to witness royal events like royal wedding, diamond jubilee etc but not even they are a big source of tourism for UK they are unlike politicians embodiment of unity of the UK, because the head of state has no say in politics unlike republic were the views and opinions of presidential candidate divides the nation. Unlike the Queen whose reign is a duty, president is politician and therefore ambitious and motivated by greed. Fortunatelly the head of state is someone who was born into it and could not simply refuse for the respect of his/her lineage and the whole country than someone who spent millions on billboards and disinformation campaign to get temporary into the seat of power.
루시우스 If we didn’t spend so much on the Royals we could develop more tourism in the U.K, certainty more castles would be open. Buckingham Palace has a wonderful pool but currently only used by the Royals, that could be opened up as part of a leisure complex. At the moment the taxpayer is refurbishing it & it’s unlikely the Queen will return so why not combine repurposing with renovations? Why do you think the UK being an island is a disadvantage? £896.42 is the Westminster council tax (Band H) for Buckingham Palace. Compare that to band H in Brent. £3290 & you can see it’s not very fair. Ironically you would pay more if you live in Westminster by Queens Park £1,560.56
@@Dana-ml7sy The tourism is not in need of development more than any other sectors.. The country is literally of the top most visited countries in the whole Europe and the royal family are one of the biggest reasons. Do you realize that in republics everything related to presidential election and its preparations are also paid by taxpayers? Also in republics we can usually end up with 5 living former presidents all receiving special pension as they formerly held the highest office of state while in monarchy you usually have max one living former monarch (if he choose to abdicate)
@@Dana-ml7sy as I said France as your example is surrounded by other rich european countries while being in Schengen that means the citizens of these neighborhood countries can come to France easily by car and bring their capital inside. Britain is an island isolated from continental Europe.
The point is that Royal family is sort of tourist attractive itself and they bring a lot of money inside especially during these royal events (people around the world usually do not visit other countries because of their independence day or other national holidays) I could agree certain taxes should be lowered but getting rid of monarchy would not make a profit for the country.
Monarchists don't need a republic for tyranny exist. From forgieners I know from england say england is not meritocracy like USA. You work hard you get rewarded, same doesn't apply in england.
I’m a proud conservative monarchist
You're a proud bootlicking pleb.
I’m proud to be a mutualist anarchist.
Eh prefer republic
@@robertevbayekha6639 no you don't , you don't wanna live in cuba or congo republic systems it's all for an evil hypocrisy...
@@lecavaliere yes I do?
Charles + Camillia = Republic.
I just hope the queen lives long enough to out live her child and for the crown to go to her grandchild.
@Andrew Scott If Prince Charles becomes King and Camilla becomes Queen, You British will VERY much understand why We Americans, the United States of America, Became a Republic after suffering intense Freedom-snatching Laws from the British Government and the British Monarchy, as a British Colony overseas.
@@whdstudios2441 The Americans were quite literally the best treated subjects in all of the British Empire at the time. Plus if you weren't a colony once you wouldn't exist.
Republicans just love to point at Charles, Charles does more work than Ireland's head of the state and frankly he's not going to be reigning for long enough to have an impact on public view and then William will be the King
@@lordludichris4594 Prince William is SO MUCH better than Charles. I wish You Charles Lovers would REALIZE that! And not to mention, William looks like a King, Catherine looks like a Queen, Charles looks like one of those spoiled old rich billionaires and Camilla looks like some old lady who just can't get over the fact that Princess Diana is the woman for Hope and Peace in royalty, NOT HER!
0:11 Thats guys real name is Tommy Muscatello and hes actually from up state New York lmao archer mace smith?
The Queens silence as her countryman's quality of life declines so as not to appear political is a political statement & the idea that a Monarch could ever be apolitical is laughable. It's true that Republicans are in the minority but that could change a 2022 YouGov poll found that only 31% of 18-24 year olds support the Monarchy.
17% - Scotland
Most are actually in England
As a citizen of the U.S. I can tell you that a Republic is very difficult to maintain. We have ceased to be a true Republic long ago. I do believe it is the best of all political systems but alas human nature always gets in the way.
The us is not failing because of human nature, it's failing because the corrupt few percent are dividing the people over minor differences so they don't see their common enemy
@@lead_sommelier You're right, we are still a true republic in way of laws and the system of election. But some (on the right and left) have ramped up tribalism and is trying to make it out the the ominous "other side" is going to destroy their way of life.
@@ariejohnson1944 Ew centrist spotted
Republic: this is fine
Monarchy: but I like this
I would like us to be more like the Swiss, as in have a council, which has members of different Parties; apolitical isn't a good thing, as wherever a bad legislation get through the commons and lords, the monarchy will still have to sign it or abdicate
The most visited palace in the world is probably Versailles and it is not the place of residence of a monarch
One crown. One commonwealt.
I can’t understand how anyone who is not part of the royal family and court can be a monarchist. 😂
I can't understand how anyone who is not a politician can be a republican 😂
@@vicenteromerovega1480 easy! You just need to value yourself as a human being and own half a working brain to realise what a ridiculous concept a monarch is… unless you are the monarch. And don’t get me started on people that have the joy of living in a country without a king and admire the countries that still have one.
Engkand has been a great nation because of monarchy..
0:36 why does the queen not have to apply for that role though..... I wasn't born a prince though all men born equal right..
The Queen applied when she was born to her royal mother and father. Were you? Didn't think so.
No, not all men are created equal. The issue is that some Republicans see the Royal Family as taking wealth from the people unjustly. They make us a net profit and thus lower taxes through tourism to their estates alone. They legally own most of their properties as of inheritance passed down and so if abolished would retain that income and be able to spend it instead of put it towards the country.
@@mumflrpumble9107 they aren't spending their millions that doesn't help the enconomy and not saying any one person couldn't be doing what the queen does but that people should be put in tht positions not given a birthright which they probably gave themselves.
@@brandonprince4366 Anyone could be trained to be a royal. It's just that she was born into inheriting property her ancestors bought. Without obligation the monarchy to be monarchy and have budgets controlled they'd be merely oligarchs at most. That would be a waste of something quite valuable that allows our country to punch above its weight somewhat.
What makes the monarchy an apolitical symbol of our country is because they are taught how to represent us and aren't elected for their policies. They're modelled to the role
Exactly, and giving someone honorary titles isn't something only monarchs can do
I appreciate I may only be a thick individual who doesn't fully understand the nuances of the argument but could somebody please explain to me the point of electing an individual to a post that isn't political? Surely by the mere act of election we will lose one of the huge benefits that the post of monarch (Head of State) we currently possess?
Mark the idea is we can have an independent, unifying head of state that represents the people rather than just being born into their position. You cannot have a free society if your entire constitution is based on the idea that one person is inherently superior to another simply based on the family they were born into.
Alex Turlais I agree
@@alexturlais8558 They never use their power, its not like the crown will take over the country
@@LukeWatson99 I didn't they say did. But 1) the crown still has a lot of power and influence it doesn't deserve. 2) it goes against modern ideals and values. 3) it is a waste of a position. Head of state is an important job, and we should have a head of state that actually does stuff, rather than being mostly symbolic.
@@alexturlais8558 So you'd rather politicise the role of head of state, have a grey haired "Democratically Elected" mp replace her, remove the monarchy causing out rage from the 75% of the British population which supports the monarchy, cause political confusion and uproot the parliament of the commonwealth realms, and cut over 3,000 jobs from soliders maids, house keepers, advisors, just because it "doesn't fit" in a modern society. It does, The Queen, Charles, William and Kate, Harry and Megan are all modern royals, and integrate that into their duties and roles. The Queen does do things, knighting people, charity functions, CEO of the British Parliament. The royal family produces 1.8 billion in tourism revenue for the country yearly, I'd say that's worth keeping for our country
The Crown is Anglican sectarianism at its worst.
How can anyone be expected to respect that when it’s simply not egalitarian!
Time for a republic I sense, purely on principle.
Keep the Royal Family! Christ it's the only thing England has going for it now. Tradition, everything else now gone. So what there rich, so what they have what they want, when they want, there the Royal Family!!!
I'm a, working class, 30 year old male, hard worker and a no-body in layman's terms.
But... The Royal's bring this country together, I'm proud we have them, I'd say Megan should never of been added into the Royals, they should of looked for proper English country girl from a decent family.
But keep the Royal Family, keep something going we can dream and look up too.
You've been brainwashed into believing you need them. If all this country has is the Monarchy, then we've simply failed as a state
Britain has been failed by its monarchy.
Yes, how dare Harry love who he wants? He should've been married to a silverspoon born into a dying aristocracy bc hurr durr can't have *plebeians* or worse, *non-white plebeians*
The idea of a Monarchy implies that some people are better than others.
and it is the truth.
@@reigenlucilfer6154 ew
So Is a republic with a president. I don't think Charles has that much self esteem as macron or trump does who he thinks he is
I contend that when you really get down to it, monarchism is based on aesthetics and nothing more.
I think the monarchist in this video supports my thesis pretty well.
The Republican is actually British, the monarchist is American
Europe has no more monarchies, WW1 stripped them of their power or, in the case of the Romanovs, killed them off. The European nations with monarchs are almost exclusively ceremonial, and the few who do have _some_ political power (such as the UK) still have a lot less then whatever the state's body of "representatives" has (I put that in quotes as the majority of the time they don't actually represent the people). From a social stability standpoint, Europe was much better under monarchies. Europe is falling apart now, and it hasn't even hit 250 years yet, while it remained stable under monarchs for a millennia. This was because...
1: The monarch was in for life, they could invest in long-term projects and also did not have to worry about reelection (reelection takes a significant amount of time and resources).
2: The monarch owned the nation, so it was in their best interest to keep it in good shape, rather than politicians who really don't seem to care since they can just move out after.
3: The monarch had boatloads of wealth, so bribing a monarch was exceedingly difficult and only foreign monarchs and international banking cabals could.
4: The monarch had absolute authority, which means absolute responsibility. When something went wrong, people knew who to point the finger at. Unlike politicians who point at the other party.
5: The monarch had heirs, which meant the people knew what to expect, it added a sense of stability.
Monarchs are often portrayed as wicked or cruel within media, with good ones being an exception to the rule. In reality it was the other way around, cruel monarchs are the ones remembered most _because_ they were not the norm. Not to mention there is probably a little propaganda mixed in to demonize them.
Its called Facism.
Sure but why do their power needs to be heridarty all of those poinst could be true by even electing a king for life
There's a reason why Socrates hated Democracy. It's based on people's perception rather than an objective qualification to rule.
Socrates, like Platon and Aristotle, did not hate democracy in general but the very system called democracy of the attic polis, which was very different from what we have today. But none of them advocated for a monarchy.
@@mmm7528 So it's "status quo" meaning retain the constitutional monarchy, not giving more powers to the monarch just like absolute monarchy but not also turning into republic.
I'm the true monarch of MURICA
THE FACT: between 10 top countries in the world, many of them have ''constitutional monarchy''. Did this happen by chance?!
That includes Republics, keep it real.
They're not Democratic bc of the monarchy. They're Democratic bc they have Democratic systems.
2:15 that's an excuse... because the monarchy has 1000 years of history it doesn't mean that it should stay like that... during this 500 or 300 years things changed a lot and monarchies were abolished..same in France same in Russia and nobody said lets respect the crown they freaking destroyed their respectively old regime but the problem in the UK the monarchy survived because of historical events .. ah and also the same thing on italy 1947 ...(woow so close ...)
I kinda like the monarch in UK since it attracts tourist and may discipline the country cuz you already know our society's people today are kinda dumb or repetitive.
@@dudemevill1699 They don't attract tourists, the sights and sounds do. Palaces in France with no monarchies get way more tourists than Buckingham, gross and per capita.
Monarchist arguments are either "unifying figure" who could just as easily be elected or ooh pretty castle
You do know that the royal family still owns all the crown lands, castles, and palaces. They have simply allowed parliament to use and benefit from them in exchange for an annual salary. If you remove the Monarchy the British economy will collapse as the monarchs will in turn become a private citizen, and their property private property. The money the British government makes off of these properties is millions more than what they spend on the royal family. Also an elected official is never a unifying figure.
@@davidhanna9003 simply nationalize the property and unifying figure is in quotes, because guess what, neither a monarch nor a head of state in general is truly unifying
No elected official could ever unify a country
@@zr3755 no monarch can either, that's why "unifying" is in quotes
@@davidhanna9003 Confiscate the property.
You are essentially making the argument that a monarchy could stop its own destruction by saying "actually we own all the land so you can't get rid of us."
Imagine the laat French monarchs monarchs saying this to the revolutionaries.
That 17% has my vote. As an American and flagrant Anti-Monarchist, my hats off to the minority of British Republicans. All of you are indeed, very brave men and women working for a more egalitarian society.
Republic Soy Boy
I am a British anti-monarchist, and honestly sometimes it feels like you can say whatever you want to a monarchist and they won’t change their mind. My brother and mum are monarchists, and I have said everything to them, but nooo, figurehead go brrrrr
@@mayoandbananasandwich6527 just like the left and right of america
MONARCHISIM SHALL RISE AGAIN, LIKE IN THE PAST. MULTIPLE EMPIRES BUILT TO LAST.
Bagehot wrote the English Constitution more than 150 years ago and his ideas are still prevalent in British society. The unifying (diverting) factor is always mentioned by neo-monarchists as did Bagehot. The strategy seems to have worked well.
There has been no reform of the British Constitution for over a hundred years. It is ossified.
"Above politics" as if anything is above politics.
Grokford Daenerys Targaryen
@@BlockedUser420 ah yes, the godgiven birthright to not have to work a day in your life
@@lead_sommelier "to not have to work a day in your life" and what would you qualify as not working? because The Queen has very little time to herself.
#BringBackTheKaiser🇩🇪
No