It's outdated but ultimately everything is and I think if it ain't broke don't fix it and maybe they should be more open in their intentions. It certainly makes us unique and the power of another party to challenge the ever changing and easily corrupt government is a massive strength even though technically they have no power and are more of a tourist attraction above all else.
I feel like getting rid of the monarchy just removes a large tourism area & a large tax paying rich people as all the money made by the crown is given to the government which is a good deal meaning removing it would cause us to pay more taxes. It also could give more support to a political person & at the moment nobody likes the government in charge. I feel like caring about the monarchy being abolished is focusing on the wrong things as the Monarchy isn't the biggest problem being faced by our country but changing how the system of our democracy works. Our Democracy would be a better thing to improve such as well everything about it. I have no idea what to say here. Edit: also Northern Ireland leaving the UK wouldn't be much changed due to the Monarchy being abolished. As the thing keeping the British part of Northern Ireland as well the protestants don't want to be in a country ruled by Catholics & like there place in the UK so what would cause the whole Northern Ireland leaving stuff would be you know large demographic shift.
You’re right... the money made by the crown is given to the government because the crown is owned by the state, not the royal family. If we became a republic this money would be kept by the government because they’d still own what we now call things like the crown estate, and for example Buckingham palace and the Crown Jewels. The royals would own their personal property, like sandringham and balmoral which they *do not* give any money to the government from.
@@riowhi7 bit surprised at my response as I wouldn't consider myself a monarchist but - The dire straits we're in isn't because of the monarchy - it's categorically because of Brexit. Yes the Windsors may receive more than their fair share - but isn't that true of the Rothschilds, the Trumps, the Kardashians, the rest of the British aristocracy and rich 1% who own 33% of the land? The problem here is the way the Anglosphere. Whether it's our fault from the corruption of the Empire days or America's from the corruption of their entire history/modern hegemony...the fact of the matter is that Anglophone countries are idiots who fall for years like 2016 and the brainwashing that was Trump/Brexit Germany and France (G7) do not have the same disparity and wealth gap either of our countries have, and they don't have the GDP of the US but their taxes and welfare are spent wisely. Meanwhile we have a prime minister from an immigrant family trying to smear our problems on a minute number of war-fleeing refugees to distract us from the level of corruption and money hoarded at the top. The biggggg difference between the US and the UK however is resources, size and hegemony - its no longer the 19th century. It's not Britain's time anymore. And that extra century has provided development beyond belief to keep the US in the place many Brits wish they still were.
@@riowhi7 tourism by things like the coronation bring in far more money than any presidential inauguration. Despite Charles not being the most liked his coronation still brought a lot of money in. Also the money that is given by the state is on a fixed rate that due to inflation over the last few decades or hundred years (not sure how long its been since it was set) they end up paying more to the government. Under the Crown Estate Act 1961. the Crown Estate have a duty "while maintaining the Crown Estate as an estate in land to maintain and enhance its value and the return obtained from it, but with due regard to the requirements of good management" basically the £490.8 million made from it last year go to the government whilst they are paid £37.9 million (with the 2011 up to it) a year there is other things but I am not familiar enough to fully understand these things & work out exact numbers but none that I found would make it larger than almost 500 million. On the 2011 thing you brought up that was done to aid in the whole renovation of Buckingham palace so its set to go back to whatever it was originally after that is done I don't think that grants much different to a group like the state owning the place & having to do the same. Like technically due to the monarch kinda being part of the state & there estate being basically owned by the state you'd just be making a legal headache trying to change the buildings from being owned by the royal family to fully being owned by the government who at the minute is filled with corrupt people like Boris Johnson & idiots like Liz Truss & people who do nothing like Rishi Sunak. Can't wait to see how the next election goes hoping we see the whole lot of Tories lose power & some better party gains power. Democracy usually doesn't work when the people in charge only care for there pockets but I think that's due to capitalism as well it worked well in many places in the past until it was ruined by corruption like in Rome.
Oh no, we lose 0.3% of our tourism revenue **at very best** and 0.01% of our total economy. Big deal. Not only that, tourism and economic arguments have no place in a debate on the monarchy. Tourists should not determine the systems we use. Nor should money. Do you know what would really save money? Not paying our MPs. But that's the wrong thing to do
The British monarchy, is the constitutional form of government by which a hereditary sovereign reigns as the head of state of the United Kingdom, the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories. It would be pointless to abolish the monarchy. The French Revolutionaries created a constitutional monarchy in 1789, however this monarchy did not stay for long. It was abolished in 1792 with the creation of the French First Republic. This did not stay for long either as in 1804, France went back to an absolute monarchy under Napoleon. In 1813, Prussia and Austria joined Russian forces in a Sixth Coalition against France, resulting in a large coalition army defeating Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig. The coalition invaded France and captured Paris, forcing Napoleon to abdicate in April 1814. Eventually, leading up to Frances being a republic.
I am Scottish which may make someone assume I automatically don't want a monarch but I have to say on the contrary, after teaching myself about the monarchy and just what they do, it comes more down to the King or Queen in power and just what they want done. I really think we are better of with a monarchy as a nation than without one, only once it's gone will people see what is missing.
Honestly the debate of the Monarchy can break up the United Kingdom. If one of the constituent nations likes the monarchy or dislikes it more than the rest, then it could start the demise of the United Kingdom as a political union. Also, with the United States might be problems. The way the new goverment handles relations with the North Americans, because Canada could continue having the monarchy (but in the current scenario is more likely that Canada becomes a Republic before the United Kingdom does, but a thousand times more can be Australia that Republicanism is slightly strong there even tho their national politicians have done terrible jobs with the handling of their nation). Getting back with the North Americans, in the United States their is people who feel identified with the British Monarchy so also it can have a negative impact on the image of England in the World Stage. Also, most politicians would ruin Britain and in the pretext that the money of the monarchy is now of the state they will steal it for themselves. Adding to the pile, the United Kingdom is a Parliamentary Democracy so the change from a monarchy to a republic can have not so much impact on politics EXCEPT in the fact that the Monarchy is supposed to be impartial compared to politicians that are supposedly loyal to their electorate. Honestly it would not be bad for the United Kingdom to take some Republican stands like everybody being equal with the exception of people in political charges, like the monarch, but a Republic in this moments can be very risky, especialy how Britain is right now.
Well you can make your own Scottish head of state, when Scotland becomes independent. If majority of Scottish people want it. If you majority of Scottish people who live in Scotland want a monarchy they have one. I am a Welsh person but I am against monarchy as I don’t believe it should be around in democratic Countries in this day and age. I also want Independence from UK as Welsh person. The excuse we off better together is nonsense because it only benefits England. If all were independent then Wales,Scotland,N.I would definitely be better off. Overseas territories would become English overseas territories. England would also be better off as well as an independent Country but they don’t realise it yet. As Soon as the monarchy is abolished in the UK. It makes all Countries that have it still before it abolished automatically a republican Country’s. All,Countries would then need to vote on new head of state for each individual Country that still had monarchy such as Canada,Australia,New Zealand to name a few.
@@NicholasJH96Uh, no they wouldn’t. Contrary to bullshit ill-informed slop you presumably watch on the Internet, the institutions in each of the Commonwealth realms are legally seperate from yours. The UK becoming a republic would just that and only that, the *UK* becoming one. All other realms have the right to determine their own form of government, independent of what the government of Britain may or may not wish to
@@Fathersonspirit-e2c She never worked as hard as Charles. Charles was and remains the hardest-working royal - 17 hours per week (including travel!) over 30 weeks of the year - let's get real, if we're going to admire and respect people for working hard, there's about 50 million people ahead of the royals we should admire and respect more.
"Even most Labour voters support the Monarchy." - Right, but ask them why. You'll find most 'supporters' are lukewarm, just because 'on balance' people imagine the monarchy is a net positive for the country. A generation or two ago, people would have said the same about the Church of England, nowadays supporters of keeping the CofE the state religion are few and far between. The monarchy is massively harmful to the nation. If people knew the truth about it, support for it would collapse overnight. Support is already in freefall, and that's even with the pervasive propaganda about 'how much money they make' or 'how they protect our democracy'.
The thing about monarchies is they are based on personality. The UK is a hereditary monarchy, so no one voted for the monarch, so the monarchy's legitimacy is largely based on how popular the monarch is. Queen Elizabeth II was immensely popular, King Charles III... not so much. The issues other members of the royal family have been causing doesn't help their position either.
I think it’s mostly a time issue. After Charles and Andrew pass away, you’re pretty much left with only popular royals , inoffensive royals, or minor royals that no one pays attention too. Not to mention with the quickly approaching deaths of the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, the royal family is going to massive shrink in the next few decades.
There are 8 royals who are more popular than the most popular British politician or former politician, and doesn't include the children. I really don't see a situation in which the royal family becomes more unpopular than politicians, so the proposal to replace them is not going to be popular.
In brazil people are questioning why we let the republic exist in the first place, this debate is deffinitly different around the world. Like for real our republic is a joke, while the empire at least was able to grant stability and somehow a better press freedom then modern brazil 😅😅 oh wait i live here, shit.
More and less Pedro II didn't really care that he was deposed ever since he lost his final son in infancy he grew weary of the relevance of the institution and became disillusioned with it all together which is why he didn't put up much of a resistance to his deposition
@@themcfunnel yes i know He had a problem eith the brazillian parilament because unlike other weatern nations it always refused modernity and since mr Pedro loved traveling during diplomatic missions he loved french, american and british modernity, causing him to lose much will to continue, and he was old asf
@Person11068 The UK is less corrupt than Spain, the UK is less corrupt than Italy, it’s less corrupt than Mexico. There are always exceptions to the rule but the general rule remains true that constitutional monarchies are less corrupt than republics.
@demarcomixon lmao the entire reason bretxit happened besides immigration was because the UK did not want the EU transparency laws, to end fiscal paradise that the UK is.
Charles isn't as incompetent as he is pictured. Still, his mother was perfect in her onstage behavior. Charles is good but not perfect. Add to this the simple fact that the English are less tolerant of their kings than their queens. Throw in the kinds of defferance norms of the 1950s being long gone. I think the monarchy might be gone by 2050.
@user-sp4rl5fd8r That means that large numbers of bitter 3rd world dictators (many of whom are less mature than Donald Trump) would have the final say on our lives. World unity would require a world of stable democracies. We're centuries from that. The UK ditching the monarchy will be a progressive step. But it's only a drop in the bucket of what's needed.
@@thomasdevine867 keep dreaming, mate. UN & their cronies control this world one way or another. It's a grimdark world. So grow up and live it with it.
I really do think the monarchy will de deposed around 2050 as well. I predict throughout the 2030s and 2040s the monarchy will become even more so unpopular and there will be more hostile protests and even assassination attempts on the Royals. The Republicans know that there really isn't a peaceful way to depose the King, so they will have to resort to violence. There will be a coup or violent uprising kicking the Royals out of the UK under either William or George.
5:24 Honestly dude, some of the worst examples you could’ve cited. Louis XVI was far from the last monarch of France, and there were between 5 and 10 more monarchs after him (depends on who you count and how), with the last monarch not losing his throne until 1870, and he wasn’t even overthrown in a revolution, but deposed in a mixture of a foreign military occupation and a coup d’état Haiti first gained independence as an empire in 1804 that lasted until 1806, became a kingdom in 1811 that lasted until 1820, before becoming an empire again in 1849 that lasted until 1859 Ireland upon independence did not become a republic, it became a Commonwealth realm and remained such until either 1937 or 1949 (some constitutional ambiguities were not resolved until the latter date, it’s a whole thing) And as to Serbia, it was NEVER an independent state as a republic until 2006. Its first gain of independence in 1804, a period that lasted until 1813, didn’t really have a government. It was more of an uprising acting as a state, led by a “Grand Vožd”, a position that was a mixture of monarch and military dictator. The first recognized independent state, the Principality of Serbia, came into being in 1815, became a kingdom in 1882 (during this period the throne flipped between 2 families constantly but there was never a republic), became a founding part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1918, and became a constituent part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1945, existed in a federation with Montenegro from 1992 until 2006 when it FINALLY became just Serbia again in a little less then a hundred years from the time it had existed alone
@@joaocarvalho6316 Not really a valid point considering France has rewritten its constitution 14 times, basically from scratch from the introduction of the first one in 1791. That’s not evolution, because each document was essentially trashed. That even includes the change from the 4th Republic to the 5th, since France went from a parliamentary democracy to a semi-presidential one. As for Serbia, the abolition of the monarchy was illegal, and also done under the auspices of a Yugoslav state. It had to reconstitute itself after the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Again, no evolution, just starting fresh. Haiti has basically followed the same path as France, although unlike France none of its governments have ever actually been functional so whatever its constitution says doesn’t really matter. As for Ireland, that’s fair. But it’s also a result of fairly specific circumstances. If Home Rule had succeeded or any number of different things occurred, Ireland would still be a monarchy today, in union with Britain or otherwise. Hell, there were chances after the creation of the Irish Free State were it could have stayed a monarchy, just with a monarch not from the House of Windsor. Also its transition, unlike France, Haiti or Serbia was a legally sound and legitimate process, not a revolutionary one.
I mean why would they? It is part of their history and like it or not the royal families today represent the nations itself giving how long they have been leading it. Look at Japanese for example, even if they are modern, atheistic and quite liberal society they still have and respect their Emperor. And they are fine with him existing and representing the soul of a nation. So yeah, Charles may be unpopular but he is also very old and will not reign for long. Once his son takes the throne the monarchy will be fine again.
It’s the same question when asked for other countries that have a parliamentary monarchy system (Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, etc). It’s not always possible to do this without something being compromised, be it political stability, voter apathy, increased national security; to name but a few. The can of worms goes beyond swapping the monarch for a president, and it’s better not to interfere much.
With Japan (which is also a parlimentary monarchy system), nearly all people have reverence to the Imperial Family, so I can see them lasting into the far future.
@@paolotorres8537 Of course, the Japanese Emperor was worshiped as a god until Japan's defeat before America and America wrote the Japanese Constitution and abolished the worship of the Emperor, but of course some still revere him.
@@mshmsh9313 no, it didn’t abolish worship of the emperor, the whole “humanity declaration” is often misunderstood by foreigners. All it is is to just simply acknowledge that the emoeror’s role is to be the ceremonial symbol of the people and Japanese unity, not so much a denial of divinity. In fact, even way back in the day, Japanese emperors never had so much governing power (the real power rested in the nobles and shoguns), but they were still seen as divine.
@@mshmsh9313To be fair, that was not the result of any decision made by the Japanese monarchy. No Japanese sovereign ever claimed to be a divine figure. They did (and still do) claim descent from the divine, say what you will about that, but no Japanese monarch ever claimed to be a god. And that includes Hirohito.
I strongly believe that the Monarchy should remain as it is. The UK is already very different without Queen Elizabeth.. it would be worse without the entire Crown.
Fear of the unknown. We are in the era of republican states, and the United Kingdom is already worse off economically. The savings it collected from the colonies are beginning to run out, and the removal of Elizabeth from Barbados is the biggest example.
Well the UK lost its empire under the late queen. Plenty of great Kings throughout all of British history that did not rule over gelded realms nor let their realm become gelded in the first place.
We pay less than £2.00 per year each, which ONLY relates to the King for his role as Head of State. If we had a 'voted in' HoS, which is what the Republic leader says they want, we would still have to pay for him/her. Plus, as PM's get lifetime security, I think it's safe to bet that the King also will, so in addition to the new HoS costs, we will still have to pay for the King's security - maybe other members of the RF as well.
The question is what would replace the King/Queen as a head of state. The only real alternative is a President. This will either have to be a Executive President or a Ceremonial President. The MP's in the House of Commons will not allow an Executive President as that will mean handing power from the House of Commons to the new Executive President (The same reason as why the house of Lords is not replaced). As for a Ceremonial President what is the difference between a Ceremonial President and what we have now. Would it be worth the turmoil (as described in this video) to change to a Ceremonial President.
very true, but there is a difference between ceremonial president and monarch. Monarch is legally still a monarch, he can disband parliament, choose head of government, declare war etc, in most constitutional monarchies today, there is just informal agreement in societies to not do that, but theoretically all monarchs today can become absolutist rulers like in the past, lol.
@@AmirSattActually, no. They’ve tried, they have, but Parliament simply ignores them when they do. They can’t legally do it, the Bill of Rights 1687 stops them. Kinda crazy.
@@Ben-outdoorsIt could, yes, but in some ways it makes sense to separate them, by doing so it keeps the operations of ceremonial and official actions separate; thus not wasting official time. Just my view, though.
If the monarchy was abolished-it will be a political nightmare for us in Canada. The many treaties between the various indigenous nations from the Cree to Inuits to Haudenosaunee all signed treaties to with the Crown. It will be a nightmare if the Crown was abolished because technically those treaties would be void. It means all the cities in Canada, without the Crown, would technically no longer have a right to those lands anymore unless there was a new treaty that transferred those lands from Crown ownership to the new Canadian Republic. But the details of all those treaties will be a huge endeavour in itself.
And you know somebody would try to call something unconstitutional or raise an old dispute and drag it out for years to achieve nothing. It would destory us for nothing. Honestly we should just move the monarchy to Ottawa at that point like Brzil did back in the day if it came down to it.
Actually under Canadian law if the UK abolishes the monarchy that actually does not affect Canada's monarchy. Canada will probably become the new permanent base of the monarchy if they royals are forced to leave Britain...that would leave the position of governor general redundant.
Yes I'm sure the people that would manage this are as dumber than you and have not considered this implication. And seriously now you care about the indigenous people of Canada? How hilarious. Canada has for years treated them like shit.
Even if they abolish the monarchy , it will take years of hardship to get back the country in track , just like they first did previously during 1649. It faced many severe challenges and consequences to be ruled under a democratic government , so abolishing of the British monarchy which has been the “heart of English” for many years would not be a good option. Instead , monarchy can flourish with the modern era only if they just try to make many significant and important changes and befit it like the Danish , Norwegian or Dutch monarchies which are currently being loved by their people. I would recommend at first to reduce the mammoth size royal expenditures and their tax issues to be funded by themselves , converting some of the unused royal estates or cottages or castles into something bloody useful like shelter centres or charity organisations and last but not the least , the royals should stop trying being snobbish and be more transparent and accessible with their subjects and citizens
I suppose it is a question of Europeans and some countries of the world, for me something like the Monarchy seems disgusting, that someone has such birth privileges as in the Middle Ages seems absurd to me these days. The worst thing is that some praise and love them, it is difficult for me to understand, in that sense I like the United States better.
@@netero1682 A story about democracy: A farmer asked his son before he died, "Pigs complain about poor feed, cows complain about heavy work, and chickens complain about dirty nests. What should you do?". The son said: "Change to good feed, buy more cows, clean up Chicken coop." The farmer shook his head and said. "No, don't do anything. Let them vote, let them choose you or your wife to take care of them, and let them think they are the boss”. Son’s idea = Chinese democracy Father’s idea = American liberal democracy
The French are obsessed with monarchy. And we can't do it without the aristocracy (not a monarchy) granting a vote in the first place. We are occupied. We need arms to revolt.
@@Ganymede559 yall cant even defend yourselves. you have to outsource your military escapades lol. essentially the uk and most of europe is a bunch of hopelessly entitled and spoiled people who depend on monarchy having global power so that they may continue never having to work or earn anything the same way everyone else outside the imperial core does.
American and Korean here, Korean side says yes, as ours was ineffective and weak. Whilst the American side disagrees, because the Monarchy gives the UK the UK
As a Malaysian, (one of the constitutional monarchy in the world) the monarchy is vital to stabilise our political power,which means that we should never abolish it.
guys please know that we have all did evil (sin) and we are punished to death and since we do evil and reject God we will go to hell but God lovingly provides a way out through Christ where we can be saved if we trust in Gods work on the cross. Turn from your sins and tell your sins to God as Christ makes it possible for us to be forgiven (read John 3:16 please)
guys please know that we have all did evil (sin) and we are punished to death and since we do evil and reject God we will go to hell but God lovingly provides a way out through Christ where we can be saved if we trust in Gods work on the cross. Turn from your sins and tell your sins to God as Christ makes it possible for us to be forgiven (read John 3:16 please)
guys please know that we have all did evil (sin) and we are punished to death and since we do evil and reject God we will go to hell but God lovingly provides a way out through Christ where we can be saved if we trust in Gods work on the cross. Turn from your sins and tell your sins to God as Christ makes it possible for us to be forgiven (read John 3:16 please)
guys please know that we have all did evil (sin) and we are punished to death and since we do evil and reject God we will go to hell but God lovingly provides a way out through Christ where we can be saved if we trust in Gods work on the cross. Turn from your sins and tell your sins to God as Christ makes it possible for us to be forgiven (read John 3:16 please)
Trust me, I live in a country which abolished this institution. Has anything turned for better? Not at all. On the contrary having an elected head of state who has a limited years to stay in power makes them use public founds as they want, having immunity makes them even steal on a big scale( imagine that with another one every 4 years). Just for an example, our head of state has a year before a new election is going to be held. In that time he has made several tours in several countries with his family where they spent money on luxurious things, they would not have if not for the function. Because everything is political we do not have that many things to say. The people having the power to vote them out is just a story. Usually homeless and alcoholics are paid so they would vote by the biggest parties and because they win these things which everyone knows about aren't investigated (all parties are doind that, some of them better, who pays more will win) If there is a referendum so the president is to be changed the same, in a society the majority are these unfortunate people who would vote anyone just for 1 L of Vodka or 1 kg of potatoes. Do you really think that this would be better for you? Trust me it wouldn't and when people would want to get rid of them ( these elected lads) you could not because it would already be about party politics. Be aware that even Cromwell after replacing the monarch just made himself a pseudo king, as would all these republicans, do not fall for their valueless propaganda. May the King live, and may we get back our Monarch!
guys please know that we have all did evil (sin) and we are punished to death and since we do evil and reject God we will go to hell but God lovingly provides a way out through Christ where we can be saved if we trust in Gods work on the cross. Turn from your sins and tell your sins to God as Christ makes it possible for us to be forgiven (read John 3:16 please)
guys please know that we have all did evil (sin) and we are punished to death and since we do evil and reject God we will go to hell but God lovingly provides a way out through Christ where we can be saved if we trust in Gods work on the cross. Turn from your sins and tell your sins to God as Christ makes it possible for us to be forgiven (read John 3:16 please)
Like he said, basically the crown is the reason to live of the United Kingdom, is the reason than NI, Scotland and Wales are united with England (Specially with Scotland because now the Royal Family have scottish blood), and is one (for not to say the principal) of the reasons of being british, anyone who heard about Brittain thinks inmediatly about the monach. The Crown is the principal national symbol of the UK, maybe i will do the mistake of saying that, but without The Crown there´s no UK
guys please know that we have all did evil (sin) and we are punished to death and since we do evil and reject God we will go to hell but God lovingly provides a way out through Christ where we can be saved if we trust in Gods work on the cross. Turn from your sins and tell your sins to God as Christ makes it possible for us to be forgiven (read John 3:16 please)
@@BritishRepublicsn Like Malaysia. Their sultans only rule for 5 years, and the throne passes into another royal families. They're not elected by the people though.
How about you stop giving them money, take away the land, use the money to fund a proper schoolsystem and build an actual democratic nation? Like, the rest of the civilized world?
guys please know that we have all did evil (sin) and we are punished to death and since we do evil and reject God we will go to hell but God lovingly provides a way out through Christ where we can be saved if we trust in Gods work on the cross. Turn from your sins and tell your sins to God as Christ makes it possible for us to be forgiven (read John 3:16 please)
guys please know that we have all did evil (sin) and we are punished to death and since we do evil and reject God we will go to hell but God lovingly provides a way out through Christ where we can be saved if we trust in Gods work on the cross. Turn from your sins and tell your sins to God as Christ makes it possible for us to be forgiven (read John 3:16 please)
Imagine being a simp for some old guy with a funny hat just because his ancestors killed and robbed the right people at the right time. Monarchs don't have divine authority, nor do they have the consent of the people. It doesn't matter if they only have "ceremonial power" (which isn't even true). It is a matter of principal. The only one deserving of the address of "your majesty" is God. The only king that one should kneel before is the king of kings. And if you're not religious, and the preceding doesn't apply to you, consider the following: why would you allow a religious figure to head your country? Literally pick up any piece of Enlightenment Era philosophy and try to argue with it. Start with Thomas Paine's Common Sense. I think that if you do so, you'll have a very hard time defending such a distasteful and immoral form of government. With that said, it's not my country nor my people. You do you.
6:50 Check your researches. Royal properties are still in the hand of the Royal family. The government gets their revenue currently, but they keep up the cost of the royal family. Which is acctualy an income for the UK and not a cost. But all in all it is it owned by the family of the King.
why not just draw a line in the cement about their powers. Do visits to other countries, open parliament with a speech, do the ceremonies/ weddings etc. thats it. in terms of operations: lower public funding for monarchy, take back millions of hectares of public land, turn other royal properties into property/museum. and in terms of ways to separate the two: change names of things named after the king (HMP, HMRC, HMS) etc. change national anthem (nobody knows it or cares anyway), change governement offices so they dont have the crown above their logo etc. and in terms of things the monarchy will not do- not anti democratic things, ie giving royal assent to bills, being commander in chief of army etc.
'lower public funding for the monarchy' The only part of the monarchy that is funded by the public are the costs for Head of State duties and upkeep of the buildings that do not belong to the RF. If you want to lower the funding, the only way to lower it is for no money to be given for the upkeep of the buildings which means the public will either have to fund it another way, or leave them all to rot. If you want to get rid of the RF completely, then the public will still have to fund the costs for a HoS and will still have to pay for the buildings to be maintained. The difference is that Mr Joe Bloggs HoS will not boost the economy to the tune of well over a billion GBP per year as the RF currently does.
In reality there should be a vote to keep or abolish the monarchy same why you have election . If more people vote for them to be abolished. They should just stop doing what ever it is they do
And if any member of the royal family were subject to scrutiny like any politician rather than just subject of propaganda, then you wouldn’t want them wielding power either. It’s mostly about the type of coverage received
The UK. The only "white" country that doesn't follow the "white" values of freedom and democracy (or at least openly brags about not following it). Could you imagine if this conversation is happening for other countries? I know you don't live in Saudi Arabia but I know you have a strong opinion about abolishing their monarchy.
We are a democratic country. Our leaders are voted in by us, the people. The King is our Head of State and is non political. I'd be interested to hear what freedom you don't think we have.
Americans think they have freedom..the irony is they have a larger percentage of incarcerated people than UK and other western democracies.you are so brainwashed.!wtf does Saudi Arabia have to do w this discussion.they are. Gulfoil state..muslim theocracy..could not be more different than the UK.
@@farrgl8182 The freedom to have any debate we wish withing the House of Commons? The freedom to challenge the establishment through democratic means? We are far from being a functional democracy.
@@Fordnan Your local MP is there to take your debate subject to the HoC. If that's not happening, then blame those who voted for him/her, not the system. Petitions on the official Gov site also, by law, have to be debated once they reach 1K (I think?) signatures. The options are there for us to have our voice heard in the HoC, as they should be in any democratic society.
I live in the U.S., but I hold deep respect for the Sovereign and whomever sits on its throne. I have done hours of research about the U.K. and it sits among my favorite countries, however I must say I'm only interested in it as a Kingdom. The Monarchy is what gives The United Kingdom its power and influence. It would be foolish to get rid of a millenium of tradition, and culture. The Sovereign has always acted a stabilizing force especially in the world wars. It would be impossible to actually criticize a monarch as I and the rest of the people in my country and the Commonwealth are so utterly beneath a King or Queen, I'd say the monarchy should only take critique from another monarchy or perhaps the God himself. The people of the U.K. are nothing without their King and their Royal traditions. And as long as it was painless I like to think I would give my soul for the Monarchy. Long Live The King.
this is one of the points I feel people miss when they argue against the monarchy, our royal family is about 80% of the UK's current relevance on the world stage and political influence.
@@matthewkent5212 they don't actively take part in politics but they have wide spanning influence and do play a role in international diplomacy. Most British allies are members of the Commonwealth which only exists as long as the monarchy does, America does not really count because they are "Allied" to the entire western world
The Monarchy is a ceremonial role that is largely a cost to the state. It is only held up by traditionalism and people that see some measure of prestige in it. Many countries are fine without kings and lords.
The crown earnings are given to the government...they recieve a out 15% back as the civil list.they are a net contrjbutor to the nations coffers...even more so since KC3 has made such a success of the Duchy of Cornwall.how many others give 85%of their income to their nation.i cant believe how many people dont know this.
Not sure why everyone is so fixated on the Monarchy . If you want to improve the UK as a Democracy , suggest bringing in Proportional Representation . Ranked Ballot - Single Transferable Vote . .
I'm Australian Disbanding the British monarchy does pretty much nothing as all their royal assets would still need to be maintained through public funds. It's an important cultural part of British heritage, perhaps even world heritage and the Monarchs alive today can scarcely be blamed for any ill-effects colonialism has had around the world. In fact anyone who scapegoats the monarchy to such extent has either a poor grasp of historical context or is merely trying to cherry-pick which atrocities they choose to acknowledge in order to confirm their own bias. That's not to disregard heinous acts committed by the British though. Historically most cultures have committed foul acts against others and those who didn't got utterly decimated by those who did 🤷. Still happens even today actually. The haves dominate the have-nots.
Why does everyone think the killer argument against the monarchy is financial? The cost of the monarchy is eye-watering, true, but on the scale of our GDP it's nothing. The monarchy is an issue because its powers are used to undermine our democracy, and it serves as the cornerstone of our class system. It is also cruel to the royal familly themselves because it relegates them to no more than zoo exhibits for perverted old dears to coo over. The monarchy is wrong in principle, and highly damaging in practice.
@@pwood6532 sing your shite national anthem "god save the King" FFS. If you don't like members of the monarchy you can't get rid of them. Living in monarchial society is such an ancient thing it makes no sense in a modern world as no-one should be above another. This is why the English class system is so endemic in British culture!!!!
@@CKW10001 "such an ancient thing it makes no sense in the modern world" I guess the 43 monarchies dotted around the world would disagree with that. You're also STILL living in the past with your idea that they consider themselves to be above other people. You only have to watch them out and about, the way they react to those they meet, the way they join in with various activities, etc, to see that what you have said is a load of rubbish. I'm guessing you're not from the UK, which explains why your knowledge of the RF is so limited. What it doesn't explain is why you think you have the right to poke your nose in. Focus on your own country, that's where your opinion counts.
@@farrgl8182 your a monarchist! It's f**king stupid pal no matter what you say. And the 43 monarchs around the world isn't a good idea to raise. Only Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain and Liechtenstein are the only examples of decent monarchies the rest are highly questionable. These also have provision in their constitution to what a monarchy is and how much they get paid. They aren't working hundreds of millions, where the standard of living of the people is a lot better than the UK. You kiss your king's feet why don't you, in my opinion it's bloody stupid as no-one should be above anyone else! I believe in a society where hard work and talent should get you places, not on titles!!!
I am Irish and the last time England has a Republic it came with Oliver Cromwell who proved to be quite unpopular in ireland. So all in all leave well enough alone i think .
The Monarch signs all Legislation before it becomes Law and is the Commander in Chief of the Military . So if Kier Starmer said he was talking over , theoretically Charles could stop him from becoming a full dictator . In April 1940 , the King of Norway stopped Quisling from taking over . .
Untrue. As a Brit I know this is a common mistake... crown land is owned by the state, not the royalty, so its name misleads people... but it would still be state owned if Britain became a republic. As for tourism... the claim that the royals bring more money in tourism to Britain hasn’t been proved and it is likely just the palaces that make the money, especially as people visit Versailles and that makes more money than British palaces... and they haven’t had a monarchy for a long time in France.
@@tobeytransport2802 The Crown Estates being state property or royal property is not a 100% settled matter. In the event Britain became a republic it would be a genuine legal question whether or not the crown estates belong to the (ex) monarch or to the state. Certainly there would be a massive problem regarding the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, and they’d likely end up as private Windsor property. Additionally, I keep seeing the example of Versailles being trotted out as some sort of “gotcha” when it comes to the issue of tourism, and in reality it’s such a poorly made comparison. Versailles is famous and visited because it is one of the largest, most luxurious and impressive palaces in the world, which played a central part in the French Revolution. It draws tourists because of its grandeur. Buckingham Palace is… quite frankly… not that impressive when it comes to palaces. You can find dozens of palaces equally or more impressive throughout Europe, it’s nothing special. The main reason Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace etc. are famous and popular tourist attractions is because they have something extra: they are living, breathing buildings. They are the headquarters of one of the world’s most famous institutions. They’re not just dusty museums, they’re still actively being used for royal functions today. When I visited London, I visited Buckingham palace because it was the active seat of the royal family. In Berlin… I’ll be quite honest, I had no interest in visiting the Bellevue Palace, the residence of the German president, nor the rebuilt Stadtschloss, the former residence of the German emperors.
@@LordDim1 Buckingham Palace breathes. That’s the first I’ve heard of that. I thought I’d heard it all from monarchists. (I get your point but people visit the Tower of London too, that doesn’t have any royalty in it, and parliament which also doesn’t have any royalty).
@@tobeytransport2802 They visit the tower because of its history as a medieval castle and prison for multiple famous historic figures, not to mention the fact it is where the Crown Jewels are kept. Likewise, they visit the Palace of Westminster because it is the mother of parliaments; it is the active seat of the parliament of the United Kingdom. Were it just a museum and not actively the seat of parliament, visitation would almost certainly be far less, because the main draw of the thing would be gone; it would no longer be the seat of British political power and democracy. It would just be a big nice building.
In Nepal we are regretting for abolishing monarchy because in Republic there are political with corrupted mindset. Monarch Head of State is like a parent to its citizens and can unity the country and I know its goes same as President but I can assure you no President can be like a Monarch.
@@jeremigawkowski9775like the Americans don't have to pay for their president too or the Canadians for that snake Trudeau making Britain a republic would change nothing but piss off alot of people
Circa 1975 , the King of Sweden lost his Executive Authority . As a result , there was a power shift to the Prime Minister and UNelected advisors . Democracy in the UK would decline even more if this were to occur . Because right now , Cabinet Ministers have real authority . .
@@leonmorris7862 it's so sad so many people have been conditioned into thinking the only note worthy thing about this country and it's long history is the current monarch
This is just… no true. Support today is at roughly the same area as it was in 2000. Support for the monarchy in 2012 was a historic high point fuelled by the convergence of the diamond jubilee, William and Catherine’s marriage, birth of Prince George, the London Olympics, and an absence of scandals. The decline since has simply returned the monarchy to its historic levels of support
I doubt it, but I would mention that it's often forgotten that the royal family is also the royal family of 14 other nations around the world. And while support may not be as high in those countries than the UK , in some of those nations such as Canada, it is not as simple as holding a referendum, in Canada , aside from lack of political will, the process to change the system of government or what the 1982 Constitution Act refers to as "The Office of The Queen", it would require the approval of the House of Commons, the Senate, and all ten provincial parliaments, a task that would be practically impossible for a whole host of reasons. So hypothetically the UK could cease to be a constitutional monarchy, but the monarchy itself would not be "abolished"
How does the monarch make us great? 'Great Britain' is a geographical term, and what makes us grat culturally and historically is the ingenuity of our population. We brough forth the first truly global language, we have Shakespeare, we led the industrial revolution, we have Newton, Darwin, Maxwell. Faraday, Dalton, Dirac, Higgs and Hawking amongst our scientific names, Keynes and Smith as economists, we have football, rugby, cricket, golf and motorsport amongst the sporting contributions we've made, Wren, Jones, Foster amongst the architects... The list goes on and on. What has the monarch ever done for the mass of people in the country besides live off the wealth we produce?
Some of these statistics and facts are wrong or rather do not align with my own research. First of all I'd like to challenge your speculation that without the Monarch, Scotland would have had a referendum and left the U.K and I don't think that is the case because it is the Prime Minister of the time (Boris Johnson) who did not allow the referendum to pass through parliament not the Monarch. Secondly, although yes there would be a large demographic shift in the U.K if Scotland were to leave (the U.K would lose around 8 million citizens) and this would affect the U.K's global influence it would not necessarily affect the U.K economically as for every £3 London sends to Scotland, Scotland returns £2 and although the U.K does also trade goods with Scotland, this trade would not all grind to a halt if Scotland leaves the U.K and any decrease in net income could be made up from the confiscation of the Crown Estates and the £100,000,000 sovereign grant. I am not saying that all your statistics are wrong but they do not align with my own so 'd just like for you to double-check any facts and figures you use in future videos, thank you.
I’m an American but I have a lot of love for constitutional monarchies and I wish America was a member of the British Commonwealth or had our own monarchy. I know my opinion doesn’t mean much but I think it would be a terrible mistake to abolish the British monarchy. I really want to visit the United Kingdom because it’s a kingdom. Outside of the monarchy I don’t have much interest in the United Kingdom. I’m not interested in the food, music, or culture of the UK except for the monarchy. I want to see a palace where a king lives in not a museum. Being a Kingdom is what makes the UK a special and unique country turning yourself into a republic would be a disaster in my opinion. Ultimately I know the decision is not mines and it ultimately the will of the British people. I just wanted to share the opinion of someone on the outside looking in.
Even during the revolutionary war most were still in favor of the monarchy. I honestly think if an offer similar to the commonwealth setup canada got 100 years later was made, most would have accepted. Home rule, with foreign policy decided by london and a ceremonial governor representing the throne to sign off on laws.
Yes. Of course it will be disbanded, eventually. Systems collapse. It's not a matter of if but when. Same as capatilsm. 'It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism' Most British people can't imagine the end of the monarchy, despite it being a draconian obsolete relic.
American here: I used to be one of those people who laughed at monarchies and said they were stupid letting an unelected inbred rich person be your head of state. But a year or two ago I changed my mind after listening to so arguments, the best coming from the RU-vid channel UsefulCharts. Monarchy in parliamentary democracy is a symbol rather than an individual person. It keeps elected politics separate from the head of state and creates more political stability. Just look to the U.S. to see how elected heads of state can create issues. Many people in the UK, Canada, Australia may say they could become a republic, but if they did try it they’d probably regret it. Now, since I don’t live in a monarchy all I have is opinions so I can’t change anything, but I guess it’s the thought that counts…
@Person11068 We reached our greatness because of our geographical superiority, not because we’re a democratic republic. Correlation does not equal causation. Besides, us leaving the monarchy also created many hardships such as the continuation of slavery. Those other republics you mentioned haven’t had the smoothest path either. France is on its 5th republic with calls for a 6th.
@Person11068 The US would have been as much of a failed state as latin america if it wasn't for geography. That much space and resources is what allowed the country to grow to be a strong power, that prosperity gave the government relative stability (civil war notwithstanding) to be able to stalemate the brits in 1812, enforce the Monroe doctrine, and beat Mexico for just over 1/4 of the modern US by land area.
As a Brit living on usa ..i like to rub it in about 06 Jan insurrection..sorry..tourist wave😅...that it couldnt happen in old blighty..bc the military pledge allegiance to the monarch..not the pm.I am comforted that The Windsors are the head of state and not thicko liz truss...adhd boris johnson..or the newly elected sir keir stalin.most elected politicians are slime.
It might happen one day in the distant future, but sadly not in our lifetime. A way too large chuck of the British population is totally love the royals for whatever strange reasons. Even many royal bootlickers hate Charles, but they are enamored with William & Kate and would love nothing more than Charles to abdicate so that their dream royal couple can take the throne. For the monarchy to end, it would have to come from the King/Queen, but I don`t see them royals ever giving it up. Harry might have if he had become the king. But Charles waited too long for it and William seems to be the kind who loves his role as a royal celebrity.
@@feelmehish8506 They _are_ strange. The aren't even English by DNA, but have occupied England for centuries and descend from the Swiss/Norse, who intermixed with the French.
The real question is: how will people prevent another Oliver Cromwell from trying to seize power? There definitely would be people who would try to take advantage of the situation after the monarchy is hypothetically abolished
Monarchy does not cause a state to be better or worse off than a republic. I will freely admit as a Republican that abolishing the monarchy wouldn’t improve our lives dramatically overnight... but it wouldn’t make them worse either. The argument is more about fairness... why do one family get paid millions to be a figurehead by the state yet some homeless people aren’t entitled to a penny, and remember this is *taxpayers money* and is a lot more than the salary of even the Prime Minister. The average family in Britain is on track to be worse off than the average in Poland by the way.
@Person11068 I agree with that… although that highlights that in reality our royalty are also normal people, like those monarchs in other European countries are… and thus ought to be subject to the vote of the people, rather than us being subject to them simply deciding to reign over us.
@@tobeytransport2802 I hope you understand that the monarchy generates more revenue than the amount spent on it with taxpayer money, which means that it is a good investment for the welfare of the country as a whole. Homelessness, inflation and poverty are issues which need to be solved by the elected government, which the current Conservative government is not doing.
