Henning Wehn Hates The Royal Family - Room 101 

I can see this deteriorating into Basil Fawlty territory here!

He's awful

@@dingopisscreek not as awful as the royal family... the result of centuries of inbreeding😂

@@dingopisscreek Yes he’s awfully funny.

@@nicklewis1882 I mentioned him once but I think I got away with it.

Well, aren't you shit ;)

UtterlyAwesomeVideos I Know!!

I was going to say the exact same thing! "Let's abolish the royal family and give them the benefit of upward social mobility." That's David Mitchell-level rhetorics there!

Native English speakers are sooo easily impressed

well once you speak a language it's not too hard to absorb some of the idiolect and sayings ... learning to say "them people" etc is just as hard as saying "those people"

and you know they don't teach the Civil War and the Restoration, or they bugger it up so badly everybody is yawning and texting nekkid photos to each other - no, all you get is some pap about King George and the Queen Mum visiting the commoners in the tube during the war - no mention that their father and their uncle started the whole thing

Not really. Only the inherited titles are german. They have been born in britan except Phillip. I truely do not understand why UK always tries to portray it that way only because there have been few inheriteted german titles thanks to marriage. All royal families have mixed roots because of international marriage.

@@kidaria1333 You need to take a history lesson, all the Royal families of Europe are dominated by German heritage due to accidents of history and rules of inheritance. Henning is factually correct and you need to check your facts before commenting.

@@gazza595 Back in the days germany DIDN'T EXISTED for godness sake. Only many different smaller kingdoms and counties speaking the german language but you cannot call this germany and judge it as one. It is like calling scotland and whole Britain english because of speaking the english language. This is nonsense. Only very short time a united german imperial empire existed under prussian dominance from 1871 till 1918. The last real king of direct german/hanoveranian hertiage on the british throne has been George I 1714 and because of that his son George II 1727. And thanks to the royal inheritance rules the titles have stayed german while the members themselves have been born and raised in britain. Calling the royal family such a long timer later german is rubbish. After that logic lots of britans should be labeled germans because of their anglo-saxon origins. The smaller different german speaking kingdoms have been often choosen for marriage for the royal families of bigger powerful monarchies to avoid political tension, too direct incest and specific for Britain because of religious denomination.

@@gazza595 👍👌

@@broceliandeforest7420 Or did they clap because this is a comedy show? Hard to tell.

@@broceliandeforest7420 It’s fake crowd noise genius

I get judged alot because I tend to have a literal complete open mind as well of being somewhat of a natural-set stoic type. I think the Queen took it to the grave. She beared it out, had Human moments of error and Victories during Her span and personally shunned complaining, which as a German Myself, is one of the cores of Our Traditional culture-set and values. But still, It unfortunately *did* find itself into places She had those Human errors. She was overall a Queen Who Personally wanted to empower Women to a Modern era set to boom into drastic change. She Personally got Herself into the Army because She *wanted* to, When Europe was Plunged into great war. Now that's saying something.

@@dan4856What a load of Botox , she used taxpayers money to prevent her paedophile son from facing justice …….defend that if you dare !

​@@UserName-br5zu It's not most of the time in the UK.

Probably something about it being harder to have a monologue in a foreign language. At least in panel shows, you get a little help. I mean, there's a reason most stand-up comedians are from the UK or the US.

+Mark Lucas I feel the same way about Sean Lock

+Edu Or Australia, mate

R Ward yeah true Sean is brilliant on shows but his stand up is average

i honestly think hes just lazy and cbb slaving over that much material. its hard work to come up with one plus hours worth of solid comedy. his stand up in glasgow, i forget the venue and date, was among the best ive ever seen. very funny, very clever and played the crowds expectations back and forth like it was childs play.

Caroline Quentin looks almost in need of medical attention!

Tony Dot There is clearly some sort of fear there. It's like the type of fear people have in North Korea of their leaders. It's strange because these types are always against racism, privilege and inequality. Yet they for the royal family. Something clearly isn't right here.

DaveDangerous74 Not so much fear of their leaders as fear of their peers and of not being seen to conform to establishment norms. After all stick your head above the parapet and you could get your career blown off!

DaveDangerous74 Interesting to note. Because when Kim Jong-Ill died, we all scoffed at how ridiculous it was people in Korea were crying over his death. "Look at those brainwashed people crying at the death of their unelected leader none of them have ever met or could ever hope to meet. How ludicrous". Yet when it's the exact same scenario with Diana or the Queen Mother, people are out in the streets openly weeping, or being whipped up into a frenzy over a Royal Wedding. Who are the brainwashed ones again?

TheMikeyReilly Yes there is a similarity between North Korea and the UK. But it's strange because it goes against some very clear beliefs that this crowd of people have. For example. If you want a job cleaning toilets you have to fill out an equal opportunity form. This form asks for your race, religion, gender and even the type of sex you like to have. They are really hot on the idea of any group cheating their way into a job cleaning toilets for a living. Yet the people who get the top jobs, get them, just for being related to the Queen. You never hear a word said against it.

Come on, there's some. People occasionally win the lottery...

Surely Michael Ball perfectly exemplifies British social mobility? Coming from a humble background both he and his father became very successful people. According to Wikipedia, his maternal grandfather was a coalminer and his father started as an apprentice in a car factory and worked his way up to becoming a top motor industry executive. His parents won't have been wealthy when he was a young child.

Sounds like Michael Ball's dad was socially mobile back in about the 50s 60s 70s when there actually was a lot of social mobility. Before the ladder got kicked away in the 80s.

@@alicequayle4625 spot on. People always use old examples to debate that idea, and forget that the babyboom generation is an exception, not the rule.

Yep. Crawlers.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TkOAUht3G5o.html

Spot on

Dont you like the frock?

They're just some spoiled, arrogant family rich and powerful only by our hard-earned cash. What function do they serve? Why should we hold them up to the highest esteem? A family with money. Big deal

I don’t care how much the dress cost. I care that royalty stand for all the divisions in our society, from the public school system to the House of Lords and the pollution of our political system with state religion. The royal family sit at the top of the whole stinking pile.

@@AndrewOliverHome It just shows that money and power rule over all

@@SamuelBlack84 So nice to hear someone else who understands how silly and outdated the royal family are. If only everyone in the UK felt that way😑

Am I too young, too old, or too American to get the joke?

@@alicedoors4826 Listen to the song and work it out

@@alicedoors4826 The song features such deeply poetic lyrics as "Try some, buy some, Fe, fi, foe, fum" and other borderline nonsense lyrics, always launching into the refrain of "Talk about, Pop muzik" and "New York, London, Paris, Munich, Everybody talk about pop muzik." U2 used a version of it as ironic walk-in music also.

didn‘t miss a beat, literally. Well done to him.

He is.

*overprivileged

they are born and raised in britain except Philip. Only the titles are german.

A german plant to make us love the EU. Get him out.

@@susannamarker2582 I can't tell if you're joking or not.

@@pineapplepenumbra I don't need to know what is in your head.

@@susannamarker2582 "I don't need to know what is in your head." Well you certainly know how to make friends and influence people, don't you?

Cherished myths...

Sssooohhh , you're not a fan !? I'm Dutch and I hate royalty , please to meet you. 😁

Just leave it. Nothing your going to be able to do.

@@bananasstuff3344 Where is a will there's a way.

Read 'Queen Camilla' by Sue Townsend. That's exactly the scenario.

@@jeremyhowell8235 oh wow I will check it out, I loved the Adrian mole series

In his second language as well!

i don’t get it please explain

That kind of makes it sound like it's not true and yet... there he is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Gl%C3%BCcksburg#United_Kingdom

HENNING IS HILARIOUS!! CHEERS FROM 🇨🇦

@@rugaritolager7411 It's riffing on the lyrics to a famous 1979 pop song called "Pop Muzik". Frank's exchanged the words "New York, London, Paris, Munich - Everybody talk about pop muzik" with the wordy historic family name of Prince Philip.

Im just sad nobody said the obvious "but the royal family isnt jewish!?"

*William, Harry was working in the garage.

No, he said Harry could work in a garage and William could get into middle management..

@@collinslfc Who cares? The only reason I remember their names and which one is the oldest is because, by sheer coincidence, my girlfriend's mother had 2 dogs and first, older dog I met was called William, and then years later she got one called Harry.

@@pineapplepenumbra Thanks for sharing that...

@@collinslfc It illustrates a point. You don't have to read any RU-vid comments longer than a line, if you don't want to.

Greek only by virtue that they needed a royal family at that time. All the bloodlines still come from duchies and tiny kingdoms of the Holy Roman Empire

@@PHDiaz-vv7yo It's long past time when they should have been abolished. There's nothing "holy" about the Roman Empire.

It goes back further than 120 years. Try 300, when George I of Hanover was made King of England. All European royalty boasted a Germanic element in those days. It was the "thing". Catherine the Great of Russia - German. Marie Antoinette - Austrian. The Hapsburgs of Austria ruled Hungary, the Balkans and intermarried into the Spanish household.

Nonesense only the inherited titles are german, the people themselve are born in Britain except Phillip.

@@celtspeaksgoth7251 Had nothing do to with a "thing" but simply to choose fitting marriages not endagering political power situation thanks to holy roman empire structure with lots of smaller kingdoms. Also the whole "german" culture identity structure is not proper taught anywhere not even in modern country germany. Marie Antoinette was austrian not german. George I was a hanoveranian not a german. German is only the language. It is like saying Maria Stuart was english instead of scotish only because she speaks english. Modern germany should have be named "untited states of germany" and not "federal republic germany"often only called germany. It is a wrong concept. There was never the one germany and the one german culture. SImilar to the british empire.

One eye is in London, the other eye is in Berlin.

If he changed his surname to Windsor, he wouldn't have to.

...is a sentence you don't hear often in the UK. :D

yes, Kaiser Wilhelm II was Queen Victoria's grandson (one of her other granddaughters was the Romanov consort, ended up down a mine shaft riddled with bullets, oh well)

@@brettb9194 Sounds very fitting, tho headchopping would be more traditional.

@@brettb9194 And? All big royal families are related to each other.

Qniba Chaos. For fear of something worse taking its place. We could end up with a Trump.

For the same reason people would be against banning Christmas or jewellery. It may be a little bit of a luxury, but it's _nice_ to have around and completely harmless.

New Thought Oh

after brexxit there days might be numbered who knows maybe something good will come out of it lol

@@heliotropezzz333 why would anything need to take the place of the monarchy? If it was abolished nothing of importance would need to change at all. We just stop giving them our money, put into something that actually matters, and carry on with our democracy.

That would dramatically reduce peadophilia in the UK.

+T800System You have no Idea what you are talking about, They own all the land In Great Britain and are renting it to the UK government in exchange for a fix salary. With all the Building they Upkeep they bring the UK a enormous amount of tourist. The money they make the UK earn way more money they get from the government for the land they rent

SirPetterTheFirst Oh, because they "own all the land" that suddenly makes it okay? What you just said is built on such flimsy logic I'm not even going to bother to refute it. The fact that you can't see the gaping hole in it yourself is bad enough.

ahafsajdfnsks 1. How do you know they make "700 million" through tourism? Do you have any concrete empirical way of demonstrating this? No, you don't. You can't tell me with absolute certainty that a single penny of the money spent on visiting royalist attractions/buying royalist merchandise would not have been collected if we did not have a sitting monarch. I'll let you in on a secret: the palaces will still be there regardless of whether there is a monarch to occupy them. The rich history of monarchy in this country will still exist regardless of whether we presently have one. What do you think is more appealing to tourists? Letting them venture into Buckingham Palace on a whirlwind tour, or making them stand outside its gates? 2. The welfare system is designed to help people who need it. If you think that our entire unemployment benefit is spent on people who are "too lazy to work" then you're delusional. People who are out of work and are struggling to find it deserve our patronage - one family already dripping in gold does not.

+ahafsajdfnsks 1. Unless you can demonstrate survey data specifically indicating that people visit castles *purely because* there are royals living in them, then that argument is totally unfounded. Firstly from a logical basis - the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh can only occupy one castle at a time, so I think it's highly unlikely that 5.8m people followed them around as they moved between their homes. Secondly, I would bet you hands down that far more people would go to Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Balmoral etc if they could walk around virtually every single room whenever they liked. They could see where royals slept, ate, relaxed etc, check out the absolutely enormous art collections - with no restrictions, all year 'round. Meaning you could get more people through the proverbial door in the first place anyway, thus boosting tourism income. Look at Versailles - uninhabited and thus open to visitors, and it garnered 7.5m visitors vs Windsor's 1.3m (www.travelandleisure.com/slideshows/worlds-most-visited-castles). Indeed, all bar two on that list of the top 20 are uninhabited. Surprise surprise. Therefore, I would bet you that a large proportion, though not all, of tourism revenue in the UK would have come anyway if the royals weren't there - along with a lot more besides. What's even more relevant is that Windsor Castle, the most visited of the royal properties with its 1.3m visitors, would come in only at number 23 on a list of most visited tourist attractions in the UK. Stonehenge, the Natural History Museum, and even Chester Zoo get more visitors than that annually (www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423). So really, their impact on tourism revenue isn't even that great in the first place. 2. On the topic of "they own all the land" - a lot of that is property of the Crown Estate - and thus belongs neither to the monarchy, nor the government, but is public land - i.e. it belongs to the UK. As such, they don't do anything towards the maintenance of this land, or the management of its assets, and the revenue goes to the Treasury. Check the Crown Estate Act 1961 for the details. Anyway, it makes you wonder why they're even needed at all, given that it's public land and they're not getting the money from it. The remaining parts belong either to the Duchies of Cornwall or Lancaster - in essence, large corporations owned by the sitting Duke of Cornwall and monarch respectively, to give them a private source of income. Now, people inherit businesses all the time from parents/grandparents etc, so that bit I have no problem with. However, these people are supposed to register their businesses, to pay corporation tax on their earnings, and they don't get to influence government in a secret and unaccountable manner with a veto over anything that would threaten their interests. All very different for the royals. Of course, some other people do get away with not doing these things and dodging tax etc, which is all the more reason for the government to start closing tax loopholes, though they seem rather hesitant on this...I can guess why but that's another matter. 3. It does lead on nicely to the next issue of how much we pay in benefits versus how much we pay the royals. If you're worried about the deficit, then it's worth remembering that tax loopholes lose far more money than does the provision of benefits to people in this country. At least some (I'd go so far as saying the vast majority of) benefits go to people who genuinely need help - the disabled, single parents etc, whereas tax loopholes just make the super rich even richer. And that includes the royals. And on the top of how much we pay them (and let's be honest - for doing basically nothing) - for a start, the quoted figures of x amount of pennies per household are unrepresentative, as the royals conveniently always forget to leave out the cost of their security in their figures, which is by far the biggest expense. But also, framing it as x amount per household is also misleading - because it adds up to millions and millions. Money, along with Duchy revenue and increased Crown Estate revenue that could be better spent on things like the NHS, education, policing - public services in dire need of funding. So if you're worried about the deficit, or you just care about public services, it makes sense to get rid of the royals. 4. On the last point, touched on earlier, about luck of the draw with inheritance. As I said, I have less of a problem with this in principal when it just comes to money. But when it's about a privileged standing in society, influence over government policy, a strange idea that they're somehow better or superior or more important than any other person, purely by accident of birth and through no merit of their own - that isn't acceptable. And to compare that to whether someone is born disabled, or attractive, or intelligent is a ridiculous comparison. The difference is that those attributes are natural - a monarchical system is entirely man-made, and thus we could, and in my view, should, do something about it. Plus, to take away that standing is hardly "punishing" them - they'd then just be like any other rich family in this country, but without the unearned power and influence. I won't go into the part of the debate centred around democratic principles, or we'll be here all day... On a far more upbeat note - Henning is awesome.

They bring in sub 1 billion, and in excess of half a billion. It's not worth anything

Exactly!

Only because you agree with him

@@ze89412 "Only because you agree with him" Can you think of any reason not to agree with him?

It was funny because it was base. Henning was funny because he got inside a situation in an unexpected and surprisingly accurate way. I love them both.

German in origin. Descendants of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert

@@NC-hu3ti Not really. The Danish royals claim to be much older than Victoria and Albert; they are descendants at least from Christian III (1534-1559). The interbreeding within the royal families in Europe is quite astonishing: For instance, Princess Dagmar (b. 1847) was (as Maria Feodorovna) married to no less than two Russian Czars (Alexander III and Nicolay I) and mother to Czar Nicolay II, and was the sister of Britain’s Queen Alexandra, whose daughter Maude became queen of Norway by marriage to her cousin Prince Carl of Denmark (as Haakon VII). So they were realated but not descendants. Scheswig and Holstein were Danish royal dukedoms until the Dano-Prussian war of 1864, and then on and off until the borders were finalized in 1920.

Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderborg-Glyckborg - as pub landlord Al Murray would say nice fine British name..lol

​@@eivindkaisen6838 Even when obviously correct, any claim made about German-ness and royals suddenly sounds waaay more dubious coming from Prince Ludwig the Indestructible.

@@HellaGust Now, if could juuuust get ze voice right.

lancsFrogger - unlike your comment; it contained no capitals or punctuation.

Well not all Germans are good people, you know.

*spongers, or have you just made up a new composite word from spongers and scroungers?

And that's their best features.

He even set it up by asking Henning first.

Ripping people off, you mean? So basically not that different to being a royal?

@@pineapplepenumbra Tbh Henning's point is valid here. They are born with everything. Imagine being born into such wealth and fame, literally every step recorded and criticized. Can't chose who you date, can't really pick a profession, extremely hard to prove you're worth anything beyond your title. And again, not by choice, just by "chance".

@@ZesPak Oh yes, I totally agree. That's another reason to abolish the monarchy.

The brexxie Gisela Stuart springs to mind.

That Hitler bloke was a jolly great chap.

A jolly great Austrian chap

With who or what do you agree? I have always wondered these past 4 months...

German, sense of humour: contradictio in terminis!

LOL....The Royle Family...

Less than nothing? You know sometimes we should stop and reflect and not take things for granted.... I always thought I was hard done by and unlucky having nothing but, at least,I am better off than those you mention who have less than nothing...

People always search for ideal figures to identify with them.

You're not wrong there. Funny, that....

He died 8 months ago, and that's when I got this recommended.

It couldn't possibly be because it was relevant or topical, could it? Surely not!