Im not saying everyone at Oxford is a tory, I have met Oxford students and graduates that are quite the opposite; but if you study at Oxford and you're dancing around it rather than just outright saying "I'm a leftist", you're definitely just a conservative in denial. It's okay, this isn't America, you can have a rational conversation about politics here.
Royal families aren’t the problem. Look at Sweden, a country that thrives. It’s how the other parts of government are structured and handled, and the people’s involvement in government, that truly matters and makes any sort of difference.
The thing with Monarchy is that creating one nowadays makes no sense. However, those countries that already have one... it is fine. Royal families are brands for the country, great representation, and a stable one. I appreciate having a stable figure, raised for the role, that can represent all the citizens instead of having a changing president of a Republic. Much more, considering the awful quality of the politicians in my country: I am in my 30's and Spanish, and I have been struggling with voting for years, unable to find a good candidate. Spanish politics is a shitshow of incompetence.
@@KurtGodel-po3zl That doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to do with patriotism. You can love the country yet dislike the national anthem. You can love the country yet dislike the flag. Some countries dont even have monarchies and their population can still love it. What does any of that prove? Nothing. The monarchy has a lot to do with patriotism.
@@OliversOxford really not beating the conservative accusations by acting in the most classic conservative fashion and purposely misinterpreting what they said 😂😂
@@OliversOxford erm, no. I'd never say that. No one I know who is working class or vote Labour would go to Oxford. Never, ever. My cousin was offered a place and turned it down. The whole institution is conservative, and by being there you're upholding that pomp and ceremony. You don't need to go to Oxford for a decent education. Nor do you need to be smart to get in - you just need daddy's money 😉
@@HonorisCausa1 the only thing that we pay from the public purse for the monarchy is from the security that the Met Police provides them the sovereign grants I funded by the crown estate which 85% is actually given back to the treasury earning the country money and what does morally mean? What would you rather have the the conservatives consolidate power like in France and allow our leader to circumvent parliament? Like macron did? That moral? 😂😂😂 what a joke you have no idea what you talking about do you?
@@HonorisCausa1 The money required to actually run a working monarchy is minuscule, seeing as the vast majority of that money goes towards things that would have to be paid for regardless (Castle and palace maintenance, state visits, hosting foreign officials, security etc). If you abolished the monarchy, you would still need to pay for repairs and upkeep of royal residences (millions upon millions every year); still pay for the protection and upkeep of millions of Royal possessions (from the Crown Jewels to priceless art); still pay for all the staff that work to keep these residences and wider estates running; still pay for state visits; still pay for foreign visits (and everything else associated with a head of state); still pay for security of the new Head of State and also continue paying for the security of the King as well (he would absolutely be entitled to it). You would save nothing, and would instead lose a great deal; not only financially speaking (for starters, just look how expensive the presidents in countries like France and the US are by comparison - money certainly *not* well spent for either one of those), but also culturally (for example, preserving your monarchy has enabled you to hold on to so many of your rich traditions, customs, historic events, celebrations etc, much of which date back over 1,000 years - something that is very rare and special in the modern world), morally (do you not realize the immense number of charities and good causes that the working members of the Royal Family support/ have started - you would be damaging every single one of them by abolishing the monarchy), and in terms of public perception (just to put this into perspective, Royal events are some of the most watched events in world history - hundreds of millions/ billions tune in to watch these events, and are fascinated with the history, traditions, beauty and true old world elegance that cannot be found anywhere else. You would seriously replace all of that for just another president…?)
@Knightway1 I really want to get into it. The incorrect use of the word "like" as a vocal disinfluent in a sentence is highly irritating. When used as a simile, it is perfectly fine. If the sentence stands without it it is completely unacceptable. And shows a tendency for laziness in speech. And foe a student at Oxford it is disappointing.
@@aacmove To reinforce the already significant perception of a class difference? No thanks. People may talk how they wish, and their place of study shouldn't and needn't reflect it at all. Not to mention, it would be rather odd to expect, say, a Mathematics student to have pristine English simply as a by-product of studying in Oxford. Oxford's prestige is thanks to the quality of the education, sure, but that's not directly linked to the way one chooses to speak English at all. And to judge somebody for that seems almost petty. It's picking on the one thing you can to belittle somebody who's more than demonstrated their aptitude by getting in in the first place, and doubtless has tremendous skill in something or other. It reads as "they may be Oxford students, but I'm superior in that I can... talk properly. Do better, Oxford, you guys should be Gods among mortal men" I can understand expecting a high quality of speech from particular sorts of students that would strongly benefit from it, but your average student needn't be quite so eloquent on a day-to-day. Find something more valid to pick on. A "tendency for laziness in speech" is more commonly referred to as not being a robot. You can be a genius and ill-spoken, and even morons could have a knack for talking fancy (generally earning themselves the title of "pretentious"). Most people are somewhere in between. Huh, that was longer that it needed to be. Hopefully I adequately addressed your concerns for the tragic situation in Oxford.
2 things: 1. Why is the guy talking about monarchy talking like an American?.. I've never understood why so many young people feel the need to talk as if they're American. 2. He says he feels conflicted about the monarchy because he sometimes feels patriotic. Feeling patriotic literally has Nothing to do with supporting a monarchy. Patriotism exists in countries that don't have monarchies, i.e.: America.
Obviously your first point is weird, but the other guy covered that already. As for the second thing, you have a flaw in your logic. Patriotism as a principle has absolutely nothing to do with supporting a monarchy. However, it absolutely can and does in countries WITH monarchies, like the UK. The monarchy and the royal family is part of the British Imperium and glory. He says he likes the picture of it and how it represents and represented England, but not the rational politics of it. Simply comparing a democracy with a monarchy and saying "theres patriotism in both" doesn't prove there can't be correlation, that's ludicrous. In the US and Iran the religion is part of the patriotism, in Germany it isnt. In the US the bald eagle is part of the patriotism, Switzerland doesn't even have a permanent national animal. Way to relativize!
@@superbrain7852I understand your points, and I agree with some of them, like patriotism Can often be very tied up with monarchy etc., but, I still think that patriotism can exist separately from monarchy, e.g.: even in the UK, both now and historically, I would say that the Vast majority of the UK population would say they feel patriotic about their country, but, that patriotism is completely divorced from monarchy. People don't like Harry & Meghan, or Andrew, etc., and they don't agree with the racist, colonial institution of the monarchy, nor would they champion things like the privileges we all enjoy thanks to colonialism/monarchy, but, they are proud of their country, but it's of the People of their country, from all faiths and backgrounds etc. So, if someone asked me if I was patriotic, I would say Yes, but, not because of the monarchy, or current government, but because of People. But you make some good points 👍
“talking like and American.” How? This country is so obsessed with America, it’s gotten embarrassing bringing them up when they are not relevant to the conversation. Speaking colloquial English is an American trait now? Or is it his conflicting thoughts in monarchies?
Im not saying everyone at Oxford is a tory, I have met Oxford students and graduates that are quite the opposite; but if you study at Oxford and you're dancing around it rather than just outright saying "I'm a leftist", you're definitely just a conservative in denial. It's okay, this isn't America, you can have a rational conversation about politics here.
not really, we're going in the polarising direction aswell,
@emilesmithrowe8353 depends on the people you surround yourself with I suppose.
how is a leftist a conservative
@euclid4703 read my comment again please
@@euclid4703 clearly you didn't make it to Oxford
Royal families aren’t the problem. Look at Sweden, a country that thrives. It’s how the other parts of government are structured and handled, and the people’s involvement in government, that truly matters and makes any sort of difference.
Thrives 💀 come live here, try it out
Sweden is not thriving 😂
Sweden is far from thriving 😂
It's good that we've had another representative for the UK other than Johnson, Truss and Sunak over the past few years
Ignoring the rape today are we
I love that even in one of the most British places imaginable, you can still use the US flag as a symbol for patriotism.
The outnumbered picture 🫶🏼
The thing with Monarchy is that creating one nowadays makes no sense. However, those countries that already have one... it is fine.
Royal families are brands for the country, great representation, and a stable one.
I appreciate having a stable figure, raised for the role, that can represent all the citizens instead of having a changing president of a Republic. Much more, considering the awful quality of the politicians in my country:
I am in my 30's and Spanish, and I have been struggling with voting for years, unable to find a good candidate. Spanish politics is a shitshow of incompetence.
This comment section killed my faith in the Great British public, just a little bit...
Isn’t fresher’s in September? I’m so confused 😭
it’s probably re uploaded content from tiktok
It's probably a reupload but also freshers' in Oxford tends to be in October
Some of my best friends at Uni were conservatives. We used to love having a friendly debate over drinks.
Luv me queen, luv me king, only re-publican a like is Steve down 'Spoons he's been chief keep 2x now.
Man, i ain't british and i'm probably not a conservative but i gotta say that guy who held out while being outnumbered is kind of a chad ngl.
Idiots usually scream the loudest
18yros 🤦 what’s the debate even about if he has slightly patriotic tendencies and isn’t sure if he is for or against the monarchy?
Patriotism has nothing to do with the monarchy though. You can love the country yet be a republican
@@KurtGodel-po3zl That doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to do with patriotism.
You can love the country yet dislike the national anthem.
You can love the country yet dislike the flag.
Some countries dont even have monarchies and their population can still love it.
What does any of that prove? Nothing. The monarchy has a lot to do with patriotism.
Showing University College Durham's great hall though, not any of the Oxford Colleges' 😂
Don't pretend you're not a conservative, when you're studying at Oxford. 😂
not everyone buys their way into Oxford 😭😭
So you’re saying only conservatives are smart enough to get into Oxford? That certainly doesn’t seem correct
@@OliversOxford really not beating the conservative accusations by acting in the most classic conservative fashion and purposely misinterpreting what they said 😂😂
@@OliversOxford erm, no. I'd never say that. No one I know who is working class or vote Labour would go to Oxford. Never, ever. My cousin was offered a place and turned it down. The whole institution is conservative, and by being there you're upholding that pomp and ceremony. You don't need to go to Oxford for a decent education. Nor do you need to be smart to get in - you just need daddy's money 😉
@@ambivvvvvvvvvalenceyou hit the nail on the head
Bruh we don’t pay for the monarchy that meme is completely irrelevant 😂
But we do indirectly, financially and morally.
@@HonorisCausa1 the only thing that we pay from the public purse for the monarchy is from the security that the Met Police provides them the sovereign grants I funded by the crown estate which 85% is actually given back to the treasury earning the country money and what does morally mean? What would you rather have the the conservatives consolidate power like in France and allow our leader to circumvent parliament? Like macron did? That moral? 😂😂😂 what a joke you have no idea what you talking about do you?
@@HonorisCausa1 The money required to actually run a working monarchy is minuscule, seeing as the vast majority of that money goes towards things that would have to be paid for regardless (Castle and palace maintenance, state visits, hosting foreign officials, security etc). If you abolished the monarchy, you would still need to pay for repairs and upkeep of royal residences (millions upon millions every year); still pay for the protection and upkeep of millions of Royal possessions (from the Crown Jewels to priceless art); still pay for all the staff that work to keep these residences and wider estates running; still pay for state visits; still pay for foreign visits (and everything else associated with a head of state); still pay for security of the new Head of State and also continue paying for the security of the King as well (he would absolutely be entitled to it). You would save nothing, and would instead lose a great deal; not only financially speaking (for starters, just look how expensive the presidents in countries like France and the US are by comparison - money certainly *not* well spent for either one of those), but also culturally (for example, preserving your monarchy has enabled you to hold on to so many of your rich traditions, customs, historic events, celebrations etc, much of which date back over 1,000 years - something that is very rare and special in the modern world), morally (do you not realize the immense number of charities and good causes that the working members of the Royal Family support/ have started - you would be damaging every single one of them by abolishing the monarchy), and in terms of public perception (just to put this into perspective, Royal events are some of the most watched events in world history - hundreds of millions/ billions tune in to watch these events, and are fascinated with the history, traditions, beauty and true old world elegance that cannot be found anywhere else. You would seriously replace all of that for just another president…?)
Barf
Youd think someone at Oxford would know how to use the word "like" correctly in a sentence.
if you really wanna get into it, there's no real correct way to use the word "like" as it just depends on usage
@Knightway1 I really want to get into it. The incorrect use of the word "like" as a vocal disinfluent in a sentence is highly irritating. When used as a simile, it is perfectly fine. If the sentence stands without it it is completely unacceptable. And shows a tendency for laziness in speech. And foe a student at Oxford it is disappointing.
@@aacmove "highly irritating". To you. It's not irritating to everyone. And it's certainly not something that needs outlawing lol.
@@fahrenheit2101 It should be outlawed for an Oxford Education!
@@aacmove To reinforce the already significant perception of a class difference? No thanks. People may talk how they wish, and their place of study shouldn't and needn't reflect it at all. Not to mention, it would be rather odd to expect, say, a Mathematics student to have pristine English simply as a by-product of studying in Oxford. Oxford's prestige is thanks to the quality of the education, sure, but that's not directly linked to the way one chooses to speak English at all. And to judge somebody for that seems almost petty. It's picking on the one thing you can to belittle somebody who's more than demonstrated their aptitude by getting in in the first place, and doubtless has tremendous skill in something or other.
It reads as "they may be Oxford students, but I'm superior in that I can... talk properly. Do better, Oxford, you guys should be Gods among mortal men"
I can understand expecting a high quality of speech from particular sorts of students that would strongly benefit from it, but your average student needn't be quite so eloquent on a day-to-day.
Find something more valid to pick on. A "tendency for laziness in speech" is more commonly referred to as not being a robot. You can be a genius and ill-spoken, and even morons could have a knack for talking fancy (generally earning themselves the title of "pretentious"). Most people are somewhere in between.
Huh, that was longer that it needed to be. Hopefully I adequately addressed your concerns for the tragic situation in Oxford.
2 things:
1. Why is the guy talking about monarchy talking like an American?.. I've never understood why so many young people feel the need to talk as if they're American.
2. He says he feels conflicted about the monarchy because he sometimes feels patriotic. Feeling patriotic literally has Nothing to do with supporting a monarchy. Patriotism exists in countries that don't have monarchies, i.e.: America.
Genuinely curious, how is he "talking like an American"?
Obviously your first point is weird, but the other guy covered that already.
As for the second thing, you have a flaw in your logic. Patriotism as a principle has absolutely nothing to do with supporting a monarchy. However, it absolutely can and does in countries WITH monarchies, like the UK. The monarchy and the royal family is part of the British Imperium and glory. He says he likes the picture of it and how it represents and represented England, but not the rational politics of it. Simply comparing a democracy with a monarchy and saying "theres patriotism in both" doesn't prove there can't be correlation, that's ludicrous.
In the US and Iran the religion is part of the patriotism, in Germany it isnt.
In the US the bald eagle is part of the patriotism, Switzerland doesn't even have a permanent national animal.
Way to relativize!
@@superbrain7852I understand your points, and I agree with some of them, like patriotism Can often be very tied up with monarchy etc., but, I still think that patriotism can exist separately from monarchy, e.g.: even in the UK, both now and historically, I would say that the Vast majority of the UK population would say they feel patriotic about their country, but, that patriotism is completely divorced from monarchy. People don't like Harry & Meghan, or Andrew, etc., and they don't agree with the racist, colonial institution of the monarchy, nor would they champion things like the privileges we all enjoy thanks to colonialism/monarchy, but, they are proud of their country, but it's of the People of their country, from all faiths and backgrounds etc. So, if someone asked me if I was patriotic, I would say Yes, but, not because of the monarchy, or current government, but because of People. But you make some good points 👍
@@NiceButBites I'd agree with that. Essentially you could say Monarchy has something to do with patriotism, but not principly the other way around.
“talking like and American.” How? This country is so obsessed with America, it’s gotten embarrassing bringing them up when they are not relevant to the conversation. Speaking colloquial English is an American trait now? Or is it his conflicting thoughts in monarchies?
That chick fiiinnee
looks crazy
Probably identifys as pokemon
You're down horrendous, she didn't even speak.
She's mid at best and, what's more, not even White.