How the crown has more power than you think | It's Complicated
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лис 2022
- The monarch's role in British politics is supposed to be neutral. In theory at least, she plays no role in government decision-making or the setting of policy.
Subscribe to The Guardian on UA-cam ► bit.ly/subscribegdn
However, documents discovered by the Guardian in the National Archives tell a different story. Josh Toussaint-Strauss looks back at The Guardian’s investigation into a secretive procedure that led to more than 1,000 laws being vetted by the Queen or Prince Charles before they were approved by parliament.
So what does the monarchy actually do? And just how powerful is the crown?
Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent ► www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...
How Prince Charles pressured ministers to change law to benefit his estate ► www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...
How the Queen lobbied for changes in the law to hide her wealth ► www.theguardian.com/news/audi...
The Guardian publishes independent journalism, made possible by supporters. Contribute to The Guardian today ► bit.ly/3biVfwh
Sign up to the Guardian's free new daily newsletter, First Edition ► theguardian.com/first-edition
Website ► www.theguardian.com
Facebook ► / theguardian
Twitter ► / guardian
Instagram ► / guardian
The Guardian on UA-cam:
Guardian News ► bit.ly/guardiannewssubs
Guardian Australia ► bit.ly/guardianaussubs
Guardian Football ► bit.ly/gdnfootballsubs
Guardian Sport ► bit.ly/gdnsportsubs
Guardian Live ► bit.ly/guardianlivesubs
#Monarchy #TheCrown #KingCharles #QueenElizabeth #UK #harryandmeghan #williamandkate
I think we can all read between the lines: the Queen had a secret nuclear weapons program at Balmoral.
On a horse drawn carriage of course.
@@billybob-jp7eh while illegaly hunting fish
😂
"FIRE.... that should keep the Scottish quiet for a while"
😂😂😂😂😂
i don’t get why people are surprised that kings and queens get more power than the everyday folk
They must have alot more than a combined 1.6 billion more like 1.6 trillion
Well maybe because the UK claims to be a democracy and the monarchy is simply a "symbolic" institution
@@petersmith2522 I agree. I think they are the richest family in the world.
@@keifer7813 we are actually a capitalist monarchy im sure i read we are 2 types
@keifer7813 if you're actually from this country you wouldn't call it a democracy. Stop changing our ways
It's my understanding that the crown actually has the powers of a sovereign ruler, but the monarch chooses not the exercise it's full power to appease the people.
Or rather, they don't exercise it openly. I'm sure that what has been revealed here is only a tiny part of the true scale of things.
No.
@@4grammaton If they did use those powers it was probably for somethinh very small, since we would have heard about it from the media otherwise. They have a tendency to find anything they can against the royal family
No, your understanding is incorrect. Since the Glorious Revolution (and Cromwell before that) the monarch essentially reigns at the invitation of Parliament. Whatever shenanigans the royals get up to (and they do) are done only because the Commons decide to tolerate it.
@@4grammaton No.
They do, but they prefer to keep it secret and let the people think the monarch is just only a ceremonial figure in government
That means the people are really in charge?
@@randomlygeneratedname7171 The people think they are in charge.
Lol nice theory.
It is
@@greatsageequaltoheaven8115the monarch thinks they are
It's not just what is mentioned in this video. The King is head of the government, the church of England, and head of the armed forces. That is a huge amount of influential power. He also is not subject to the whims of the voters.
Although I agree with what you said in the UK the King is not the head of Government that is the Prime Minister. The King is the Head of State which is a completely different role in government.
Unlike those president's of the EU parliament? Taking the backhander's to further a despot regime, very socialist 😂 greed & corruption, unaudited expenses 🤭 🤡
so basically he is prime minister, pope, and Commander-in-chief all combined? 🤔
No, the King is head of state, not as head of government, though have power as chief executive.
@@williemherbert1456
We are quite happy with it 😊
So who cares 😂
“Monarch has more power than their subjects realise”, that’s all by design.
But all of this comes with the stipulation that if they abuse these powers, someone out there is going to be the next Cromwell.
So someone is going to lead a somewhat failed revolution by driving the country into civil war, declare themselves lord protector which basically means Monarch anyway, complete a mass genocide of the Irish and then end up with their head on a spike after a few years?
Cromwell was just a Tudor who wanted to conquer throne.
@@empireofengland6039 He's clearly never read a history book, nor watched the video as typical guardian failed to prove the Monarchy had even reached through their jurisdiction.
Yea and that worked out well....
British royals were once highly aware of the fates of first the french crown and then the romanovs. That has informed how every british monarch since Victoria have conducted themselves.
As an American who enjoys Republican democracy, I must say it’s weird to hear that people are surprised or unaware the monarch has powers or exemptions. Like the president gets some privileges many of which are just tradition and he is just a citizen. It would be really weird if the British monarchy that has been in power for hundreds of years was treated like everyone else
@@offroadguy7772 democratic Republic is the term I most used to describe the US as a constitutional republic does not need to be democratic it just needs to have a constitution and a republic
by republic democracy you mean corporate oligarchy😂
Democracy would mean the people are given the choice to choose between any party of their preference without having to settle for not their favourites, and that any incoming new party is allowed to gain as much power as their popularity allows, a popularity which comes from equal access to public debate in times of elections.
Is that the case with US "democracy"? Or even the UK's?
USA - (increasingly gerontocracy-baed) Duopolistic Corporatocracy moment
Just saying that in many Presidential republics, the President enjoys numerous immunities which borderline kingly powers (such as immunity from prosecution during office, right to refuse to sign bills, right to appoint heads of government outside of Parliement etc.). When you look at it comparatively, it looks less sensational
Most presidents have a limited time in office so there is no comparison.
@@annemccabe749 it is of course the gigantic difference that presidency is not hereditary. The point is not to say that these powers of the Sovereign are wrong or wrongly used. Just that heads of state have superior powers to a vaste degree even in republics. The main difference perhaps is how are those powers used and is the use of those prerogatives in the interest of the State or the single individual?
A president is elected no?
Huge difference
Yeah and what's wrong too... What's your point
@@RankinMsP so you would still give a person the right to be above the law and many other kingly privileges ?
so tell me again, what is the major difference between elected people that have the kingly privilege and the unanimously wanted or elected learders of institutions that have kingly privilege ?
The biggest threat to the British Monarchy comes from the UK citizens, who have little or no understanding of a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary sovereignty means.
Without a having a constitution codified into a single document like the US Constitution, it's probably difficult to conduct legal research on the royal prerogative, the role of the prime minister, and the constitutional conventions that require the monarch to seek advice of the government.
That’s easy read the Australian, Canadian or NZ constitution, it’s all there in black and white, the role of the executive, the parliament, the judiciary and the Monarch. Their respective powers and responsibilities, the only difference to the UK is the role of the Governor General, who represents the Monarch when they are not within the country, they the GG appoint ministers and give royal assent, when the monarch is absent. A lot of people think the Governor General represents the British Government, they dont and have nothing to do with the UK govt, they solely represent the Monarch.
Then you just turn huge power to unelected judges. Be careful what you wish for
Thier true wealth is hidden in trusts.
Yes they are above the law.
Not really King Charles coudnt go through the streets of london gunning people down
Did you not get taught about Magna Carta, that's the fundamental principle 😭
@@thepeach03 in the 1215 one, maybe. But that lasted for 3 weeks. The more important one (1225) got rid of the more radical republican elements of it, which was mostly based around the ideals that you aloud to regarding the Monarch being below the law or the Magna Carta. The 1225 version was more important in the long term.
which shouldnt be.
@@kamekazekwago874 the 1225 was actually very important for the development of a more involved government. The 1215, was unsustainable.
I live in USA where we're ruled by billionaires and big corporations. Not much different 😒
It is very different and you aren’t ruled by billionaires nor is the uk.
True man 🇺🇸💯 money talks here 🌎👑
The monarchs spend half of their income protecting the environment and wild lives. Which US billionaire does that?
@@kordellswoffer1520so You really think that the billionaires and mega corporations that donated to the presidential campaign don’t have influence in the US government? 😂😂😂😂 Now tell me a cowboy’s story 😂😂😂😂
@@luas551They do but are they immune & exempt to actual laws of the land?
I was surprised to see the level of genuine grief when Queen Elizabeth died - I think we were all surprised by how much the nation values our monarchy.
I was saddened when the queen died even though it was inevitable. It really was the end of an era. However ,I don't necessarily support the continuation of the monarchy and this is not a criticism of King Charles and Queen Camilla., but a time when alternatives could be investigated
@@annemccabe749 It's a tricky one. It seems absurd until you realise most people have an innate need to revere prestigious figures. It might even be a movie star or pop singer, but people choose to do it and nobody really knows why. So, if it isn't a monarch it's going to be somebody else and having a monarch for people to look up to and emulate is probably the better way forward - even if it is King Charles for now.
It wasn't genuine, it was scripted. Telly isn't real life mate
@@afgor1088 I was referring to what I witnessed personally - I'm not sure how you think 'telly' 'scripted' so many people to line the streets...
@@Iazzaboyce Not that many. More people go to football matches at weekends.
The British monarch used to own 1/3 of the land in the world not sure where they stand now but they ARE in fact still a powerhouse
You mean they stole most of that land until they were forced to give a chunk of it back.
1/4, not 1/3
Nothing's changed. They still own land and properties here in Malawi, some of which not a lot of people are even aware that it's owned by the Crown
Any "Crown land" in any of the Commonwealth realms is technically still owned by the King. But when you wither down to what he actually controls, many rich people would actually have more (King Charles only owns places such as Balmoral Castle, Sandringham House in a private capacity, all others are governed to one extent or another by respective Parliaments). Then you have the unique cases of Duchies of Lancaster (vested in the monarch) and Duchy of Cornwall (vested in the heir apparent when their the first born son of the King) that are owned by the sovereign and heir respectively but still have some regulation by the British Parliament, although in the case of Cornwall is particularly curious as the heir is not quite as bound as the monarch is to constitutional conventions etc.
No they don't. Thry barely control the UK.
My lecturer said that the queen would say "..my government.." before handed me a journal to review. Now that I find it true. Thank you for sharing the video. Rest In Peace Queen Elizabeth II
Wow, this was really informative, and I'd love to see more on this topic!
The powers you said are “unlikely to be used” are used all the time - the Monarch picks every prime minister, it is just that they act on the advice of the Government
That does not make sense. What government is there before then? It is only recently that Prime-Ministers are expected to stick around and they are not always in a position to give advice. The Queen appoints whoever commands a majority in Parliament. The ability to gets bills passed is the criteria.
@@johnnotrealname8168 I was referring to the powers listed at around 0:39. With that context it should (hopefully) make sense.
That's not really what was meant when he said that. Yes the Monarch picks the Prime Minister every time on the advice of the Government. What he meant was that the Monarch has the ability to call anyone to be the Prime Minister, a power that would never be used.
I never realized the U.K. didn’t have a written constitution like over here in the U.S.
Yeh it doesn't really make too much of a difference in everyday life, just means that parliamentary law and court precedents set the rules. The US is essentially the same but with enough appeals, something can go to the Supreme Court and be ruled unconstitutional.
It’s been called a rolling constitution which means it can evolve and be changed,mainly for the privileged😉
We have residual rights, ie. there is no constitutional right to walk down the street, but no law against it so we are free to do it, until a law is made saying you can't.
That’s the reason U.K. politics are a mess.
@@FQuintanaMarrero If only there was just one reason!
What's worse is that most of the British press don't mention any of this, keeping up the facade and larger inequality between royalty and the people
What facade? And idk if I’d say inequality since they earn a lot of the money they get
Perhaps watch the video...
@@gothicgolem2947 they co-own the bank of england along with the rotschilds, meaning they own money that is loaned to the uk government 😂
@@TomNook. You do know the UK has a growing number of billionaires, most of whom are more wealthy than the royal family. Almost 200 in the UK and Charles is king of 14 other countries too.
The royal family are focused on their duties and certainly aren't here to stop you becoming wealthy. If your issue is with inequality, I would look at that more appropriately.
@@rockboyznative to be fair queen Elizabeth the first created the bank of England just like she created the royal navy a lot of institutions where created by the monarch back when they still had a lot of power
Real power is when one chooses not to use the power one has.
What
Or just put another coin in the meter.
@@littledudefromacrossthestr5755 Watts?
You must be a special reader with delayed comprehension skills.😶😶😶😶
One unelected person doesn't deserve any power.
I’d far rather this than politicians holding it.
Yes, let a hereditary Monarchy have special privilege. But forbid the politician who could be replaced in an election and has term limits.
???
No thanks!
@@prometheanknight7377precisely
@@prometheanknight7377 it's either monarchy or oligarchy
I’d like to see part two to this.
They can’t vet all laws, just the ones that affect their interests.
I'm not even British and can easily that was the government minsters refusing to be assertive, palace officials protecting the monarch's reputation, and the duchies making business recommendations, and NOT the individual monarch acting as an autocrat.
There hasn't been an example of the monarch violating convention, refusing advice of her minister, and refusing to grant Royal Assent to bills from Parliament.
No one questions that Crown (as an institution) still holds reserve powers and the royal prerogative, but the ones not solely used on the advice of the Prime Minister can be taken away with legislation.
The government ministers would have to support giving away the power to declare war, appoint a Prime Minister, or call an election from the Crown (on the advice of the Prime Minister) to the majority of Parliament, which I highly doubt they ever will.
Unfortunately, it's not about government officials being unassertive, it's just the monarchy flexing it's gargantuan muscles. Of course there'll never be any report of the monarch "violating convention" because it's by design; use proxies in the palace to cause such violations or if the monarch does the violations, gag the media and government from reporting/recording it. It is by design that they appear to be "ceremonial", they chose those exact words to describe the monarchy so their dictatorship can fly under the radar
Would be great if Guardian Australia did an Aussie version of this if they haven’t already! Very insightful, thank you!
I mean, it's the same reigning monarchy... Applies to Canada as well.
@@Wilsnap Basically all Anglosphere countries right?
Its the same but different, as basically all the powers of the monarch are practised by the Governor-General and especially in Australia the Governor-General is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as practising these powers which could lead to some interesting questions regarding the monarch's own role vis the Governor-General in a constitutional crisis situation (such as 75 dismissal) but so far no situation has truly arisen. The more immediate issue comes from the fact the G-G is actually chosen by the PM so in effect the PM is choosing who'd be their own boss in certain circumstances, such an issue does not arise in the UK where the monarch's authority stems from time immemorial and the government or even Parliament can not really get close to outright overthrowing the monarch (some say the British Parliament has this right, but as the Parliament operates under the Crown, this would leave open the possibility of some politicians and their now appointed peers deciding without consulting the British people to replace the whole governing system).
@@andrewmckenzie292 Well said. Such instances of the GG undermining the government and causing a bit of a constitutional crisis row actually have occurred in Canadian political history.
@@Andrea-1998 no. Some anglosphere countries are republics. It applies to all constitutional mornarchies.
Basically in short, They're above the Law!
Its a big club and you're not invited
The monarchy understands that the pendulum of rulership always swings back and forth. These monarchs can always come back .
Super thankful for the informative video
Ok, but dont be fooled by this misleading and deceptive presentation
@@chrislambert9435Explain more
@@chrislambert9435 ahahaha
Thank you!
For the last time, the Monarchy really is not the problem with the state of our country.
You, my brother, look like you might be a monarchist.
What is the problem? I'm not from the uk
@@ChopSquadBabyPoliticians, what the @~?£ else. The state our country is in is because of our democratically elected leaders but somehow people think the issue is the King or the Queen. Give me a break.
@@johnnotrealname8168 if they keep getting elected maybe they are the better of two evils 🤔
@@johnnotrealname8168 they're both equally corrupt
As a military man I’d always folllow the monarchy over the government my king is my commander and chief
Agreed, my oath was to the Crown not to Parliament.
@@Subtleknife12367 that's idiocy
@@Valmiki168 So is parliment
The law provides that the Parliament must grant the Monarch permission to keep a standing army, every five years. If the Parliament refused to renew that permission, the British Army would be automatically disbanded at the end of the five-year period ( although not the Navy and the Air Forces)
The Crown is a better, kinder alternative than corporations having large armies. Is it any differnet than the president of the US having command over army, navy and all other types of armed forces? @@Valmiki168
0:47- Boris's curvy back, wow!
If you can’t get a warrant (because they are issued in the name of the crown) then how else can you investigate anything if you don’t get the monarch’s permission?
The crown has the power of Veto not only that but it can not be overrode.
If they abused that power they would no longer be the crown.
Last time the crown Vetoed was in the early 1700’s under Queen Anne.
They own the whole country after all
This video acts like politicians and big corporations don't do the same.
Whataboutism. Doesn't make the criticism any less valid.
The King is also commander in chief of the UK armed forces, that is a fact. I could be wrong but he might also be commander in chief of the militaries of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Yikes
Mm I'm told that when the Windsor Castle fire occured and the then Major govt said all repair costs would be borne by UK taxation, there was common uproar. The entire royal family appeared at that time to pay no taxes at all. Then suddenly,
the UK govt stated that many palaces would then be opened to the public -to help defray the cost. Oh and with the sole exception of the Queen herself all others would now be subject to taxes.
They are above the law
Can’t believe I’ve never heard of this movie before. Watching it tonight
I'm astonished as how many britishes in the comments section are defending this caste hierarchy. Apparently lots of ppl in 21st century believe some humans are entitled to have more rights than others.
It doesn't concern you.
Maybe you can also make a video on how other countries leader like USA and China got their superpowers
China isn't really a super power just yet, but it came from trade mostly. and the ability to defend their borders.
@@genericscout5408 The hundreds of chinese spyware, vast influence they have over other countries, and their gigantic military would say otherwise
That clears it all up
Well they are the monarch so having the ability to preserve your assets and quality of life isn't so extreme.
Really? So if a prime minister uses taxpayer dollars to renovate a personal estate,you would be fine with that?
@@atrailmckinley4786 It would be expected tbh. Especially if they've been doing it for 800 years when the position was passed down from mother to son.
What about knock on effects of changes and or adjustments, reversals and or fixes though? Collateral damage?
Very interesting and informative
There ARE monarchs so all these makes sense
The royal family are shady AF.
Wow…
Actually People have more power than we think.
We like to think that, but it's a whole different psy-ops. We were doomed since our birth, only to serve the pale demons.
Monarchy is difficult to let go when entrenched and successful for a long time. If it ain't all the way broke, why fix it?
Because it is broke lol
Because the French showed the world what should become of "royals".
The Army swears loyalty to the crown and the state. Notice which one comes first.
Oh I do hope so
When British people protest its so love ing 💀
Excellent!
Does this extend to Canada, Australia, and others, as some sources claim ?
The Late Queen Used her Power in Australia when Australia in mess in 1976 and in New Zealand
Yes, the monarchs powers extend to the 14 countries where their head of state
Wow so the Royal Family is not apolitical.
The crown can’t be prosecuted??? So they are indeed above the law
They're the law
Actually not so. Look up the Crown Proceedings Act...
What do you mean "they"? The Crown is one person. The monarch. And no of course he can't be prosecuted, the authority of the law comes from HIM
The Crown is the source of all Executive, legislative, and judicial power in the UK. How on earth would they prosecute their own source of power.😭😂
This video changed my life
Perhaps what's needed is Magna Carta II. Which would stipulate explicitly which powers are within the rights of the crown and name parliament as the supreme head of the government.
The head of the church thing would be up to the clergy to figure out and elect their own leader, which may or may not be the king/queen.
What's needed is a modern, codified constitution, clearly stating the powers of all positions in government, and ensuring transparency and equality in the eyes of the law.
The thing is about inheritance tax, many would argue that the likes of Buckingham palace and Sandringham are state(which is essentialy crown) property, so why should the King personally pay inheritance on that?
Sandringham and Balmoral are the private property of the King. Buckingham palace belongs to the Crown (state).
Exactly. It's like, taking money from your pocket in the left, to put it into the pocket in the right... lol.... So it makes no sense. I think the Queen did pay some taxes on something, but it was not inheritance tax. Since inheritance tax also goes to the state's any way. So it is pointless to repeat redundant work, right ? The tax that the Queen paid, did go into the pockets of the population. I cannot recall what it was now.
There's never been any room for that. People have had to suffer and do without for this kind of opulence. Humanism, equality, these make a difference.
I love this kind of video
Why do people think the crown power is only ceremonial?
Ofcourse everyone is equal ,but some people are more equal than other's.
Hmmm, this quote feels familiar 🐷
Heavy.
Under a monarchy, people are definitely not equal.
@@callmefalse i was just about to ask if this was a george orwell quote lol
Whilst our people suffer…
Guardian: How a Constitutional Monarch has more power than You, a mere Peasant.
Scary stuff man 🙏🏾
Abolish Monarchy
Great informative piece sir, it sadness me to see the blatant abuse of power but every government has done similar things 😕
We have rulers not leaders
The UK is often said to have an ‘unwritten’ constitution. This is not strictly correct. It is largely written, but in different documents. But it has never been codified, brought together in a single document. In this respect, the UK is different from most other countries, which have codified constitutions. But not all: New Zealand and Israel also lack a codified constitution.
(UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON)
Very informative video. Thank you
Exactly why they should be abolished!! Off with their heads!
bigot
You’re not Lenin
Off with their heads? Lol, this isn’t the October revolution.
@@Andrea-1998 No, it’s not October, you’re right!!
@@DedLoko December revolution? Lol 😂
I respect the Americans for sticking the middle finger to all this and going their own way. Idk how the British still put up with it to this day
The US has a nearly identical system with a republican form of government.
The American revolution was triggered by taxation without have a representative in Parliament. Even King George III was a constitutional monarch with no political powers.
The British monarchy is compatible with democracy. The UK monarchy has survived this long because all of the monarchs have followed constitutional convention and observed parliamentary sovereignty.
I doubt you speak for the majority of the UK, but inheariting a title, land, and property comes with a legal duty to serve the nation as a figurehead.
International human rights and English common law requires a crime or wrongdoing.
The Brexit breakup with the EU was already a self-inflicted injury. I'm not sure why you'd expect Scotland and the rest of the UK to remain part of a English republic.
Thanks.
The monarch is supposed to have some absolute power. It is that very notion which allows the government to be a less-important, changing institution of competing ideas. A government’s failure won’t be as bad because their head of state remains unchangeably there. At the end of the world for example, one would expect the Royal Family to take some control until they can form a new government after the breaking of the hypothetical previous failed government
Or the Royal family would be executed and their assets plundered by the survivors. Depending on who gets hit maybe India and other former colonies might invade or loot their assets back from the vaults in Britain. Argentina would like their land back after all.
“Some absolute” power is a conflicting term
@@davyroger3773 No it isn’t. You can have absolute power in some areas and not others.
Monarchy mafia
That’s fine by me!
yet queens and kings are so admired around the world.. while they are worst of law and wealth inequality.
Replace the words “Royal family” with “gang” and you wouldn’t need to change much else in the texts
The Firm
Oh look at you so brave
Oh you
4:42 Doesn't this bit just invalidate this whole video by essentially proving the little end card?
The perquisites of the British monarchy seem highly objectionable to this non Brit.
Ok, but dont be fooled by this misleading and deceptive presentation
to me it doesn't matter who you are.. what you do is what matters.. riches or not.
The United Kingdom has a constitution in the way its a mix of several different documents since the magna carta creating the parlimentary and court system.
Sounds like a perk of the job
This was mindblowing lol
Ok, but dont be fooled by this misleading and deceptive presentation
@@chrislambert9435 I wouldn't know. I'm not British and you guys don't have a codified constitution. What am I supposed to do? Check every Act of Parliament since Elizabeth I just to be sure not to be misled? It's not my fault Westminster System is so f*ed up confusing 😒
@@chrislambert9435 How is it misleading? The King has a ton of power but just doesn't use it. The royal family have shaped laws to serve their own interests.
Lol. It still amazes me that Britain continues to revere the ideals of a monarchy.
4:44 - so wait… …parliament controls the UK nuclear deterrent, right (hopefully)?
But do the Royals have the ability to possess/use their own nukes independent of government?
Do/might they control some directly?
Not forgetting interfering in Australian politics and sacking the prime minister elected by the people
A country that prides itself on its social programs to create greater economic equality while maintaining a system that guarantees one family lives in extreme extravagant wealth at the expense of society boggles my mind.
Not mutually excluding. So this is a logical fallacy.
@@ValaHough Tax dollars-or tax breaks- can only be put towards one purpose. Anything spent on maintaining the royal family or special tax breaks they alone enjoy cannot be spent on social services.
@@Kneephry not a brit, but buddy, you can count that spent money to promotion of UK, trust me. she built you a whole tourism branch by herself.
@@Kneephry Believe it or not social services are not the entirety of the government's existence, and they seem fine scrounging up money for such services anyway. Furthermore, the Queen's assets go into the government too.
What SHOULD boggle your mind is that your country can't grow enough food to feed yourselves, so you depend on the opinions of foreign countries to stay alive. And we like the Monarch.
In republics presidents/prime-ministers (for cringe parliamentary republics) also have the powers to veto any laws. Just look at the US and how many laws US Presidents have vetoed. But not just that. They also can be exempt from law and all the other stuff.
President's are elected, often have limited time in office and a variety of other checks on their power. Although these systems aren't perfect and can most definitely be more democratic, they are still better than any monarchy.
@@kalu1546 Althought I can certainly comprehend your vision on the matter, I do think that it might stumble in a fundamental difference between a monarchy and a republic: the power division.
Nowadays, the majority of monarchies are parliamentary, that means that the monarch or sovereign tends to execute a merely cerimonial role when in contrast to what their power came to grip in it's height in the 18th century. Who really controls the country is the people, just like it's supposed to be in any democratic system, and the people is represented by the Parliament who themselves are represented by the Prime-Minister to the people and the monarch.
Alas there are parliamentary republics, I would argue that those are fundamentally flawed when in comparison that a parliamentary monarchy. The monarch, just like the parliamentary president, it's the chief of State, but also the traditional and cultural representation of the nation more broadly, being since their younger age trained to be in this role, whitout any political interests in the matter when considered their constitutional dutie.
@@Leo-cw8se did you watch the video? It outlines examples that show how the Monarchy has used its powers in more ways than just "ceremonial".
@@kalu1546 none more blind than the one who refuses to see. You are try to explain democracy to monarchists
Your US example is ignoring the fact that the US head of state is chosen through a democratic process, not heredity. Also, a presidential veto can be over-ruled by congress with enough support.
Extremadamente interesante.
The Queen had the power to sign or not to sign any act of Parliament.
This is what made her the chief of state.
With certainty will Charles III be a much more political monarch than his
mother.
Long live the king
RIP Queen Elizabeth II and long live the King
The Queen is Dead . Long live the King
Long live the PEOPLE, the monarchy don’t need additional blessings. Especially whilst their people suffer considerably during this dark period.
What do I think?