You know castles make much better tourist attractions when nobody lives there. Much better to charge for tours than to make people stand at the gate for free.
Right after Elizabeth's death, another UA-cam creator, normally a very rational person, made a video describing both Elizabeth and Charles essentially as saints, and pledged his undying fealty to the new king. Never mind that this was from a young guy from Ohio who is not a subject of the crown. For some people, monarchism is virtually a religion. Very strange.
isn't the brutish crown a key part of a religion, as far as i understand it the monarch is the pope equivalent for the anglican church. So by that token it quite literally is a religious matter, not that it makes it any better mind.
@@brianfox771 I'd go with theocratic monarchy, both because the monarchy predates the theocracy and because it highlights the hereditary nature of both offices of power.
Some Americans are enamoured of the British monarchy, which makes no sense to me. One US channel creator admitted she cried on hearing of the death of the queen, and went on and on about how lovely and good she was. (While wearing a Union Flag tee shirt) It was embarrassing
There are a good amount of castles in Ireland, and last I checked, they've been a republic for 103 years. I don't think lack of a monarchy is going to make a dent in the "Castle Tourism" industry.
Also, Germany. We have an overabundance of castles (mostly not built by royals but somewhat lower nobility). (As an aside, our president looks, on paper, much like the political job of the British monarch - except he's elected (still waiting for the first woman on that job) for a maximum of 2*5 years, and not usually a billionaire (I believe at most 0% of them were), and when he (rarely) refuses to sign a law, that tends to be a very public thing, and the reason cited is usually a suspicion of unconstitutionality, which tends to be correct because he has a heap of lawyers to look at those laws for him. But otherwise, he's almost the same.)
We have so many castles that there are lots of castles that no one even bothers building or maintaining a road to them because no one cares and no one visits them. We have lots of Queens, but the castles don't have central heating and would cost more to do up than to buy a new home
@@KaiHenningsen basicly same in Czechia. Not much suprise in medieval period we were politický close to kingdoms in modern Germany in Holy Roman Empire.
Populace: Maybe being the child of someone shouldn't be the deciding factor in who leads us? Rich people in general: whoa! Let's not get too crazy there!
Maybe being best at lying, schmoozing, making backroom deals, throwing people under the bus, and talking shit about their opponents shouldn't be the deciding factor in who leads us?
If people unironically simping for a monarch who was metaphorically sitting on a throne of skulls and plunder isn't enough to drain you of your faith in the reasonability of said humans, idk what can.
When part of the ruling noble class there's no incentive to question the core concept of nobility: 'some people are born superior'. Nobility gives power, influence, fame, money - why would they want to renounce their titles to become 'commons' or 'non-noble' citizens? As for the "simping" you mentioned, it is encouraged by media that are financed by those in power and a system rewarding conformist behaviour. These days e.g. the BBC broadcasts mainly glorification and praise - they're reporting about their bosses after all. Currently in London: largest PR event in human history.
As a British person, I'm anti monarchy just on principal because I have both a functioning brain and the ability to empathize. But honestly I had not heard a thing about this at all. I'm really shocked that it hasn't been mocked to hell and back here but I've genuinely never heard it discussed. Thank you for making this video and informing people about this. I've already sent it to some family so more people can know about this
@@mrrpggamer2 I rather clearly I think ment all the stuff about Charles rather than the fact that she was dead and was a coloniser. I knew that shit obviously. Literally every billboard in my country is covered with the old hags face.
Mrs Winsor signed the death sentences of Jamaican prisoners who were subsequently hanged. The last hanging in Jamaica was in 1988 but afaik there are still prisoners on death row. (The last execution in the UK was in 1964) No using her royal privilege to show clemency and save lives. When I see all these glowing tributes about what a wonderful lady she was, I beg to differ.
@@woobiefuntime this assumes a guilty conviction is correct 100% of the time (the state has executed many an innocent man), that execution is the best course of action (arguably isn't, especially if you subscribe to restorative or remedial justice over punitive justice), and that allowing the state to have the ability to kill someone at any point is a fine idea (which I would argue is very far from fine, no sir, I do not think the government should be allowed to kill people). I don't know if I can change your mind about these things but there has to be a better way, right?
It is hard to live in the UK and be in favour of removing the monarchy at the moment. But there are small numbers of us who know what has been going on and are alarmed by the threat to democracy and science that this man represents. Thanks for putting these threats into a video that I can share.
I've heard people say, prior to the queen passing, that they thought it would be easier to make the case against the monarchy once the figure head wasn't a little old grandma with a fleet of corgis. I don't know that I believe it but I am curious to see if more people will start to turn on the royals now that their king is the guy who cheated on princess Diana and everything that's happened with Megan Markle.
“At the moment” basically meaning any time during their birthdays, weddings, pregnancies, births, school graduations, illnesses, anniversaries; basically any of life’s milestones that happen numerous times a year. It was always, “We need to discuss abolishing the monarchy” “- but wait, one of the Queen’s Corgis had puppies! Awwww… you anti-royalist scum! And during the same month anniversary of the Queen Mother’s passing!”
I think there's decent percentage of us republicans in the UK and this will become more apparent once she's in the ground and there'll be somewhat more coverage of dissent around Charles's coronation. I think the Queen's death represents a chance to make the country more democratic as constitutional issues get more of an airing. Ditching the monarchy might still be a way off but I think the chances of Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK have improved which in turn gives an opportunity for Wales and the regions of England to take more power under a better system than first past the post. I guess I'm an optimist!
That man is a godsend. He's going to find out how many of the British people just acquiesced to having monarchs and how much of the support was predicated on the Queen keeping her mouth shut and being able to say "I was a mechanic in the war." He is the beginning of the end of the monarchy.
Do not count your chickens before they hatch. I am not ruling out Charles III using homeopaths, osteopaths, acupuncturists, and chiropractors as a power base to create a brutal theocratic dictatorship. I know that that is very unlikely. But it could happen.
I agree, may have been better to put William and Kate on the throne right away. Charles should have abdicated like Edward when he married Mrs. Simpson.
Yea but I’m sure that’s true everywhere and I assume you’re talking about the sun etc , but there are people in the uk who think the guardian is gospel and Americans who think the same about the New York Times
As someone who thinks we should ditch the monarchy and become a republic I'm partly hoping Charles does interfere politically on issues like environmentalism. He has said stuff in the past about eating less animal products to protect the environment and I think it would be hilarious if stuff like that made right wingers here turn on the monarchy.
For sure. Without the monarchy, England would still have tourism from the same sources as Italy and France, ie historical sites and amazing architecture.
Well, they kind of are, but not for current ones. Most of the famous architecture in both countries came about during periods of monarchical rule, and that drives a lot of tourism.
@@marklewen9384 The comment was quite ambiguous, they might be advising to read some history in order to avoid repeating it. Charles II died of natural causes, though his last years were marred by a massive political debate over the Exclusion Bill, which sought to exclude the Duke of York from the line of succession. Charles III could well be advised to exclude the Duke of York from being the Duke of York, let alone succeeding.
Myself and many others are struggling to actually figure out what it is the Queen has DONE. Oh she's the patron of a lot of charities. But presumably they would exist without her. Humanity doesn't want for charitable organizations only for a system that no longer requires them.
THey are mascots with feudal and colonial cosplay elements.They look like they do something, without doing anything. Stops the Prime Minister from getting too ambitious as there is someone theoretically/symbolically above them. A bill does not become a law unless the Queen signs it (Royal Ascent). As a mascot, they would never not sign a bill when it gets to them.
It’s wild to me that defenders of the queen will argue til they’re blue in the face that she had no power. Only influence. They seem to miss the level of influence happens to denote a pretty decent amount of actual…uh, power.
All billionaires have power. Also Princess Diana a mere famous lady refutes any claim that a Queen couldnt do anything. She did a lot with a fraction of Elizs influence. The royals were also friends with Jimmy Saville... Talk about influence.
She has power, official power, but a "tradition of neutrality" stopped her from wielding it. Tradition, not Law. So the only person who stopped our Queen using her power was herself.
By all means please show us all the tools for power the monarch has? You do know the two houses can remove a monarch from their seat right? There are means to do that within government. At best if the sitting government breaks parliamentary law the monarch can dissolve government which triggers a new election and that the speaker of the house takes temporary power. So by all means tell us what the monarch can do? Sure they could sway a few MP's if they present a good enough argument but it's a risk as it can create a movement to have them removed from the thrown.
@@gapsule2326 Saville was a very popular person, I am sure many figured what he was all about but without proof or a court case not many will come out against someone. Also what did you expect the monarch to do?
Ok, so I'm from Barbados and I have to say... the British Monarchy gets entirely too much credit for all the Brit empire's atrocities. They as a FULL political system are fully culpable for all that shit.
Ah, somebody not jumping on the lazy thinking bandwagon - a relief! Thank you, Xi. And yes, there is a LOT OF SHIT that the House of Commons and the House of Lords have to answer for.
Exactly. There's a lot of facts in this video but at the end of the day the atrocities committed by the british government should be laid at the feet of the elected government. Elizabeth's reign was long and she could only come up with a few examples of times the crown influenced actual policy. It's not as though it was Elizabeth's decision to retake the Falklands. Thatcher did that. The house of windsor is essentially the world's most expensive and showy living museum. The crown being the ceremonial head of state is deeply entrenched into our constitutions. As a Canadian I'd be in favour of getting rid of the crown, but I also know that anytime you try to tinker with the constitution it's political suicide because of how diverse we are, you'll never get 3 people to agree on anything. I don't know much about Barbados but I'm guessing it's easier to find consensus because of how much smaller you are geographically. People from Saskatchewan don't feel much kinship with people from Vancouver and vice versa. In the early 90's the conservatives tried to pass the meech lake accord, which basically among other things was going state that quebec was a distinct society. We couldn't even get people to agree that quebec, a place where they speak a different language is different. As a result the tories suffered a historic loss, going from 156 seats to 2 seats. There were other reasons for that, but meech lake is an important reason why the progressive conservative party is relegated to the dust bin of Canadian History.
I've seen government and office buildings around my home in Indiana flying their US flags at half-mast in mourning for the Queen, and it absolutely boggles my mind that the first nation to democratically (-ish) cast off the yoke of the British monarchy would fly its flag at half mast in mourning for a descendant of the monarch our ancestors rebelled against.
America hasn't exactly been innocent of taking over places against the will of the occupants. We took our part of the continent from Native Americans, Hawaii was taken against their will as well, and we deny full rights but keep full control of Puerto Rico (+ all the military actions). It's not surprising in some ways. Lots of people weirdly get into the spectacle of the Royals and don't really connect their wealth to crappy historical barbarites.
It's a sign of respect for a deceased leader. Countries do the same when other respected heads of state pass away. Whether you support monarchy or not, being respectful in a time of mourning is universal.
Shortly after the Iraq War opener, say 2005, I went to see Doug Stanhope on the british leg of his tour. He opened with a ramble about Dubya and how maybe he should work an apology into his set for this easily lampooned president. Then he pointed out our monarchy and said he wasn't apologising to a bunch of people with a state comparable to a game of dungeons & dragons.
The Queen also had a strict 50-year embargo placed on files relating to the controversial sacking of Australian PM Gough Whitlam that were revealed recently (The Palace Letters). Both she and Charles (especially the latter) were in frequent communication with then Governor General John Kerr about removing Whitlam from office, even before the Constitutional Crisis occurred. Many Australians (myself included) are still outraged to this day.
Have you listened to the ABC podcast "The Eleventh"? It was produced shortly before the Palace Letters were released, but it's an _excellent_ overview of everything that went on leading up to the Dismissal.
Clowns and mimes are trained and require lots of training and physical prowess. Please take a look at the requirements for mimes and clowns at the various schools for it. The king is not a clown, however, if the crown still has a jester on payroll the jester is.
The tourism argument has always been SO spurious. None of us gets to have tea with the royals. And many of the castles are owned by the National Trust, and would be available to visit regardless. And even many privately owned castles allow tourists, because it's a way for the owners to make revenue.
Here's the thing. With the current system in place, the British State in that of itself is a shareholder of those estates alongside the royal family, so a big chunk of that tourism money also goes into the coffers of the State. Should you abolish the monarchy, then all that reverts back to the Windsor household, meaning the British Gov now has less tax revenue. There is the incentive both for the Royal Family and the British Government to keep things going the same as it is, and in the case that the UK wants to abolish the monarchy, the gov takes a bigger L than the Windsors.
@@孫慧娟-u9c There is no good reason to have any of it revert to the Windsor household. They don't have any legitimate property rights to any of it. They never homesteaded a thing, only seized them by force.
@@magister343 >They don'y have legitimate property rights to any of it Except under the current UK law/contract they do. Which then again circles back to what I explained. Unless you are saying that the government should immediately expropriate their property, which would then open up an insane can of legal worms and precedents regarding property ownership in the country. This isn't me defending the Royal Family, but simply explaining how these things are and have been set up
Yeah, Charles will absolutely 100% carry on lobbying the government for all his pet moonbattery as king. I'm kinda looking forward to it, as his blatant lack of subtlety will make it easier to make a case for abolishing the whole royal clown show. Surprised Rebecca didn't mention the fact he advocated playing music to plants at one point. At least he's not a climate change denier, I suppose.
My understanding is that his positions on the environment are basically Malthusian, believing that the main thing we need to do to stop climate change is to prevent people in poor countries from reproducing or having a chance at a decent life.
The difference is that now he has the power to dissolve the Parliament if he wants to and he'll have the Armed Forces and Police to back him up since their oath of loyalty is to the monarchy and its preservation. There was a play (later adapted into a TV movie) premised on this very thing released back in 2017. Whether he actually does this is a different matter and in all likelihood he won't. However, the fact that he can do this at all should give everyone pause.
That's really not a wacky idea. There has been many, many replicated studies on the effects that different genres of music have on the rates of plant growth.
I've been saying for a long time that the UK was on its last monarch. Obviously, technically, this isn't the case, since her son Charles took the title, Third of his name, immediately on her death. ("The queen is dead, long live the king.") But it seems to me that the institution's longevity has been directly tied to hers, personally, and now that she's gone, I see the whole thing coming unraveled in fairly short order. To rephrase my old prediction: This king will follow in the footsteps of the First of his name in presiding over the end of the monarchy, with two differences: this time, it'll stick; and this time, he'll keep his head.
Hey, just an fyi to anyone reading this, no it’s not “nearly impossible for Canada to not be a monarchy,” in fact it almost well near happened once. That event lead to the complete stripping of Royal power in Canada, because the option to the crown was either stay the fuck out of our politics or we become a republic. This event also shook the other commonwealth nations and many of them too used it as an impetus to strip their royal agents of their power. While technically the monarch can overturn any decision the government makes Canada has made it clear that such an action would only result in Canada becoming a republic. The Royals position in Canadian politics is purely ceremonial, they have ZERO power over Canadian governance. In fact. Americans seem to care more about the royals than Canadians do.
Traditionally the governor general, appointed by our PM is someone who is highly educated in the Canadian constitution so that when they are asked to do something like prorogue parliament they can make an educated decision as to whether or not to do so. Some like David Johnston fit that description but was probably a little to loyalist to the PM that appointed them. Others like Julie Payette who as an astronaut had a strong background in science but little to know background in politics, and more than that she created a toxic, abusive work environment. Payette easily was the worst appointment to that position. Honestly our ties to the monarch are ceremonial. The crown's representative in canada is the governor general, and that person is appointed by our prime minster. the govenor general appoints all the provincial lieutenant governors. About the only thing the crown has is a special entrance which nobody can use at the provincial legislature buildings.
The Britons should grow some resistance against monarchy. Now, if we took a few drops of Charles' blood, diluted it a gazillion times and then let every UK citizen ingest some of it, perhaps that would work...?
I know we should. But people are for reasons most inexplicable, the swallow the establishment BS. The persona of Mrs Winsor has been so polished by a complicit media that she's like a bloody saint to the public. My theory is that there is a parasocial relationship going on in the heads of the public, resulting in mass psychosis. People are being arrested under new rules that allow the police to use their own judgement regarding civil disorder because they dare voice their displeasure at an anachronistic and undemocratic institution. This includes at least one arrest of a woman holding a blank piece of cardboard. Chaz Winsor is not as popular though, so hopefully things will change. But then their royal darlings Billy and Kate can do no wrong. 🙄🙄 The UK is a shit show atm and don't see it changing any time soon ps People would flock to drink royal piss if they could, undiluted! lol
Actually ... I believe it has been established that every Brit who isn't a recent immigrant has a very high chance of being related to British monarchs a few centuries ago, such as the one whose grave was somewhat recently discovered. So, Britain has *_a lot_* of homeopathic royalty. Maybe something to ponder.
This is mostly a good video, but I'm disappointed that you couldn't resist going after Charles for the tampon comment. I'm no fan of the guy, but I don't give a fuck what two consenting adults talk about in private to get themselves off. It was 100% unethical for the tabloids to publish this private intimate conversation in the first place, and you are perpetuating that violation by repeating it. Just because it happened to two people you don't like, that doesn't mean it's okay. And shaming him for having a weird kink (assuming he wasn't simply joking) shames everyone who has weird kinks.
As an Australian who has never understood the appeal of the Monarchy (save for Diana and that’s only because of her advocacy for AIDS/HIV awareness), I just want to say that I appreciate this video being blunt yet honest about the shady political practices the British monarchy has undertaken.
"The royal family is good for tourism" well France has a stronger tourism industry, so maybe the brits should model the way they treat their royal family after the way the french treated theirs
Just as a bit of reassurance from Canada: Royal Assent exists here too, but it is just meaningless ceremony. It hasn't been denied in centuries, and would be *_revoked instantly_* if it ever interfered with the operation of our government at this point. Given that a lot of people in the Governor General's office and such would have a good chance of losing their jobs if that happened, I'd imagine that they'd probably just ignore Chuckles the Third if he tried to deny one of our bills because it doesn't acknowledge homeopathy or such. "King Charles? Never heard of you. Anyhow, we're busy Assenting to these bills, so please come back later."
I imagine someone asking me to connect: commemorative plates, a sub-continent war, not one but two Caribbean islands and a tampon, in a coherent way all within 15 minutes. I would say, "It can't be done" and yet you have provided the proof it can be. Nice job, informative and entertaining
3:17 I wonder if you mean ‘de jure leader’, since she has never given nor had the authority to give any orders… Doesn’t mean her silence and inaction wasn’t a tacit endorsement, but purely for precision.
Monarchy may be outdated form of government, but I am an American. Between the Senate, Electoral College, and lifetime appointment ti Supreme Court...I am not in a position to criticize British monarchy.
Actually, you ARE in a position to criticize it so long as you're educated on the topic. Everyone should, just as everyone should criticize the senate, SCOTUS, and electoral college. International criticism is an important tool to enact change.
When I lived in the UK, my GP's office was across the street from the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital (BHH). We had a friend (who is a medical doctor in the US) visit and her reaction was "WTF?!?" When she explained the "logic" behind homeopathy, I was completely dumbfounded. Homeopathy has had a really solid hold in the UK. At least the BHH stopped homeopathic services in 2015 due to the uproar about the NHS funding homeopathic treatments.
I still live in a "Commonwealth" country and I am all for breaking away and saying to hell with the monarchy and the UK as a whole. "New Zealand has no king. New Zealand needs no king."
"Homeopathy has had a really solid hold in the UK." Not for a century or more. When all the country's thousands of hospitals became part of the NHS in 1948, only five were labelled Homeopathic and all those had been founded in the early or mid 19th century. Most by then weren't dependent upon homeopathy anyway, but just functioned as do normal hospitals. The last of the homeopathic-style departments was closed in 2015; they weren't exactly busy by then, given that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence was set up in 1999 to ensure evidentiary standards of care. The homeopathy-espousing departments had long since morphed into Orwellian-named centres for complementary or integrative medicine anyway. To borrow a famous quote, they wanted to integrate their ridiculous bullshit with actual medicine's tasty apple pie. Side note: About 25 years ago I found myself, somewhat drunk and in need of relief, alongside London's Homeopathic Hospital in Bloomsbury. I pissed up against their back wall in an alleyway, confident that my mark of disdain would -- according to homeopathic principles -- be strengthened a thousandfold every time it subsequently rained.
My uni is across church of Christian science. I had no idea what that was I thought it was "how current science fits with bible" but its like "Jesus is a cure for everything"
As someone with chronic pain and issues generating muscle correctly etc, I've had to pay a lot for osteopathy in the past. If only this clown didn't bolt on homeopathy etc.
Yeah, I didn’t like the fact that she included osteopathy in that list. She obviously doesn’t realize that ODs go to a four year school the same as MDs. They learn the same things as MDs. They just learn a more holistic approach. Dr. Mike here on UA-cam is an OD, not an MD. He does an excellent Q&A-type video on what exactly is an osteopath. As for acupuncture, no, it won’t cure cancer, but I’ve known people who have issues with chronic lower back pain or arthritis in the hands who have said that acupuncture has helped them immensely.
@@GrumpyOldFart2 ODs are the equivalent of MDs in the US, but this isn't necessarily true in other countries, including the UK. While some licensed osteopaths in the UK may have a medical degree, not all do. I'm sure Dr Mike is a reasonable doctor who practices medicine correctly but osteopaths are famous for falsely claiming they can cure the flu just by wringing the neck and are statistically more likely to integrate woo-medicine like homeopathy and magnetic therapy in their treatments. OMT itself is a fraud and pseudoscience, while it may provide some temporary relief for back pain, it cannot treat any conditions as evidenced by a 2018 systemic review (Guillard et al.) The better DOs don't use any OMT in their treatment process besides some massages favored by physical therapists. Acupuncture relies on the placebo effect (Yong-Chen et al. 2014), as proven because you can use fake needles and get the same pain relief as long as the person believes they are receiving real acupuncture. Even randomly inserting needles works just as well.
@@GrumpyOldFart2 well in my Latin America country the people who perform homeopathy are normally doctors, homeopathy is a form of specialisation, so saying is recognised by a government and people go to school for x years don't mean a lot on its validity as a science, you can literally get homeopathy treatment for free by a doctor in my nationalised health care system.
There's this old interview where Charles talks about clouds and their individual personalities and its BONKERS. You used to be able to find it on UA-cam but I haven't been able to find it recently. Hes cracked.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" Maybe King Charles is deeper than he looks to you, and to Rebecca. He studied anthropology, and has met many people in his life.
For anyone who wants to dig deeper, there is a documentary called "The Man Who Should Not be King". We need to start mirroring it now, if it hasn't already been scrubbed from the Internet.
As a Yank I get down on my knees some days and thank GOD for Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin, and George Washington. Hey, don't look at me like that-one benefit of voting yourself off the island is the choice between ignoring it or embracing it, especially on heavier matters. (Shaking my maracas, doing the conga) Don't have to worry about prosecuting an HRH in court, the Orangutan in Chief has the walls closing in....Don't have to change the face on the moolah...Don't have to care about any colonial actions of the Empire after 1784....Ponder buying Pontefrqct to do a full blown restoration if the whole thing goes teats up, since the queen only cared about dogs and horses as hobbies....
I say we take a drop of Charles III's blood and mix it in a glass of water, then take a drop of that water and mix it in a swimming pool, then take a drop from that swimming pool and mix it into the ocean. Then take a drop of that ocean water and crown it king instead.
If the final drop came from the sea around Britain's coast it would likely contain a fair percentage of faecal matter. Which given that the alternative is a shit-for-brains pompous ass, seems kind of fitting.
The plus side to Charles being reincarnated as a tampon is that he would only be in place for a short period of time and then hopefully immediately disposed of rather unceremoniously.
So that's why people in the UK were crying when they learned about Queen Elizabeth's death. It wasn't necessarily her death that made them sad. It was the possibility of Prince Charles becoming King Charles that terrified them.
Actually it was out of a sense of loss for a monarch who, like everyone, had her flaws, but was nevertheless much lived and respected in the UK. The queue to file past her coffin, currently as I type, 6 miles long, testifies to that.
@@timl1481 Dude. I was joking. Not everyone in the UK is pro-monarchy though. [6 miles long? That has got to be the longest line I have ever heard of (so far).]
I had no great opinion of Charles (and secretly hoped he would just abdicate in favor of William, who's already bald), but honestly I did not know he was this goofy.
When we (marginalised groups) spoke out there were white people to amplify our voices, but then conservatives started saying “ThIs IS WhAt The ToLErAnT lEft wants” “this is meant to be the tolerant left” and they were gaslighting the left for speaking (which they always do) glad I came across this video. From ya Zimbabwean bestie with family in South Africa 🇿🇼❤️🇿🇦
UK got half as much as France in 2019 yet made twice the amount of money from tourists than France. A lot of that was due to tourism linked to the Monarchy.
In Australia in 1975 the Governor-General, the Queen's proxy, was discussing with various conservative politicians, and Rupert Murdoch, how he could remove the democratically elected Labor Prime Minister. Convention dictates that the GG makes no moves other than with the PM's approval. The Queen was in the loop and, rather than insist to the GG that he follow the rules allowed the coup to take place. Labor out, Tories in, convention flouted.
There is recently exposed evidence that Chuck himself was involved, with correspondence from him encouraging and congratulating GG Kerr. May the reign of his royal absorbance be short.
My favorite is when people argue that the monarchy is fine because republics can also elect bad leaders. Or because capitalism is worse. As if becoming a royalist sycophant is a prerequisite for thinking Trump or Jeff Bezos are bad.
To be honest, I’m more worried about being able to eat, keeping a roof over my head and making sure I can pay for my medicine and kicking out the Tories, than worry about the Charles.
Yes. The thing is that Charles has real life skills that are not reported in the gossip mags and rags. He knows where food comes from, he works with his hands, so here in the real world he has understanding. I watched him march behind his mother's coffin (which would be when Rebecca was preparing this video), and wondered what anti-monarchy sniping was likely. Rather inhumane of them to launch into him whilst he was mourning his mother. As to influence, wouldn't it be comforting to know he would have private words of advice for Cruella de Truss and her claque?
2:18 I didn't know we actually had still living Hilters around. Okay, that's my new view of them. Before I saw them as an expensive but harmless doll house.
Right, next time I'm booze shopping, I'm buying a bottle of good Irish whiskey, putting a 'Chuckie's in the box!' sticker on it, to make that eventuality particularly festive.
Great video, especially the points about his Woo medicine beliefs and lobbying. Chris Hedges' recent essay "Monarchs Belong in the Dustbin of History" is worth a listen/read too
Thanks a lot for this one. Even The Guardian has been pumping the message that Charles used to be considered a kook, bit now that he's king we all realize that he was right all along (or some variation thereof).
The only "good" reason I've heard for Canada keeping the monarch is all the original treaties with the Indigenous Peoples are with the monarchy not the Canadian government.
I think it's important to recognise that it's not the institution of the monarchy that caused colonialism, and that the monarchy itself would be wrong even in the absence of colonialism (it is a hereditary system of wealth and power, fundamentally anti democratic). The fact that that wealth and power is built on blood is not unique to monarchies, but just makes it all the worse in this case.
I would argue that elected governance in the UK has been the driving force behind colonialism for the past 150 years. The United States has an elected head-of-state and is the biggest colonial power around.
The Algorithm suggested this. At first, was really pissed off with your heading. Remembered to hear people out, so clicked. Your tone near immediately put me off side BECAUSE it's the same way an abusive parent of mine speaks SO I remembered that I don't know you at all and that issue is mine and I am a work in progress. So paid attention to your word choice and sources. Your argument is 100% valid. I was unaware of the political lobbying, nor aware of the 'healthcare' interests of KCiii. Seriously, the best complimentary healthcare to add to the NHS, or any public universal healthcare, would be therapeutic and remedial massage. It has research to back that up. And Yoga, which also has recent findings on how muscle facia is linked to brain health and by extension function. I agree that The Crown should also pay taxes, like any Public Servant receiving income from public monies. You also kept your argument focused on KCiii as an individual, and QEii as an individual, and tangible occurrences and didn't go into the spectacles that have been the death of Princess Diana and the alleged criminal actions of Prince Andrew. Conclusion: I have issues and I really appreciate the argument you made. Thanks 🙂
Let's no forget that in 1975 the Queen didn't use her veto powers to stop the queens representative in Australia sack a legally elected Labor government because the Liberal (conservative) party blocked supply and used the crown to sack and replace the legally elected government. All because they didn't like the introduction of a spate of social welfare policies, and the then prime minister Gough whittlam handing back land to the first nations people, in the first act of land rights. She did this or atleast didn't intervien to stop it, how's that for not being political.
I’m a huge fan of Republican form of government. Not the political party, the system itself. So constitutional monarchies hold no allure for me. But, I will say that for being a monarch, Elizabeth was far better than most present and former royalty. That doesn’t excuse the system or the people who benefited from it. I’m giving an honest opinion.
As a UK citizen, I want to make a couple of thing clear we haven't been ruled by the crown since the Bill of Rights in 1689. Parliament is the body which rules. The Crowns perogative isn't even weilded by the Crown that power is vested in the current Prime Minister. The putting down of the Kenyan Insurgency was the responsibility of the Governmenmt at the time with no input from the crown. I'm a republican who would have no issue if Royals where shown the door, but I do object to their power being misrepresented. It's worth pointing out that up to 2017 homeopathy was available on the National Health Service and in fact up until then there was a NHS funded Homopathic hospital in London. Both of these has nothing to do with the Royals but the fact that homeopathy was an accepted treatment regime by the medical profession until surprisingly recently. Before we get around to sacking the Royals we need to do something about the far more insidious impacts on our governance coming from dark money funded think tanks and lobbying concerns, the donors who just buy their influence by donating to their party of choice to influence policies and the buyers of seats in the lords, like the recent enoblement of the son of a KGB spy by Boris.
Well said. It is difficult for people who have not either grown up in GB, or don't have a background in the academic study of history to understand the layers of democracy in the group of nations that make up Britain. The outgoing Prime Minister and the wing of the elected political party he represented has caused damage to the fabric of our democracy. It may be that the new King will play a role in repairing it. This is a strength of the unusual constitution and democracy that we have these days.
I’ve never understood the “Monarchs are good for tourism” argument when it comes to the British Royals. Versailles is one of the most popular tourist attractions in the europe, despite it being a hot minute (or century or two) since a royal has lived there. Are we really expected to believe people wouldn’t flock to the beauty that is Buckingham Palace if the royal family were suddenly kicked out and forced to just survive on their own humble estimated net worth of $28 billion? I say evict those freeloaders.
On the day they buried Queen Liz, we had a public holiday. (I was mildly pissed off because Monday is my day off anyway). I went out for a long bike ride round Tyneside. I'm sure lots of people were watching the funeral on the telly, there were about a dozen watching the preliminaries on the giant TV screen in Newcastle, but I saw lots of other people out on their bikes, walking their dogs, or playing with their kids. There was a distinct lack of grief, seriousness or even mild gloom.
The colonial system (and its successors) still exist. I find it very frustrating when a lot of 'white' people treat the monarchy as purely symbolic or as a symbol of evils of the past - when, in reality, colonial structures persist - and how we address them is critical to the survival of entire cultures. The concept of the Crown in Canada fulfils an important role in the constitution and constitutional law, as well as represents the actual entity that Indigenous peoples entered into treaty with (i.e. not just the government of the day). Concepts like the 'honour of the Crown' in Supreme Court decisions have played an important role in providing some protection to Indigenous peoples. It isn't as simple as abolishing the monarchy, as that would change little except reduce (rather than reform) those legal protections in the constitutional order that have been created around it. Ironically, abolition of the monarchy in Canada, could easily be one of the earliest phases of a genocidal act (e.g. repeal of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, abolition of treaties and reserves).
As a Brit living in Britain, I have a pretty good idea as to why a guillotine is a good idea \j. But in all seriousness...most Brits (especially Welsh, NI, and Scottish people) are not having a good time and are actively celebrating (I use that word LIGHTLY) her passing and what she ultimately stood for. On the same day as her passing the new Prime Minister (of the conservative party which is always great\s )elected with only 0.3% of the country behind her mind you) Liz Truss gave her plan on the cost of living crisis. She more or less said that she'd cap heating bills at £2500 a month which is still going to drive families to starve and freeze this winter. Tomorrow on the day of her funeral food banks, charities and doctors surgeries will be closed because of "respect". SO many life saving procedures are going to be rescheduled on top of the already ridiculous wait times of the much overburdened NHS. This includes stuff like chemotherapy. People are literally going to die over the multi million pound (at least) funeral that will be paid with taxpayers money. (she's getting a state funeral) This doesn't begin to cover next year's coronation that is projected to cost 6 billion pounds even though people are literally choosing between food and heating their homes because "there's not enough for them" and how people are being arrested for publicly displaying any disagreement with the monarchy. Strikes and protests have been cancelled again out of "respect" and the official government petitions page has been practically locked up through all of this (funny that? \s). My mum is a charity worker and my dad was in the military, both of them have seen the consequences of this but still chose to support her and the family. It makes me mad that they are part of the smaller group that genuinely like them and can't see beyond it. Those people spending days in queues to lay flowers or pay respects are being inflated by the media. Most condolences are given by corporations and not your everyday 'Joe Schmoe' and were being force fed her life story 24\7. There is seriously nothing else on for the most part. Honestly we can't say for certain how this will affect places globally but the news of her death will certainly cause some harm, with former colonies (such as Canada and Australia) being part of the Enforced month of morning for a start. (Enforced with a capital E for a reason) -TL;DR: Queen Liz's death and Charlie's coronation are going to doubly screw over real people, from a Brit, living in Britain, going to bed now.
Just commenting for the enGAgEmeNt But yes. This video, good. As for Clown Charles, I care not for the pontificating of a man who just inherited 500mil without paying any inheritance tax.
Technically, he'd be paying himself for the wealth transfer. After all, the tax is raised by HIS Majesty's Government, and the Treasury is the ROYAL Treasury. He just can't go down there and play Scrooge McDuck
A few minor corrections: Barbados made their governor-general into a president, a head-of-state, not a prime minister, a head-of-government. The president is elected to their position every 5 years by Parliament, and the position is entirely ceremonial. Canada is NOT "ruled" by the monarch. Canada is ruled by the elected House of Commons and elected legislatures of every province. I've long known that the monarch meddles in legislation in the UK, but that would never fly in Canada.
He really is the perfect example of why a hereditary monarchy is literally the worst idea ever. Occasionally you get someone like Elizabeth with a sense of duty and decorum, and that's great - even if they still oversee terrible things and don't stop them. And then you get some that are just a great big cockwomble like Charles, convinced of their superiority through no accomplishment of their own, by luck of their birth (hey, shout out to TERFs too!), and who have no desire to improve themselves, even for the benefit of others. And anyway, he shouldn't worry about nanotechnology. He should worry about rampant runaway self-replicating nanotechnology. THAT will be the insidious galaxy destroying grey goo. 😂
I am, myself an Australian anti-monarchist. The way I see it, it's absolutely nuts that our head of state is a foreign monarch on the opposite side of the world. Anyway... I hadn't heard about all the ways the Queen actually messed with the UK's democratic process, and here in Australia it is only alleged that she had a hand in the very undemocratic dismissal of Gough Whitlam's government in 1975... the reason being the royal letters to the Governor General are still sealed. It's pretty wild to me that so many people here still simp for that family when they cost us OUR money whenever their whims send them our way for a tour. I hope that Barbados won't be the last country to ditch the monarchy and that it won't be restricted to the Caribbean area. If the British want to keep their monarchy then it's no skin off my back, but they shouldn't feel entitled to have their monarch be the head of state of other countries... especially when those countries have a storied history of suffering at the hands of the regime the monarchy represents. Like here in Australia, most of our first settlers were convicts who committed some of the pettiest of crimes in a desperate attempt to feed their families and a lot were Irish at a time when the regime was trying to thin out the Irish population in Ireland... and then we have the First Nations people of this continent who have had one of the rawest deals of any colonized people... the most successful genocide in the world was the native population of Tasmania... seeing as how there are literally none of them left. As for the rest of the natives who still exist, that was very close to not being the case, as the government would steal children from their families for decades. And at the time eugenics was the trendy thing in academia, the natives were regarded as sub-human and a 'missing link', skulls and other bones of them would be shipped to the British Museum.
Suddenly here in the UK anti-monarchist protesters are being arrested or threatened with arrest. As an anti-monarchist myself I can attest that this is wholely new. I have no idea what's going on...
Barbados's successful rejection of its monarchy is not to be underestimated. Republicanism has far more traction in Carribean nations and the cold reception Will and Kate got there recently reverberates strongly around the commonwealth. Charles III is already 73 and he won't feel the same pressure not to abdicate that his mother did. William will be King sooner rather than later, and he'll have to consider growing old in a very different world.
As a clown I would not want to be associated with homeopathy. Please don't associate my people with them.
Clowns are entertaining and delightful. I am not sure why Charles was ever confused with them.
All homeopaths are Clowns
But not all Clowns are homeopaths?
I've friends that attended Clown College. The mad skillz you need to have just to get in amaze me. What they could do after graduation even more so.
Okay I've been harbinged of new age, age of top comment being a teaser.
Same issue with saying, "Trump is pond scum!" You could get sued for defamation -- by pond scum.
You know castles make much better tourist attractions when nobody lives there. Much better to charge for tours than to make people stand at the gate for free.
And you have more of the property available for tours…
Buckingham Palace would make an awesome museum.
Tours, weddings, movies...I'm sure the royal castles could earn enough money to pay for their own upkeep
@@mackereltabbie And if they can’t, why keep the money pits around?
There is a reason why the French former aristocratic properties make France way more money than the British market does.
Right after Elizabeth's death, another UA-cam creator, normally a very rational person, made a video describing both Elizabeth and Charles essentially as saints, and pledged his undying fealty to the new king. Never mind that this was from a young guy from Ohio who is not a subject of the crown. For some people, monarchism is virtually a religion. Very strange.
isn't the brutish crown a key part of a religion, as far as i understand it the monarch is the pope equivalent for the anglican church. So by that token it quite literally is a religious matter, not that it makes it any better mind.
@@willowarkan2263 Theoretically, they're just as much powerless on the church job as on the state job. God only knows/s what the reality was like.
@@willowarkan2263 Technically you can categorize it as a Theocracy since the crown is also head of the state religion.
@@brianfox771 I'd go with theocratic monarchy, both because the monarchy predates the theocracy and because it highlights the hereditary nature of both offices of power.
Some Americans are enamoured of the British monarchy, which makes no sense to me.
One US channel creator admitted she cried on hearing of the death of the queen, and went on and on about how lovely and good she was.
(While wearing a Union Flag tee shirt)
It was embarrassing
There are a good amount of castles in Ireland, and last I checked, they've been a republic for 103 years. I don't think lack of a monarchy is going to make a dent in the "Castle Tourism" industry.
Also, Germany. We have an overabundance of castles (mostly not built by royals but somewhat lower nobility). (As an aside, our president looks, on paper, much like the political job of the British monarch - except he's elected (still waiting for the first woman on that job) for a maximum of 2*5 years, and not usually a billionaire (I believe at most 0% of them were), and when he (rarely) refuses to sign a law, that tends to be a very public thing, and the reason cited is usually a suspicion of unconstitutionality, which tends to be correct because he has a heap of lawyers to look at those laws for him. But otherwise, he's almost the same.)
We have so many castles that there are lots of
castles that no one even bothers building or maintaining a road to them because no one cares and no one visits them. We have lots of Queens, but the castles don't have central heating and would cost more to do up than to buy a new home
@@KaiHenningsen basicly same in Czechia. Not much suprise in medieval period we were politický close to kingdoms in modern Germany in Holy Roman Empire.
Yeah same in France we beheaded Louis XVI but we still have Versailles lol
Ireland didn't become a republic until 1937
Populace: Maybe being the child of someone shouldn't be the deciding factor in who leads us?
Rich people in general: whoa! Let's not get too crazy there!
The political class lives being knighted too much for the commonwealth countries to ever go Republican
Especially one who can't even put his own toothpaste on the toothbrush...
Leads? Swanning around while being spoilt rotten and lacking for nothing is "leading"? Yeah, right.
Maybe being best at lying, schmoozing, making backroom deals, throwing people under the bus, and talking shit about their opponents shouldn't be the deciding factor in who leads us?
@@bayousbambino427 Are you talking about Boris? Trump? Putin? That German guy? Hey - YOU CHOSE all of the above - a fact Rebecca conveniently forgets.
Charles III is my hero. He's proof that if you wait long enough, you could spend your life doing practically nothing and eventually become king.
Dream void where not permissible by absence of birthright.
If people unironically simping for a monarch who was metaphorically sitting on a throne of skulls and plunder isn't enough to drain you of your faith in the reasonability of said humans, idk what can.
When part of the ruling noble class there's no incentive to question the core concept of nobility: 'some people are born superior'. Nobility gives power, influence, fame, money - why would they want to renounce their titles to become 'commons' or 'non-noble' citizens?
As for the "simping" you mentioned, it is encouraged by media that are financed by those in power and a system rewarding conformist behaviour. These days e.g. the BBC broadcasts mainly glorification and praise - they're reporting about their bosses after all.
Currently in London: largest PR event in human history.
I've yet to talk to someone in real life who is as sycophantic as the media would have us believe the British public are.
🤣So nice of you to let us know about your deep belief in fiction as truth.
Mate it’s true
As a British person, I'm anti monarchy just on principal because I have both a functioning brain and the ability to empathize. But honestly I had not heard a thing about this at all. I'm really shocked that it hasn't been mocked to hell and back here but I've genuinely never heard it discussed. Thank you for making this video and informing people about this. I've already sent it to some family so more people can know about this
Dude people memed the shit of her death
@@mrrpggamer2 I rather clearly I think ment all the stuff about Charles rather than the fact that she was dead and was a coloniser. I knew that shit obviously. Literally every billboard in my country is covered with the old hags face.
@@mrrpggamer2 yeah we did. *chokes up*
60% of the British approve of the monarchy
Surprised The Guardian doesn’t cover this topic.
Mrs Winsor signed the death sentences of Jamaican prisoners who were subsequently hanged.
The last hanging in Jamaica was in 1988 but afaik there are still prisoners on death row.
(The last execution in the UK was in 1964)
No using her royal privilege to show clemency and save lives.
When I see all these glowing tributes about what a wonderful lady she was, I beg to differ.
I'm sure she was wonderful to the white people who bowed to her. Well, most of them. Who never actually met her.
Hang on a sec, which case was this? So far as I know the Privy Council commute all death sentences if it comes before them on appeal.
@@woobiefuntime You need to learn about the case of Stefan Kiszko: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
@@woobiefuntime this assumes a guilty conviction is correct 100% of the time (the state has executed many an innocent man), that execution is the best course of action (arguably isn't, especially if you subscribe to restorative or remedial justice over punitive justice), and that allowing the state to have the ability to kill someone at any point is a fine idea (which I would argue is very far from fine, no sir, I do not think the government should be allowed to kill people).
I don't know if I can change your mind about these things but there has to be a better way, right?
@@ragnarockerbunny Justice should be all of that. Mercy and occasionally vengeful. I think that the death penalty should be used sparingly if at all
It is hard to live in the UK and be in favour of removing the monarchy at the moment. But there are small numbers of us who know what has been going on and are alarmed by the threat to democracy and science that this man represents. Thanks for putting these threats into a video that I can share.
I've heard people say, prior to the queen passing, that they thought it would be easier to make the case against the monarchy once the figure head wasn't a little old grandma with a fleet of corgis. I don't know that I believe it but I am curious to see if more people will start to turn on the royals now that their king is the guy who cheated on princess Diana and everything that's happened with Megan Markle.
“At the moment” basically meaning any time during their birthdays, weddings, pregnancies, births, school graduations, illnesses, anniversaries; basically any of life’s milestones that happen numerous times a year. It was always, “We need to discuss abolishing the monarchy” “- but wait, one of the Queen’s Corgis had puppies! Awwww… you anti-royalist scum! And during the same month anniversary of the Queen Mother’s passing!”
The US is still well below Britain on the democracy index.
I think there's decent percentage of us republicans in the UK and this will become more apparent once she's in the ground and there'll be somewhat more coverage of dissent around Charles's coronation.
I think the Queen's death represents a chance to make the country more democratic as constitutional issues get more of an airing. Ditching the monarchy might still be a way off but I think the chances of Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK have improved which in turn gives an opportunity for Wales and the regions of England to take more power under a better system than first past the post. I guess I'm an optimist!
@@heyasasha The UK's problems are not the monarchy, they are the party in power, at this moment.
That man is a godsend. He's going to find out how many of the British people just acquiesced to having monarchs and how much of the support was predicated on the Queen keeping her mouth shut and being able to say "I was a mechanic in the war."
He is the beginning of the end of the monarchy.
Do not count your chickens before they hatch. I am not ruling out Charles III using homeopaths, osteopaths, acupuncturists, and chiropractors as a power base to create a brutal theocratic dictatorship. I know that that is very unlikely. But it could happen.
I hope he's the conclusion of the end.
I agree, may have been better to put William and Kate on the throne right away. Charles should have abdicated like Edward when he married Mrs. Simpson.
the problem is that a lot of people in Britain do read its newspapers and believe what they print
Not in my experience.
@@timl1481 rupert murdochs net worth and very clear influence in the UK completely invalidates this, sorry
@@timl1481 just look at the polls for Charles before and after the papers decided he was great all of a sudden.
From The Sun to the son
Yea but I’m sure that’s true everywhere and I assume you’re talking about the sun etc , but there are people in the uk who think the guardian is gospel and Americans who think the same about the New York Times
As someone who thinks we should ditch the monarchy and become a republic I'm partly hoping Charles does interfere politically on issues like environmentalism. He has said stuff in the past about eating less animal products to protect the environment and I think it would be hilarious if stuff like that made right wingers here turn on the monarchy.
it would be glorious lmaoo
I'm sure they'll turn on anything they're told to online?
@@gaywizard2000 correct. if it's in the Daily Fail, it's in the "to do" list.
The only human I have ever recognized as royalty is Carrie Fisher
I don't recognise Disney Princesses. The last true monarch was the Emperor of San Francisco.
Wait - what about the Queen of Soul?
@@JeanieD She didn't live with the King of Soul.
Agreed, Robert!!
What about Ozzy Osbourne the prince of darkness and Elvis Presley the king of rock and roll?
Monarchies are so good for tourism that usually the top countries for tourism income are France and Italy, two countries famous for their monarchies😉
For sure. Without the monarchy, England would still have tourism from the same sources as Italy and France, ie historical sites and amazing architecture.
@@bgeery Prefer that than Buck Teeth and TERFs.
@@bgeery this feels very personal
Well, they kind of are, but not for current ones. Most of the famous architecture in both countries came about during periods of monarchical rule, and that drives a lot of tourism.
@@hope1575
That's probably because they've been monarchies for nearly their entire history.
Reading what happened to the last 2 Charles might given people some ideas. I recommend reading some history
@@marklewen9384 I think it’s just dark humor…
no
abolish the monarchy! :)
tbh I thought for sure he would pick a different regnal name.
It's like he's daring fate.
@@marklewen9384 The comment was quite ambiguous, they might be advising to read some history in order to avoid repeating it. Charles II died of natural causes, though his last years were marred by a massive political debate over the Exclusion Bill, which sought to exclude the Duke of York from the line of succession. Charles III could well be advised to exclude the Duke of York from being the Duke of York, let alone succeeding.
Myself and many others are struggling to actually figure out what it is the Queen has DONE. Oh she's the patron of a lot of charities. But presumably they would exist without her. Humanity doesn't want for charitable organizations only for a system that no longer requires them.
Very well said, glad to read your comment.
Never heard of "Trickle Down" ?
I have heard, I also heard about unicorns doesn't mean I believe in them.
@@whazzat8015 we have evidence for some time that wealth does not in fact trickle down in our current system.
THey are mascots with feudal and colonial cosplay elements.They look like they do something, without doing anything. Stops the Prime Minister from getting too ambitious as there is someone theoretically/symbolically above them. A bill does not become a law unless the Queen signs it (Royal Ascent). As a mascot, they would never not sign a bill when it gets to them.
It’s wild to me that defenders of the queen will argue til they’re blue in the face that she had no power. Only influence. They seem to miss the level of influence happens to denote a pretty decent amount of actual…uh, power.
All billionaires have power. Also Princess Diana a mere famous lady refutes any claim that a Queen couldnt do anything. She did a lot with a fraction of Elizs influence.
The royals were also friends with Jimmy Saville... Talk about influence.
She has power, official power, but a "tradition of neutrality" stopped her from wielding it. Tradition, not Law. So the only person who stopped our Queen using her power was herself.
@@gapsule2326 "The royals were also friends with Jimmy Saville..."
and Epstein. And Charles is FAMOUS for taking bribes from Saudi Royals.
By all means please show us all the tools for power the monarch has? You do know the two houses can remove a monarch from their seat right? There are means to do that within government. At best if the sitting government breaks parliamentary law the monarch can dissolve government which triggers a new election and that the speaker of the house takes temporary power. So by all means tell us what the monarch can do? Sure they could sway a few MP's if they present a good enough argument but it's a risk as it can create a movement to have them removed from the thrown.
@@gapsule2326 Saville was a very popular person, I am sure many figured what he was all about but without proof or a court case not many will come out against someone. Also what did you expect the monarch to do?
Ok, so I'm from Barbados and I have to say... the British Monarchy gets entirely too much credit for all the Brit empire's atrocities. They as a FULL political system are fully culpable for all that shit.
You've got a point there ... I mean other countries that aren't even monarchies have done some equally appalling things.
Ah, somebody not jumping on the lazy thinking bandwagon - a relief! Thank you, Xi. And yes, there is a LOT OF SHIT that the House of Commons and the House of Lords have to answer for.
Exactly. There's a lot of facts in this video but at the end of the day the atrocities committed by the british government should be laid at the feet of the elected government. Elizabeth's reign was long and she could only come up with a few examples of times the crown influenced actual policy. It's not as though it was Elizabeth's decision to retake the Falklands. Thatcher did that.
The house of windsor is essentially the world's most expensive and showy living museum. The crown being the ceremonial head of state is deeply entrenched into our constitutions. As a Canadian I'd be in favour of getting rid of the crown, but I also know that anytime you try to tinker with the constitution it's political suicide because of how diverse we are, you'll never get 3 people to agree on anything. I don't know much about Barbados but I'm guessing it's easier to find consensus because of how much smaller you are geographically. People from Saskatchewan don't feel much kinship with people from Vancouver and vice versa.
In the early 90's the conservatives tried to pass the meech lake accord, which basically among other things was going state that quebec was a distinct society. We couldn't even get people to agree that quebec, a place where they speak a different language is different. As a result the tories suffered a historic loss, going from 156 seats to 2 seats. There were other reasons for that, but meech lake is an important reason why the progressive conservative party is relegated to the dust bin of Canadian History.
I've seen government and office buildings around my home in Indiana flying their US flags at half-mast in mourning for the Queen, and it absolutely boggles my mind that the first nation to democratically (-ish) cast off the yoke of the British monarchy would fly its flag at half mast in mourning for a descendant of the monarch our ancestors rebelled against.
Its stupid.
Just like the confederate flag
America hasn't exactly been innocent of taking over places against the will of the occupants. We took our part of the continent from Native Americans, Hawaii was taken against their will as well, and we deny full rights but keep full control of Puerto Rico (+ all the military actions). It's not surprising in some ways. Lots of people weirdly get into the spectacle of the Royals and don't really connect their wealth to crappy historical barbarites.
It's a sign of respect for a deceased leader. Countries do the same when other respected heads of state pass away. Whether you support monarchy or not, being respectful in a time of mourning is universal.
Maybe holding a grudge for over 200 years is a bit much. As has been pointed out elsewhere this is a standard practice for world leaders.
I understand the concern, although currently I'm slightly more worried by the damage Lizz Truss will do to my country
Credit to Mrs Windsor, meeting Liz Truss and dying rather than continuing to deal with her is such a power move.
@@Owesomasaurus 🤭
That aged interestingly
@@Alice-gr1kb meh, as bad as she was her successor is only slightly more competent. Plus he reinstated the psychotic Home Secretary Suella Braverman
Shortly after the Iraq War opener, say 2005, I went to see Doug Stanhope on the british leg of his tour. He opened with a ramble about Dubya and how maybe he should work an apology into his set for this easily lampooned president. Then he pointed out our monarchy and said he wasn't apologising to a bunch of people with a state comparable to a game of dungeons & dragons.
And America with its southern racists and Presidents who want to be Kings? And W Bush? Only the 2nd dumbest since Trump?
The Queen also had a strict 50-year embargo placed on files relating to the controversial sacking of Australian PM Gough Whitlam that were revealed recently (The Palace Letters).
Both she and Charles (especially the latter) were in frequent communication with then Governor General John Kerr about removing Whitlam from office, even before the Constitutional Crisis occurred. Many Australians (myself included) are still outraged to this day.
Have you listened to the ABC podcast "The Eleventh"? It was produced shortly before the Palace Letters were released, but it's an _excellent_ overview of everything that went on leading up to the Dismissal.
I mean it's already scary that humans are dumb enough to tolerate, let alone celebrate, monarchy this late in the game.
Clowns and mimes are trained and require lots of training and physical prowess. Please take a look at the requirements for mimes and clowns at the various schools for it. The king is not a clown, however, if the crown still has a jester on payroll the jester is.
The tourism argument has always been SO spurious. None of us gets to have tea with the royals. And many of the castles are owned by the National Trust, and would be available to visit regardless. And even many privately owned castles allow tourists, because it's a way for the owners to make revenue.
Here's the thing. With the current system in place, the British State in that of itself is a shareholder of those estates alongside the royal family, so a big chunk of that tourism money also goes into the coffers of the State. Should you abolish the monarchy, then all that reverts back to the Windsor household, meaning the British Gov now has less tax revenue. There is the incentive both for the Royal Family and the British Government to keep things going the same as it is, and in the case that the UK wants to abolish the monarchy, the gov takes a bigger L than the Windsors.
@@孫慧娟-u9c There is no good reason to have any of it revert to the Windsor household. They don't have any legitimate property rights to any of it. They never homesteaded a thing, only seized them by force.
@@magister343 >They don'y have legitimate property rights to any of it
Except under the current UK law/contract they do. Which then again circles back to what I explained.
Unless you are saying that the government should immediately expropriate their property, which would then open up an insane can of legal worms and precedents regarding property ownership in the country.
This isn't me defending the Royal Family, but simply explaining how these things are and have been set up
True. For ilustration look at all republics in Europe with castles.
@@孫慧娟-u9c "so a big chunk of that tourism money also goes into the coffers of the State"
The point is, the ROYALS are not what generates tourism.
Yeah, Charles will absolutely 100% carry on lobbying the government for all his pet moonbattery as king. I'm kinda looking forward to it, as his blatant lack of subtlety will make it easier to make a case for abolishing the whole royal clown show. Surprised Rebecca didn't mention the fact he advocated playing music to plants at one point. At least he's not a climate change denier, I suppose.
My understanding is that his positions on the environment are basically Malthusian, believing that the main thing we need to do to stop climate change is to prevent people in poor countries from reproducing or having a chance at a decent life.
@@magister343 Well that's fucked beyond belief.
The difference is that now he has the power to dissolve the Parliament if he wants to and he'll have the Armed Forces and Police to back him up since their oath of loyalty is to the monarchy and its preservation. There was a play (later adapted into a TV movie) premised on this very thing released back in 2017.
Whether he actually does this is a different matter and in all likelihood he won't. However, the fact that he can do this at all should give everyone pause.
That's really not a wacky idea. There has been many, many replicated studies on the effects that different genres of music have on the rates of plant growth.
Kinda hard to double blind tho 😅
I can distill the sarcasm from this video into a fine liquor.
On a side note, the Queen wasn't the de facto leader of those forces, but de Jure.
The "tourism" argument is such a crock anyway. More tourists visit Versailles than Windsor.
You are such a GEM!! I am truly grateful for the quality of your content. Best wishes from Greece🙂
Thank you! 😃
@@RebeccaWatson No, dear, thank YOU. Honestly, you are a remarkable creator. May all good things come your way.
@@RebeccaWatson how long have you been on UA-cam
I've been saying for a long time that the UK was on its last monarch.
Obviously, technically, this isn't the case, since her son Charles took the title, Third of his name, immediately on her death. ("The queen is dead, long live the king.")
But it seems to me that the institution's longevity has been directly tied to hers, personally, and now that she's gone, I see the whole thing coming unraveled in fairly short order.
To rephrase my old prediction:
This king will follow in the footsteps of the First of his name in presiding over the end of the monarchy, with two differences: this time, it'll stick; and this time, he'll keep his head.
Hey, just an fyi to anyone reading this, no it’s not “nearly impossible for Canada to not be a monarchy,” in fact it almost well near happened once. That event lead to the complete stripping of Royal power in Canada, because the option to the crown was either stay the fuck out of our politics or we become a republic. This event also shook the other commonwealth nations and many of them too used it as an impetus to strip their royal agents of their power. While technically the monarch can overturn any decision the government makes Canada has made it clear that such an action would only result in Canada becoming a republic. The Royals position in Canadian politics is purely ceremonial, they have ZERO power over Canadian governance. In fact. Americans seem to care more about the royals than Canadians do.
Thank you.
Traditionally the governor general, appointed by our PM is someone who is highly educated in the Canadian constitution so that when they are asked to do something like prorogue parliament they can make an educated decision as to whether or not to do so.
Some like David Johnston fit that description but was probably a little to loyalist to the PM that appointed them. Others like Julie Payette who as an astronaut had a strong background in science but little to know background in politics, and more than that she created a toxic, abusive work environment. Payette easily was the worst appointment to that position.
Honestly our ties to the monarch are ceremonial. The crown's representative in canada is the governor general, and that person is appointed by our prime minster. the govenor general appoints all the provincial lieutenant governors.
About the only thing the crown has is a special entrance which nobody can use at the provincial legislature buildings.
The Britons should grow some resistance against monarchy. Now, if we took a few drops of Charles' blood, diluted it a gazillion times and then let every UK citizen ingest some of it, perhaps that would work...?
I know we should.
But people are for reasons most inexplicable, the swallow the establishment BS.
The persona of Mrs Winsor has been so polished by a complicit media that she's like a bloody saint to the public.
My theory is that there is a parasocial relationship going on in the heads of the public, resulting in mass psychosis.
People are being arrested under new rules that allow the police to use their own judgement regarding civil disorder because they dare voice their displeasure at an anachronistic and undemocratic institution.
This includes at least one arrest of a woman holding a blank piece of cardboard.
Chaz Winsor is not as popular though, so hopefully things will change. But then their royal darlings Billy and Kate can do no wrong. 🙄🙄
The UK is a shit show atm and don't see it changing any time soon
ps People would flock to drink royal piss if they could, undiluted! lol
He probably has lead in his blood in extremely high amounts, I don’t think that’s the best idea
Actually ... I believe it has been established that every Brit who isn't a recent immigrant has a very high chance of being related to British monarchs a few centuries ago, such as the one whose grave was somewhat recently discovered. So, Britain has *_a lot_* of homeopathic royalty. Maybe something to ponder.
This is mostly a good video, but I'm disappointed that you couldn't resist going after Charles for the tampon comment. I'm no fan of the guy, but I don't give a fuck what two consenting adults talk about in private to get themselves off. It was 100% unethical for the tabloids to publish this private intimate conversation in the first place, and you are perpetuating that violation by repeating it. Just because it happened to two people you don't like, that doesn't mean it's okay. And shaming him for having a weird kink (assuming he wasn't simply joking) shames everyone who has weird kinks.
Well said
You can make that stand AFTER you dismantle the Daily Mail, and all Murdoch publications. till then? your argument REEKS of hypocrisy.
True
This is true all day long.
"as long as they are distorting the past, means that they have the intention of doing it again" -Akala
You almost had me there in the beginning. I thought maybe I accidentally clicked on fox news lol
As an Australian who has never understood the appeal of the Monarchy (save for Diana and that’s only because of her advocacy for AIDS/HIV awareness), I just want to say that I appreciate this video being blunt yet honest about the shady political practices the British monarchy has undertaken.
I've heard of homeopathy. I didn't actually know what it was. You explained it. And my brain broke. Thank you?
It **is** rather a shame that the royal necromancer lost his job though 😂
Edit:
King Charles nee “Clown Prince”
😁
The takeaway: Charles should play Skyrim
or animal crossing
In before someone makes an "I was a monarch like you, but then I took an arrow in the knee" joke here. Er...oops! Damnit!
(Immediately lobbies senior bureaucrats to establish a College of Sorcery)
Britain belongs to the Norse!
"The royal family is good for tourism" well France has a stronger tourism industry, so maybe the brits should model the way they treat their royal family after the way the french treated theirs
Just as a bit of reassurance from Canada: Royal Assent exists here too, but it is just meaningless ceremony. It hasn't been denied in centuries, and would be *_revoked instantly_* if it ever interfered with the operation of our government at this point.
Given that a lot of people in the Governor General's office and such would have a good chance of losing their jobs if that happened, I'd imagine that they'd probably just ignore Chuckles the Third if he tried to deny one of our bills because it doesn't acknowledge homeopathy or such. "King Charles? Never heard of you. Anyhow, we're busy Assenting to these bills, so please come back later."
What shocks me is how many Americans seem to forget that that is the very throne we rebelled against.
I'm so glad to see someone make this video. Needs to be said.
I imagine someone asking me to connect: commemorative plates, a sub-continent war, not one but two Caribbean islands and a tampon,
in a coherent way
all within 15 minutes.
I would say, "It can't be done" and yet you have provided the proof it can be.
Nice job, informative and entertaining
3:17 I wonder if you mean ‘de jure leader’, since she has never given nor had the authority to give any orders…
Doesn’t mean her silence and inaction wasn’t a tacit endorsement, but purely for precision.
Monarchy may be outdated form of government, but I am an American. Between the Senate, Electoral College, and lifetime appointment ti Supreme Court...I am not in a position to criticize British monarchy.
Actually, you ARE in a position to criticize it so long as you're educated on the topic. Everyone should, just as everyone should criticize the senate, SCOTUS, and electoral college. International criticism is an important tool to enact change.
When I lived in the UK, my GP's office was across the street from the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital (BHH). We had a friend (who is a medical doctor in the US) visit and her reaction was "WTF?!?" When she explained the "logic" behind homeopathy, I was completely dumbfounded. Homeopathy has had a really solid hold in the UK. At least the BHH stopped homeopathic services in 2015 due to the uproar about the NHS funding homeopathic treatments.
I still live in a "Commonwealth" country and I am all for breaking away and saying to hell with the monarchy and the UK as a whole. "New Zealand has no king. New Zealand needs no king."
"Homeopathy has had a really solid hold in the UK."
Not for a century or more. When all the country's thousands of hospitals became part of the NHS in 1948, only five were labelled Homeopathic and all those had been founded in the early or mid 19th century. Most by then weren't dependent upon homeopathy anyway, but just functioned as do normal hospitals. The last of the homeopathic-style departments was closed in 2015; they weren't exactly busy by then, given that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence was set up in 1999 to ensure evidentiary standards of care. The homeopathy-espousing departments had long since morphed into Orwellian-named centres for complementary or integrative medicine anyway. To borrow a famous quote, they wanted to integrate their ridiculous bullshit with actual medicine's tasty apple pie.
Side note: About 25 years ago I found myself, somewhat drunk and in need of relief, alongside London's Homeopathic Hospital in Bloomsbury. I pissed up against their back wall in an alleyway, confident that my mark of disdain would -- according to homeopathic principles -- be strengthened a thousandfold every time it subsequently rained.
ua-cam.com/video/HMGIbOGu8q0/v-deo.html
My uni is across church of Christian science.
I had no idea what that was I thought it was "how current science fits with bible" but its like "Jesus is a cure for everything"
Charles lobbied for the NHS to fund it though, didn't he?
As someone with chronic pain and issues generating muscle correctly etc, I've had to pay a lot for osteopathy in the past. If only this clown didn't bolt on homeopathy etc.
Yeah, I didn’t like the fact that she included osteopathy in that list. She obviously doesn’t realize that ODs go to a four year school the same as MDs. They learn the same things as MDs. They just learn a more holistic approach. Dr. Mike here on UA-cam is an OD, not an MD. He does an excellent Q&A-type video on what exactly is an osteopath.
As for acupuncture, no, it won’t cure cancer, but I’ve known people who have issues with chronic lower back pain or arthritis in the hands who have said that acupuncture has helped them immensely.
@@GrumpyOldFart2 ODs are the equivalent of MDs in the US, but this isn't necessarily true in other countries, including the UK. While some licensed osteopaths in the UK may have a medical degree, not all do. I'm sure Dr Mike is a reasonable doctor who practices medicine correctly but osteopaths are famous for falsely claiming they can cure the flu just by wringing the neck and are statistically more likely to integrate woo-medicine like homeopathy and magnetic therapy in their treatments. OMT itself is a fraud and pseudoscience, while it may provide some temporary relief for back pain, it cannot treat any conditions as evidenced by a 2018 systemic review (Guillard et al.) The better DOs don't use any OMT in their treatment process besides some massages favored by physical therapists.
Acupuncture relies on the placebo effect (Yong-Chen et al. 2014), as proven because you can use fake needles and get the same pain relief as long as the person believes they are receiving real acupuncture. Even randomly inserting needles works just as well.
@@GrumpyOldFart2 well in my Latin America country the people who perform homeopathy are normally doctors, homeopathy is a form of specialisation, so saying is recognised by a government and people go to school for x years don't mean a lot on its validity as a science, you can literally get homeopathy treatment for free by a doctor in my nationalised health care system.
@@GrumpyOldFart2 Didn't she say homeopathy, not osteopathy? They are different. Osteopathy, rational - homeopathy - NOT rational.
There's this old interview where Charles talks about clouds and their individual personalities and its BONKERS. You used to be able to find it on UA-cam but I haven't been able to find it recently. Hes cracked.
Personally that doesn't sound like a crazy way to describe clouds to me 😂
Maybe he's a member of the Cloud Appreciation Society. Finding shapes in clouds is a harmless past time and stimulates creativity....
Sounds like a Schulz cartoon; Charlie Windsor, the Royal Blockhead.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
Maybe King Charles is deeper than he looks to you, and to Rebecca. He studied anthropology, and has met many people in his life.
For anyone who wants to dig deeper, there is a documentary called "The Man Who Should Not be King". We need to start mirroring it now, if it hasn't already been scrubbed from the Internet.
As a British person I approve this video.
As a Yank I get down on my knees some days and thank GOD for Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin, and George Washington.
Hey, don't look at me like that-one benefit of voting yourself off the island is the choice between ignoring it or embracing it, especially on heavier matters.
(Shaking my maracas, doing the conga) Don't have to worry about prosecuting an HRH in court, the Orangutan in Chief has the walls closing in....Don't have to change the face on the moolah...Don't have to care about any colonial actions of the Empire after 1784....Ponder buying Pontefrqct to do a full blown restoration if the whole thing goes teats up, since the queen only cared about dogs and horses as hobbies....
I say we take a drop of Charles III's blood and mix it in a glass of water, then take a drop of that water and mix it in a swimming pool, then take a drop from that swimming pool and mix it into the ocean. Then take a drop of that ocean water and crown it king instead.
Or, what if we introduce that drop of blood into the water supply, so that everyone has royal blood in them?
If the final drop came from the sea around Britain's coast it would likely contain a fair percentage of faecal matter. Which given that the alternative is a shit-for-brains pompous ass, seems kind of fitting.
lol underrated.
The plus side to Charles being reincarnated as a tampon is that he would only be in place for a short period of time and then hopefully immediately disposed of rather unceremoniously.
So that's why people in the UK were crying when they learned about Queen Elizabeth's death. It wasn't necessarily her death that made them sad. It was the possibility of Prince Charles becoming King Charles that terrified them.
Actually it was out of a sense of loss for a monarch who, like everyone, had her flaws, but was nevertheless much lived and respected in the UK. The queue to file past her coffin, currently as I type, 6 miles long, testifies to that.
@@timl1481 Dude. I was joking. Not everyone in the UK is pro-monarchy though. [6 miles long? That has got to be the longest line I have ever heard of (so far).]
@@medtle1 the british do love to queue maybe half of them just saw a line and thought it would be fun to join lol
I had no great opinion of Charles (and secretly hoped he would just abdicate in favor of William, who's already bald), but honestly I did not know he was this goofy.
When we (marginalised groups) spoke out there were white people to amplify our voices, but then conservatives started saying “ThIs IS WhAt The ToLErAnT lEft wants” “this is meant to be the tolerant left” and they were gaslighting the left for speaking (which they always do) glad I came across this video. From ya Zimbabwean bestie with family in South Africa 🇿🇼❤️🇿🇦
France gets more tourists and they don't need a monarchy to sell tourist trinkets
UK got half as much as France in 2019 yet made twice the amount of money from tourists than France. A lot of that was due to tourism linked to the Monarchy.
@@stuffmcstuff399 - you don't *need* a monarchy to have tourism inspired by said monarchy
In Australia in 1975 the Governor-General, the Queen's proxy, was discussing with various conservative politicians, and Rupert Murdoch, how he could remove the democratically elected Labor Prime Minister. Convention dictates that the GG makes no moves other than with the PM's approval. The Queen was in the loop and, rather than insist to the GG that he follow the rules allowed the coup to take place. Labor out, Tories in, convention flouted.
There is recently exposed evidence that Chuck himself was involved, with correspondence from him encouraging and congratulating GG Kerr. May the reign of his royal absorbance be short.
Problems start emergin when people of power believe in the devil more firmly than how firm they believe in human rights.
My favorite is when people argue that the monarchy is fine because republics can also elect bad leaders. Or because capitalism is worse. As if becoming a royalist sycophant is a prerequisite for thinking Trump or Jeff Bezos are bad.
I just today found this channel and subscribed. I think it's fantastic!
In 2015 the Queen stepped in to prevent Charles being investigated like Andrew was...
To be honest, I’m more worried about being able to eat, keeping a roof over my head and making sure I can pay for my medicine and kicking out the Tories, than worry about the Charles.
Yes. The thing is that Charles has real life skills that are not reported in the gossip mags and rags. He knows where food comes from, he works with his hands, so here in the real world he has understanding. I watched him march behind his mother's coffin (which would be when Rebecca was preparing this video), and wondered what anti-monarchy sniping was likely. Rather inhumane of them to launch into him whilst he was mourning his mother.
As to influence, wouldn't it be comforting to know he would have private words of advice for Cruella de Truss and her claque?
Oh thank God for the opening sarcasm. You really had me worried for a moment. I think I experienced physical panic. Not Rebecca! Not Rebecca!!
2:18 I didn't know we actually had still living Hilters around.
Okay, that's my new view of them. Before I saw them as an expensive but harmless doll house.
Prince Charles played too much Metal Gear Rising and was shaken by the 'nanomachines, son,' line
Right, next time I'm booze shopping, I'm buying a bottle of good Irish whiskey, putting a 'Chuckie's in the box!' sticker on it, to make that eventuality particularly festive.
As a UK "subject" of the most munificent and noble house of Winsor...
Fuck the commemorative plate market.
#NotMyKing
Great video, especially the points about his Woo medicine beliefs and lobbying. Chris Hedges' recent essay "Monarchs Belong in the Dustbin of History" is worth a listen/read too
Thanks a lot for this one. Even The Guardian has been pumping the message that Charles used to be considered a kook, bit now that he's king we all realize that he was right all along (or some variation thereof).
Aaaand, subscribed! You had me at " tourism and commemorative plates"
The only "good" reason I've heard for Canada keeping the monarch is all the original treaties with the Indigenous Peoples are with the monarchy not the Canadian government.
pretty sure they can sign new treaties
As someone who has visited both Versailles and Buckingham Palance, I can promise the royal family itself isn't that big a pull for tourists.
Maybe the NHS should start providing free tampons in support of the new regent.
Already does in Scotland!
Scared Of and British cannot physically be in the same sentence
I think it's important to recognise that it's not the institution of the monarchy that caused colonialism, and that the monarchy itself would be wrong even in the absence of colonialism (it is a hereditary system of wealth and power, fundamentally anti democratic). The fact that that wealth and power is built on blood is not unique to monarchies, but just makes it all the worse in this case.
I would argue that elected governance in the UK has been the driving force behind colonialism for the past 150 years. The United States has an elected head-of-state and is the biggest colonial power around.
As a canadian, I kindly say: f Charles III, he is not my king.
The Algorithm suggested this.
At first, was really pissed off with your heading. Remembered to hear people out, so clicked.
Your tone near immediately put me off side BECAUSE it's the same way an abusive parent of mine speaks SO I remembered that I don't know you at all and that issue is mine and I am a work in progress.
So paid attention to your word choice and sources.
Your argument is 100% valid. I was unaware of the political lobbying, nor aware of the 'healthcare' interests of KCiii. Seriously, the best complimentary healthcare to add to the NHS, or any public universal healthcare, would be therapeutic and remedial massage. It has research to back that up. And Yoga, which also has recent findings on how muscle facia is linked to brain health and by extension function.
I agree that The Crown should also pay taxes, like any Public Servant receiving income from public monies.
You also kept your argument focused on KCiii as an individual, and QEii as an individual, and tangible occurrences and didn't go into the spectacles that have been the death of Princess Diana and the alleged criminal actions of Prince Andrew.
Conclusion: I have issues and I really appreciate the argument you made.
Thanks 🙂
Thank you for making this video.
Let's no forget that in 1975 the Queen didn't use her veto powers to stop the queens representative in Australia sack a legally elected Labor government because the Liberal (conservative) party blocked supply and used the crown to sack and replace the legally elected government. All because they didn't like the introduction of a spate of social welfare policies, and the then prime minister Gough whittlam handing back land to the first nations people, in the first act of land rights. She did this or atleast didn't intervien to stop it, how's that for not being political.
Places where monarchs still live are good for tourism, but places where they died to a guillotine are even better.
I’m a huge fan of Republican form of government. Not the political party, the system itself. So constitutional monarchies hold no allure for me. But, I will say that for being a monarch, Elizabeth was far better than most present and former royalty. That doesn’t excuse the system or the people who benefited from it. I’m giving an honest opinion.
I dunno, I suspect some other European monarchy might be an improvement on her.
I suspect that King Chucky will do even more to make people appreciate Mummy.
Elizabeth was far inferior to Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein
Nah. The Norwegian king is far better
As a UK citizen, I want to make a couple of thing clear we haven't been ruled by the crown since the Bill of Rights in 1689. Parliament is the body which rules. The Crowns perogative isn't even weilded by the Crown that power is vested in the current Prime Minister. The putting down of the Kenyan Insurgency was the responsibility of the Governmenmt at the time with no input from the crown. I'm a republican who would have no issue if Royals where shown the door, but I do object to their power being misrepresented. It's worth pointing out that up to 2017 homeopathy was available on the National Health Service and in fact up until then there was a NHS funded Homopathic hospital in London. Both of these has nothing to do with the Royals but the fact that homeopathy was an accepted treatment regime by the medical profession until surprisingly recently. Before we get around to sacking the Royals we need to do something about the far more insidious impacts on our governance coming from dark money funded think tanks and lobbying concerns, the donors who just buy their influence by donating to their party of choice to influence policies and the buyers of seats in the lords, like the recent enoblement of the son of a KGB spy by Boris.
Well said. It is difficult for people who have not either grown up in GB, or don't have a background in the academic study of history to understand the layers of democracy in the group of nations that make up Britain. The outgoing Prime Minister and the wing of the elected political party he represented has caused damage to the fabric of our democracy. It may be that the new King will play a role in repairing it. This is a strength of the unusual constitution and democracy that we have these days.
I’ve never understood the “Monarchs are good for tourism” argument when it comes to the British Royals.
Versailles is one of the most popular tourist attractions in the europe, despite it being a hot minute (or century or two) since a royal has lived there.
Are we really expected to believe people wouldn’t flock to the beauty that is Buckingham Palace if the royal family were suddenly kicked out and forced to just survive on their own humble estimated net worth of $28 billion?
I say evict those freeloaders.
love the dead pan, and I love the nuance and explanation. Great Job.
NGL: as a British republican I momentarily lost my sh*t over that intro.
On the day they buried Queen Liz, we had a public holiday. (I was mildly pissed off because Monday is my day off anyway). I went out for a long bike ride round Tyneside. I'm sure lots of people were watching the funeral on the telly, there were about a dozen watching the preliminaries on the giant TV screen in Newcastle, but I saw lots of other people out on their bikes, walking their dogs, or playing with their kids. There was a distinct lack of grief, seriousness or even mild gloom.
The colonial system (and its successors) still exist. I find it very frustrating when a lot of 'white' people treat the monarchy as purely symbolic or as a symbol of evils of the past - when, in reality, colonial structures persist - and how we address them is critical to the survival of entire cultures. The concept of the Crown in Canada fulfils an important role in the constitution and constitutional law, as well as represents the actual entity that Indigenous peoples entered into treaty with (i.e. not just the government of the day). Concepts like the 'honour of the Crown' in Supreme Court decisions have played an important role in providing some protection to Indigenous peoples. It isn't as simple as abolishing the monarchy, as that would change little except reduce (rather than reform) those legal protections in the constitutional order that have been created around it. Ironically, abolition of the monarchy in Canada, could easily be one of the earliest phases of a genocidal act (e.g. repeal of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, abolition of treaties and reserves).
As a Brit living in Britain, I have a pretty good idea as to why a guillotine is a good idea \j.
But in all seriousness...most Brits (especially Welsh, NI, and Scottish people) are not having a good time and are actively celebrating (I use that word LIGHTLY) her passing and what she ultimately stood for. On the same day as her passing the new Prime Minister (of the conservative party which is always great\s )elected with only 0.3% of the country behind her mind you) Liz Truss gave her plan on the cost of living crisis. She more or less said that she'd cap heating bills at £2500 a month which is still going to drive families to starve and freeze this winter.
Tomorrow on the day of her funeral food banks, charities and doctors surgeries will be closed because of "respect". SO many life saving procedures are going to be rescheduled on top of the already ridiculous wait times of the much overburdened NHS. This includes stuff like chemotherapy. People are literally going to die over the multi million pound (at least) funeral that will be paid with taxpayers money. (she's getting a state funeral)
This doesn't begin to cover next year's coronation that is projected to cost 6 billion pounds even though people are literally choosing between food and heating their homes because "there's not enough for them" and how people are being arrested for publicly displaying any disagreement with the monarchy. Strikes and protests have been cancelled again out of "respect" and the official government petitions page has been practically locked up through all of this (funny that? \s).
My mum is a charity worker and my dad was in the military, both of them have seen the consequences of this but still chose to support her and the family. It makes me mad that they are part of the smaller group that genuinely like them and can't see beyond it. Those people spending days in queues to lay flowers or pay respects are being inflated by the media. Most condolences are given by corporations and not your everyday 'Joe Schmoe' and were being force fed her life story 24\7. There is seriously nothing else on for the most part.
Honestly we can't say for certain how this will affect places globally but the news of her death will certainly cause some harm, with former colonies (such as Canada and Australia) being part of the Enforced month of morning for a start. (Enforced with a capital E for a reason)
-TL;DR: Queen Liz's death and Charlie's coronation are going to doubly screw over real people, from a Brit, living in Britain, going to bed now.
Just commenting for the enGAgEmeNt
But yes. This video, good.
As for Clown Charles, I care not for the pontificating of a man who just inherited 500mil without paying any inheritance tax.
Technically, he'd be paying himself for the wealth transfer. After all, the tax is raised by HIS Majesty's Government, and the Treasury is the ROYAL Treasury. He just can't go down there and play Scrooge McDuck
A few minor corrections: Barbados made their governor-general into a president, a head-of-state, not a prime minister, a head-of-government. The president is elected to their position every 5 years by Parliament, and the position is entirely ceremonial.
Canada is NOT "ruled" by the monarch. Canada is ruled by the elected House of Commons and elected legislatures of every province. I've long known that the monarch meddles in legislation in the UK, but that would never fly in Canada.
He really is the perfect example of why a hereditary monarchy is literally the worst idea ever. Occasionally you get someone like Elizabeth with a sense of duty and decorum, and that's great - even if they still oversee terrible things and don't stop them. And then you get some that are just a great big cockwomble like Charles, convinced of their superiority through no accomplishment of their own, by luck of their birth (hey, shout out to TERFs too!), and who have no desire to improve themselves, even for the benefit of others.
And anyway, he shouldn't worry about nanotechnology. He should worry about rampant runaway self-replicating nanotechnology. THAT will be the insidious galaxy destroying grey goo. 😂
"rampant runaway self-replicating nanotechnology." is a sub-set of nanotechnology. I suspect that Charles was worried about that exact sub-set.
@@Sewblon I suspect he isn't. because he is pig ignorant.
I am, myself an Australian anti-monarchist. The way I see it, it's absolutely nuts that our head of state is a foreign monarch on the opposite side of the world.
Anyway... I hadn't heard about all the ways the Queen actually messed with the UK's democratic process, and here in Australia it is only alleged that she had a hand in the very undemocratic dismissal of Gough Whitlam's government in 1975... the reason being the royal letters to the Governor General are still sealed.
It's pretty wild to me that so many people here still simp for that family when they cost us OUR money whenever their whims send them our way for a tour. I hope that Barbados won't be the last country to ditch the monarchy and that it won't be restricted to the Caribbean area. If the British want to keep their monarchy then it's no skin off my back, but they shouldn't feel entitled to have their monarch be the head of state of other countries... especially when those countries have a storied history of suffering at the hands of the regime the monarchy represents.
Like here in Australia, most of our first settlers were convicts who committed some of the pettiest of crimes in a desperate attempt to feed their families and a lot were Irish at a time when the regime was trying to thin out the Irish population in Ireland... and then we have the First Nations people of this continent who have had one of the rawest deals of any colonized people... the most successful genocide in the world was the native population of Tasmania... seeing as how there are literally none of them left. As for the rest of the natives who still exist, that was very close to not being the case, as the government would steal children from their families for decades. And at the time eugenics was the trendy thing in academia, the natives were regarded as sub-human and a 'missing link', skulls and other bones of them would be shipped to the British Museum.
there's no point in a monarchy. so many nations with no kings or queens.
Suddenly here in the UK anti-monarchist protesters are being arrested or threatened with arrest. As an anti-monarchist myself I can attest that this is wholely new. I have no idea what's going on...
you need to cite some sources, this will give what you are saying more power.
Barbados's successful rejection of its monarchy is not to be underestimated. Republicanism has far more traction in Carribean nations and the cold reception Will and Kate got there recently reverberates strongly around the commonwealth. Charles III is already 73 and he won't feel the same pressure not to abdicate that his mother did. William will be King sooner rather than later, and he'll have to consider growing old in a very different world.
Acupuncture helped my back pain by diverting my attention to the discomfort caused by the dozen needles causing me to resemble a stegosaurus.
next time you know you can do that for free by nailing a 4penny nail through your kneecap!
Of course, if he gets too troublesome, we have a special tower set aside for monarchs who can't keep their big mouths shut.
They moved that to an underpass in Paris, I, believe
Colonialism ended many decades ago. The US also had slaves before 1865.