I think we can all read between the lines: the Queen had a secret nuclear weapons program at Balmoral.

@billybob-jp7eh

Жыл бұрын

On a horse drawn carriage of course.

@mateo_sid

Жыл бұрын

@@billybob-jp7eh while illegaly hunting fish

@davi7940

5 ай бұрын

😂

@CallumKray

5 ай бұрын

"FIRE.... that should keep the Scottish quiet for a while"

@leoleony1

4 ай бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂

It's my understanding that the crown actually has the powers of a sovereign ruler, but the monarch chooses not the exercise it's full power to appease the people.

@4grammaton

Жыл бұрын

Or rather, they don't exercise it openly. I'm sure that what has been revealed here is only a tiny part of the true scale of things.

@ykkrasaoz9748

Жыл бұрын

No.

@ApeX-pj4mq

Жыл бұрын

@@4grammaton If they did use those powers it was probably for somethinh very small, since we would have heard about it from the media otherwise. They have a tendency to find anything they can against the royal family

@mikesloothaak679

Жыл бұрын

No, your understanding is incorrect. Since the Glorious Revolution (and Cromwell before that) the monarch essentially reigns at the invitation of Parliament. Whatever shenanigans the royals get up to (and they do) are done only because the Commons decide to tolerate it.

@abcdedfg8340

Жыл бұрын

​@@4grammaton No.

i don’t get why people are surprised that kings and queens get more power than the everyday folk

@petersmith2522

8 ай бұрын

They must have alot more than a combined 1.6 billion more like 1.6 trillion

@keifer7813

7 ай бұрын

Well maybe because the UK claims to be a democracy and the monarchy is simply a "symbolic" institution

@ronakio

6 ай бұрын

@@petersmith2522 I agree. I think they are the richest family in the world.

@petersmith2522

6 ай бұрын

@@keifer7813 we are actually a capitalist monarchy im sure i read we are 2 types

@TB-rm7oq

5 ай бұрын

​@keifer7813 if you're actually from this country you wouldn't call it a democracy. Stop changing our ways

“Monarch has more power than their subjects realise”, that’s all by design.

They do, but they prefer to keep it secret and let the people think the monarch is just only a ceremonial figure in government

@randomlygeneratedname7171

Жыл бұрын

That means the people are really in charge?

@greatsageequaltoheaven8115

Жыл бұрын

@@randomlygeneratedname7171 The people think they are in charge.

@abcdedfg8340

Жыл бұрын

Lol nice theory.

@Rjlamar-yr3pt

10 ай бұрын

It is

@Rjlamar-yr3pt

10 ай бұрын

​@@greatsageequaltoheaven8115the monarch thinks they are

It's not just what is mentioned in this video. The King is head of the government, the church of England, and head of the armed forces. That is a huge amount of influential power. He also is not subject to the whims of the voters.

@zamarofficial_7436

Жыл бұрын

Although I agree with what you said in the UK the King is not the head of Government that is the Prime Minister. The King is the Head of State which is a completely different role in government.

@ndr8469

Жыл бұрын

Unlike those president's of the EU parliament? Taking the backhander's to further a despot regime, very socialist 😂 greed & corruption, unaudited expenses 🤭 🤡

@pangs3798

Жыл бұрын

so basically he is prime minister, pope, and Commander-in-chief all combined? 🤔

@williemherbert1456

Жыл бұрын

No, the King is head of state, not as head of government, though have power as chief executive.

@ndr8469

Жыл бұрын

@@williemherbert1456 We are quite happy with it 😊 So who cares 😂

But all of this comes with the stipulation that if they abuse these powers, someone out there is going to be the next Cromwell.

@simmo.261

Жыл бұрын

So someone is going to lead a somewhat failed revolution by driving the country into civil war, declare themselves lord protector which basically means Monarch anyway, complete a mass genocide of the Irish and then end up with their head on a spike after a few years?

@empireofengland6039

Жыл бұрын

Cromwell was just a Tudor who wanted to conquer throne.

@simmo.261

Жыл бұрын

@@empireofengland6039 He's clearly never read a history book, nor watched the video as typical guardian failed to prove the Monarchy had even reached through their jurisdiction.

@andrewmckenzie292

Жыл бұрын

Yea and that worked out well....

@claytonberg721

Жыл бұрын

British royals were once highly aware of the fates of first the french crown and then the romanovs. That has informed how every british monarch since Victoria have conducted themselves.

As an American who enjoys Republican democracy, I must say it’s weird to hear that people are surprised or unaware the monarch has powers or exemptions. Like the president gets some privileges many of which are just tradition and he is just a citizen. It would be really weird if the British monarchy that has been in power for hundreds of years was treated like everyone else

@generalsmite7167

4 ай бұрын

@@offroadguy7772 democratic Republic is the term I most used to describe the US as a constitutional republic does not need to be democratic it just needs to have a constitution and a republic

@krystllmiller5612

4 ай бұрын

by republic democracy you mean corporate oligarchy😂

@BernasLL

4 ай бұрын

Democracy would mean the people are given the choice to choose between any party of their preference without having to settle for not their favourites, and that any incoming new party is allowed to gain as much power as their popularity allows, a popularity which comes from equal access to public debate in times of elections. Is that the case with US "democracy"? Or even the UK's?

@shzarmai

3 ай бұрын

USA - (increasingly gerontocracy-baed) Duopolistic Corporatocracy moment

The biggest threat to the British Monarchy comes from the UK citizens, who have little or no understanding of a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary sovereignty means. Without a having a constitution codified into a single document like the US Constitution, it's probably difficult to conduct legal research on the royal prerogative, the role of the prime minister, and the constitutional conventions that require the monarch to seek advice of the government.

@dalane5196

4 ай бұрын

That’s easy read the Australian, Canadian or NZ constitution, it’s all there in black and white, the role of the executive, the parliament, the judiciary and the Monarch. Their respective powers and responsibilities, the only difference to the UK is the role of the Governor General, who represents the Monarch when they are not within the country, they the GG appoint ministers and give royal assent, when the monarch is absent. A lot of people think the Governor General represents the British Government, they dont and have nothing to do with the UK govt, they solely represent the Monarch.

@Dog.soldier1950

4 ай бұрын

Then you just turn huge power to unelected judges. Be careful what you wish for

Just saying that in many Presidential republics, the President enjoys numerous immunities which borderline kingly powers (such as immunity from prosecution during office, right to refuse to sign bills, right to appoint heads of government outside of Parliement etc.). When you look at it comparatively, it looks less sensational

@annemccabe749

Жыл бұрын

Most presidents have a limited time in office so there is no comparison.

@pietrocasablanca8500

Жыл бұрын

@@annemccabe749 it is of course the gigantic difference that presidency is not hereditary. The point is not to say that these powers of the Sovereign are wrong or wrongly used. Just that heads of state have superior powers to a vaste degree even in republics. The main difference perhaps is how are those powers used and is the use of those prerogatives in the interest of the State or the single individual?

@RankinMsP

Жыл бұрын

A president is elected no? Huge difference

@afgor1088

Жыл бұрын

Yeah and what's wrong too... What's your point

@maxwellblaine707

Жыл бұрын

​@@RankinMsP so you would still give a person the right to be above the law and many other kingly privileges ? so tell me again, what is the major difference between elected people that have the kingly privilege and the unanimously wanted or elected learders of institutions that have kingly privilege ?

Thier true wealth is hidden in trusts.

I live in USA where we're ruled by billionaires and big corporations. Not much different 😒

@kordellswoffer1520

11 ай бұрын

It is very different and you aren’t ruled by billionaires nor is the uk.

@ChopSquadBaby

8 ай бұрын

True man 🇺🇸💯 money talks here 🌎👑

@mr.watertap5676

5 ай бұрын

The monarchs spend half of their income protecting the environment and wild lives. Which US billionaire does that?

@luas551

5 ай бұрын

@@kordellswoffer1520so You really think that the billionaires and mega corporations that donated to the presidential campaign don’t have influence in the US government? 😂😂😂😂 Now tell me a cowboy’s story 😂😂😂😂

@dugebuwembo

5 ай бұрын

​@@luas551They do but are they immune & exempt to actual laws of the land?

I was surprised to see the level of genuine grief when Queen Elizabeth died - I think we were all surprised by how much the nation values our monarchy.

@annemccabe749

Жыл бұрын

I was saddened when the queen died even though it was inevitable. It really was the end of an era. However ,I don't necessarily support the continuation of the monarchy and this is not a criticism of King Charles and Queen Camilla., but a time when alternatives could be investigated

@Iazzaboyce

Жыл бұрын

@@annemccabe749 It's a tricky one. It seems absurd until you realise most people have an innate need to revere prestigious figures. It might even be a movie star or pop singer, but people choose to do it and nobody really knows why. So, if it isn't a monarch it's going to be somebody else and having a monarch for people to look up to and emulate is probably the better way forward - even if it is King Charles for now.

@afgor1088

Жыл бұрын

It wasn't genuine, it was scripted. Telly isn't real life mate

@Iazzaboyce

Жыл бұрын

@@afgor1088 I was referring to what I witnessed personally - I'm not sure how you think 'telly' 'scripted' so many people to line the streets...

@branduusituuli

Жыл бұрын

@@Iazzaboyce Not that many. More people go to football matches at weekends.

Yes they are above the law.

@gothicgolem2947

Жыл бұрын

Not really King Charles coudnt go through the streets of london gunning people down

@thepeach03

Жыл бұрын

Did you not get taught about Magna Carta, that's the fundamental principle 😭

@michaelmccomb2594

Жыл бұрын

@@thepeach03 in the 1215 one, maybe. But that lasted for 3 weeks. The more important one (1225) got rid of the more radical republican elements of it, which was mostly based around the ideals that you aloud to regarding the Monarch being below the law or the Magna Carta. The 1225 version was more important in the long term.

@kamekazekwago874

Жыл бұрын

which shouldnt be.

@michaelmccomb2594

Жыл бұрын

@@kamekazekwago874 the 1225 was actually very important for the development of a more involved government. The 1215, was unsustainable.

The British monarch used to own 1/3 of the land in the world not sure where they stand now but they ARE in fact still a powerhouse

@indrinita

Жыл бұрын

You mean they stole most of that land until they were forced to give a chunk of it back.

@lehuynguyen8400

Жыл бұрын

1/4, not 1/3

@leonardmvaya5156

Жыл бұрын

Nothing's changed. They still own land and properties here in Malawi, some of which not a lot of people are even aware that it's owned by the Crown

@andrewmckenzie292

Жыл бұрын

Any "Crown land" in any of the Commonwealth realms is technically still owned by the King. But when you wither down to what he actually controls, many rich people would actually have more (King Charles only owns places such as Balmoral Castle, Sandringham House in a private capacity, all others are governed to one extent or another by respective Parliaments). Then you have the unique cases of Duchies of Lancaster (vested in the monarch) and Duchy of Cornwall (vested in the heir apparent when their the first born son of the King) that are owned by the sovereign and heir respectively but still have some regulation by the British Parliament, although in the case of Cornwall is particularly curious as the heir is not quite as bound as the monarch is to constitutional conventions etc.

@gabbar51ngh

Жыл бұрын

No they don't. Thry barely control the UK.

My lecturer said that the queen would say "..my government.." before handed me a journal to review. Now that I find it true. Thank you for sharing the video. Rest In Peace Queen Elizabeth II

I never realized the U.K. didn’t have a written constitution like over here in the U.S.

@stuartsaint4581

Жыл бұрын

Yeh it doesn't really make too much of a difference in everyday life, just means that parliamentary law and court precedents set the rules. The US is essentially the same but with enough appeals, something can go to the Supreme Court and be ruled unconstitutional.

@gerrypowell2748

Жыл бұрын

It’s been called a rolling constitution which means it can evolve and be changed,mainly for the privileged😉

@303cerebral

Жыл бұрын

We have residual rights, ie. there is no constitutional right to walk down the street, but no law against it so we are free to do it, until a law is made saying you can't.

@FQuintanaMarrero

Жыл бұрын

That’s the reason U.K. politics are a mess.

@303cerebral

Жыл бұрын

@@FQuintanaMarrero If only there was just one reason!

The powers you said are “unlikely to be used” are used all the time - the Monarch picks every prime minister, it is just that they act on the advice of the Government

@johnnotrealname8168

8 ай бұрын

That does not make sense. What government is there before then? It is only recently that Prime-Ministers are expected to stick around and they are not always in a position to give advice. The Queen appoints whoever commands a majority in Parliament. The ability to gets bills passed is the criteria.

@saulgoodman8174

8 ай бұрын

@@johnnotrealname8168 I was referring to the powers listed at around 0:39. With that context it should (hopefully) make sense.

@gammamaster1894

5 ай бұрын

That's not really what was meant when he said that. Yes the Monarch picks the Prime Minister every time on the advice of the Government. What he meant was that the Monarch has the ability to call anyone to be the Prime Minister, a power that would never be used.

Real power is when one chooses not to use the power one has.

@littledudefromacrossthestr5755

Жыл бұрын

What

@public.public

Жыл бұрын

Or just put another coin in the meter.

@public.public

Жыл бұрын

@@littledudefromacrossthestr5755 Watts?

@frank-ko6de

Жыл бұрын

You must be a special reader with delayed comprehension skills.😶😶😶😶

@fuckbankers

Жыл бұрын

One unelected person doesn't deserve any power.

Wow, this was really informative, and I'd love to see more on this topic!

They can’t vet all laws, just the ones that affect their interests.

I’d far rather this than politicians holding it.

@prometheanknight7377

Жыл бұрын

Yes, let a hereditary Monarchy have special privilege. But forbid the politician who could be replaced in an election and has term limits.

@centrist5690

Жыл бұрын

???

@e.g.4483

Жыл бұрын

No thanks!

@orionfernandes4587

Жыл бұрын

@@prometheanknight7377precisely

@vanjasoskic9454

Жыл бұрын

@@prometheanknight7377 it's either monarchy or oligarchy

I’d like to see part two to this.

I'm not even British and can easily that was the government minsters refusing to be assertive, palace officials protecting the monarch's reputation, and the duchies making business recommendations, and NOT the individual monarch acting as an autocrat. There hasn't been an example of the monarch violating convention, refusing advice of her minister, and refusing to grant Royal Assent to bills from Parliament. No one questions that Crown (as an institution) still holds reserve powers and the royal prerogative, but the ones not solely used on the advice of the Prime Minister can be taken away with legislation. The government ministers would have to support giving away the power to declare war, appoint a Prime Minister, or call an election from the Crown (on the advice of the Prime Minister) to the majority of Parliament, which I highly doubt they ever will.

@hassan_codes

Жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, it's not about government officials being unassertive, it's just the monarchy flexing it's gargantuan muscles. Of course there'll never be any report of the monarch "violating convention" because it's by design; use proxies in the palace to cause such violations or if the monarch does the violations, gag the media and government from reporting/recording it. It is by design that they appear to be "ceremonial", they chose those exact words to describe the monarchy so their dictatorship can fly under the radar

The monarchy understands that the pendulum of rulership always swings back and forth. These monarchs can always come back .

Basically in short, They're above the Law!

Its a big club and you're not invited

Would be great if Guardian Australia did an Aussie version of this if they haven’t already! Very insightful, thank you!

@Wilsnap

Жыл бұрын

I mean, it's the same reigning monarchy... Applies to Canada as well.

@Andrea-1998

Жыл бұрын

@@Wilsnap Basically all Anglosphere countries right?

@andrewmckenzie292

Жыл бұрын

Its the same but different, as basically all the powers of the monarch are practised by the Governor-General and especially in Australia the Governor-General is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as practising these powers which could lead to some interesting questions regarding the monarch's own role vis the Governor-General in a constitutional crisis situation (such as 75 dismissal) but so far no situation has truly arisen. The more immediate issue comes from the fact the G-G is actually chosen by the PM so in effect the PM is choosing who'd be their own boss in certain circumstances, such an issue does not arise in the UK where the monarch's authority stems from time immemorial and the government or even Parliament can not really get close to outright overthrowing the monarch (some say the British Parliament has this right, but as the Parliament operates under the Crown, this would leave open the possibility of some politicians and their now appointed peers deciding without consulting the British people to replace the whole governing system).

@Wilsnap

Жыл бұрын

@@andrewmckenzie292 Well said. Such instances of the GG undermining the government and causing a bit of a constitutional crisis row actually have occurred in Canadian political history.

@mizzyroro

Жыл бұрын

@@Andrea-1998 no. Some anglosphere countries are republics. It applies to all constitutional mornarchies.

What's worse is that most of the British press don't mention any of this, keeping up the facade and larger inequality between royalty and the people

@gothicgolem2947

Жыл бұрын

What facade? And idk if I’d say inequality since they earn a lot of the money they get

@TomNook.

Жыл бұрын

Perhaps watch the video...

@rockboyznative

Жыл бұрын

@@gothicgolem2947 they co-own the bank of england along with the rotschilds, meaning they own money that is loaned to the uk government 😂

@mra3579

Жыл бұрын

@@TomNook. You do know the UK has a growing number of billionaires, most of whom are more wealthy than the royal family. Almost 200 in the UK and Charles is king of 14 other countries too. The royal family are focused on their duties and certainly aren't here to stop you becoming wealthy. If your issue is with inequality, I would look at that more appropriately.

@malopephasha5341

Жыл бұрын

@@rockboyznative to be fair queen Elizabeth the first created the bank of England just like she created the royal navy a lot of institutions where created by the monarch back when they still had a lot of power

If you can’t get a warrant (because they are issued in the name of the crown) then how else can you investigate anything if you don’t get the monarch’s permission?

The crown has the power of Veto not only that but it can not be overrode.

@genericscout5408

Жыл бұрын

If they abused that power they would no longer be the crown.

@xavier550

11 ай бұрын

Last time the crown Vetoed was in the early 1700’s under Queen Anne.

Super thankful for the informative video

@chrislambert9435

Жыл бұрын

Ok, but dont be fooled by this misleading and deceptive presentation

@clouds-rb9xt

Жыл бұрын

@@chrislambert9435Explain more

@comedici9609

Жыл бұрын

​@@chrislambert9435 ahahaha

Thank you!

The King is also commander in chief of the UK armed forces, that is a fact. I could be wrong but he might also be commander in chief of the militaries of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

@kateb2643

Ай бұрын

Yikes

This video acts like politicians and big corporations don't do the same.

@willg9106

Жыл бұрын

Whataboutism. Doesn't make the criticism any less valid.

For the last time, the Monarchy really is not the problem with the state of our country.

@zamarofficial_7436

Жыл бұрын

You, my brother, look like you might be a monarchist.

@ChopSquadBaby

8 ай бұрын

What is the problem? I'm not from the uk

@johnnotrealname8168

8 ай бұрын

@@ChopSquadBabyPoliticians, what the @~?£ else. The state our country is in is because of our democratically elected leaders but somehow people think the issue is the King or the Queen. Give me a break.

@ChopSquadBaby

8 ай бұрын

@@johnnotrealname8168 if they keep getting elected maybe they are the better of two evils 🤔

@Rolando_Cueva

8 ай бұрын

​@@johnnotrealname8168 they're both equally corrupt

They own the whole country after all

Maybe you can also make a video on how other countries leader like USA and China got their superpowers

@genericscout5408

Жыл бұрын

China isn't really a super power just yet, but it came from trade mostly. and the ability to defend their borders.

@itsrainnn9224

Жыл бұрын

@@genericscout5408 The hundreds of chinese spyware, vast influence they have over other countries, and their gigantic military would say otherwise

I'm astonished as how many britishes in the comments section are defending this caste hierarchy. Apparently lots of ppl in 21st century believe some humans are entitled to have more rights than others.

@person4402

25 күн бұрын

It doesn't concern you.

Well they are the monarch so having the ability to preserve your assets and quality of life isn't so extreme.

@atrailmckinley4786

Жыл бұрын

Really? So if a prime minister uses taxpayer dollars to renovate a personal estate,you would be fine with that?

@genericscout5408

Жыл бұрын

@@atrailmckinley4786 It would be expected tbh. Especially if they've been doing it for 800 years when the position was passed down from mother to son.

Mm I'm told that when the Windsor Castle fire occured and the then Major govt said all repair costs would be borne by UK taxation, there was common uproar. The entire royal family appeared at that time to pay no taxes at all. Then suddenly, the UK govt stated that many palaces would then be opened to the public -to help defray the cost. Oh and with the sole exception of the Queen herself all others would now be subject to taxes.

They are above the law

Very interesting and informative

The Army swears loyalty to the crown and the state. Notice which one comes first.

Monarchy is difficult to let go when entrenched and successful for a long time. If it ain't all the way broke, why fix it?

@e.g.4483

Жыл бұрын

Because it is broke lol

@tomlydon3123

Жыл бұрын

Because the French showed the world what should become of "royals".

As a military man I’d always folllow the monarchy over the government my king is my commander and chief

@Subtleknife12367

Жыл бұрын

Agreed, my oath was to the Crown not to Parliament.

@Valmiki168

Жыл бұрын

@@Subtleknife12367 that's idiocy

@varalderfreyr8438

Жыл бұрын

@@Valmiki168 So is parliment

@aleladebiri

8 ай бұрын

The law provides that the Parliament must grant the Monarch permission to keep a standing army, every five years. If the Parliament refused to renew that permission, the British Army would be automatically disbanded at the end of the five-year period ( although not the Navy and the Air Forces)

@theatlasgaming126

5 ай бұрын

The Crown is a better, kinder alternative than corporations having large armies. Is it any differnet than the president of the US having command over army, navy and all other types of armed forces? @@Valmiki168

0:47- Boris's curvy back, wow!

That clears it all up

There ARE monarchs so all these makes sense

Actually People have more power than we think.

@anadventfollower1181

Жыл бұрын

We like to think that, but it's a whole different psy-ops. We were doomed since our birth, only to serve the pale demons.

Perhaps what's needed is Magna Carta II. Which would stipulate explicitly which powers are within the rights of the crown and name parliament as the supreme head of the government. The head of the church thing would be up to the clergy to figure out and elect their own leader, which may or may not be the king/queen.

@Fordnan

4 ай бұрын

What's needed is a modern, codified constitution, clearly stating the powers of all positions in government, and ensuring transparency and equality in the eyes of the law.

The thing is about inheritance tax, many would argue that the likes of Buckingham palace and Sandringham are state(which is essentialy crown) property, so why should the King personally pay inheritance on that?

@cboy0394

Жыл бұрын

Sandringham and Balmoral are the private property of the King. Buckingham palace belongs to the Crown (state).

@MeiinUK

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. It's like, taking money from your pocket in the left, to put it into the pocket in the right... lol.... So it makes no sense. I think the Queen did pay some taxes on something, but it was not inheritance tax. Since inheritance tax also goes to the state's any way. So it is pointless to repeat redundant work, right ? The tax that the Queen paid, did go into the pockets of the population. I cannot recall what it was now.

The crown can’t be prosecuted??? So they are indeed above the law

@johnmachenzie1613

Жыл бұрын

They're the law

@davidlally592

Жыл бұрын

Actually not so. Look up the Crown Proceedings Act...

@myamdane6895

7 ай бұрын

What do you mean "they"? The Crown is one person. The monarch. And no of course he can't be prosecuted, the authority of the law comes from HIM

@rikkichadwick7317

5 ай бұрын

The Crown is the source of all Executive, legislative, and judicial power in the UK. How on earth would they prosecute their own source of power.😭😂

Wow…

Can’t believe I’ve never heard of this movie before. Watching it tonight

Wow so the Royal Family is not apolitical.

yet queens and kings are so admired around the world.. while they are worst of law and wealth inequality.

Guardian: How a Constitutional Monarch has more power than You, a mere Peasant.

The monarch is supposed to have some absolute power. It is that very notion which allows the government to be a less-important, changing institution of competing ideas. A government’s failure won’t be as bad because their head of state remains unchangeably there. At the end of the world for example, one would expect the Royal Family to take some control until they can form a new government after the breaking of the hypothetical previous failed government

@genericscout5408

Жыл бұрын

Or the Royal family would be executed and their assets plundered by the survivors. Depending on who gets hit maybe India and other former colonies might invade or loot their assets back from the vaults in Britain. Argentina would like their land back after all.

@davyroger3773

Жыл бұрын

“Some absolute” power is a conflicting term

@mother3crazy

Жыл бұрын

@@davyroger3773 No it isn’t. You can have absolute power in some areas and not others.

When British people protest its so love ing 💀

The royal family are shady AF.

Oh I do hope so

There's never been any room for that. People have had to suffer and do without for this kind of opulence. Humanism, equality, these make a difference.

Whilst our people suffer…

Excellent!

We have rulers not leaders

Very informative video. Thank you

Replace the words “Royal family” with “gang” and you wouldn’t need to change much else in the texts

@fuckbankers

Жыл бұрын

The Firm

@myamdane6895

7 ай бұрын

Oh look at you so brave

Why do people think the crown power is only ceremonial?

Not forgetting interfering in Australian politics and sacking the prime minister elected by the people

Ofcourse everyone is equal ,but some people are more equal than other's.

@callmefalse

Жыл бұрын

Hmmm, this quote feels familiar 🐷

@jameskeener7251

Жыл бұрын

Heavy.

@_blank-_

Жыл бұрын

Under a monarchy, people are definitely not equal.

@ecliqsly6585

Жыл бұрын

@@callmefalse i was just about to ask if this was a george orwell quote lol

Exactly why they should be abolished!! Off with their heads!

@ImperiumMagistrate

Жыл бұрын

bigot

@jamesthejoker7415

Жыл бұрын

You’re not Lenin

@Andrea-1998

Жыл бұрын

Off with their heads? Lol, this isn’t the October revolution.

@DedLoko

Жыл бұрын

@@Andrea-1998 No, it’s not October, you’re right!!

@Andrea-1998

Жыл бұрын

@@DedLoko December revolution? Lol 😂

There is a power they don't have because I have it as your only true and rightful king, now where did I put that sword?

What about knock on effects of changes and or adjustments, reversals and or fixes though? Collateral damage?

The perquisites of the British monarchy seem highly objectionable to this non Brit.

@chrislambert9435

Жыл бұрын

Ok, but dont be fooled by this misleading and deceptive presentation

Great informative piece sir, it sadness me to see the blatant abuse of power but every government has done similar things 😕

Does this extend to Canada, Australia, and others, as some sources claim ?

@user-ri5qv2pu2e

10 ай бұрын

The Late Queen Used her Power in Australia when Australia in mess in 1976 and in New Zealand

@ziontenuia9266

5 ай бұрын

Yes, the monarchs powers extend to the 14 countries where their head of state

The Queen had the power to sign or not to sign any act of Parliament. This is what made her the chief of state. With certainty will Charles III be a much more political monarch than his mother.

Abolish Monarchy

That’s fine by me!

I love this kind of video

This is modern scientific era where we don't need monarchy

@Beetless

Жыл бұрын

we dont need an elected leader too

@ImperiumMagistrate

Жыл бұрын

then you should oppose republicanism. Monarchism is basically technocracy

@SnowSNS11

Жыл бұрын

Not like just an election is any better. They can rigged it, manipulate the people with media, and it's a whole other cutthroat system where you try to become more popular than other candidates by declaring things that people want to hear but they couldn't really deliver, or spreading malicious rumors about your competitors. I think there should also be some other better system than a popularity contest, my country has experience a consistent corrupt, if not outright tyrannical, presidents.

In republics presidents/prime-ministers (for cringe parliamentary republics) also have the powers to veto any laws. Just look at the US and how many laws US Presidents have vetoed. But not just that. They also can be exempt from law and all the other stuff.

@kalu1546

Жыл бұрын

President's are elected, often have limited time in office and a variety of other checks on their power. Although these systems aren't perfect and can most definitely be more democratic, they are still better than any monarchy.

@Leo-cw8se

Жыл бұрын

@@kalu1546 Althought I can certainly comprehend your vision on the matter, I do think that it might stumble in a fundamental difference between a monarchy and a republic: the power division. Nowadays, the majority of monarchies are parliamentary, that means that the monarch or sovereign tends to execute a merely cerimonial role when in contrast to what their power came to grip in it's height in the 18th century. Who really controls the country is the people, just like it's supposed to be in any democratic system, and the people is represented by the Parliament who themselves are represented by the Prime-Minister to the people and the monarch. Alas there are parliamentary republics, I would argue that those are fundamentally flawed when in comparison that a parliamentary monarchy. The monarch, just like the parliamentary president, it's the chief of State, but also the traditional and cultural representation of the nation more broadly, being since their younger age trained to be in this role, whitout any political interests in the matter when considered their constitutional dutie.

@kalu1546

Жыл бұрын

@@Leo-cw8se did you watch the video? It outlines examples that show how the Monarchy has used its powers in more ways than just "ceremonial".

@hydrolifetech7911

Жыл бұрын

@@kalu1546 none more blind than the one who refuses to see. You are try to explain democracy to monarchists

@tomlydon3123

Жыл бұрын

Your US example is ignoring the fact that the US head of state is chosen through a democratic process, not heredity. Also, a presidential veto can be over-ruled by congress with enough support.

The people only have the right and means to express their ‘will’ because of the monarchy. never forget it.

Forcing a general election could be handy.

A country that prides itself on its social programs to create greater economic equality while maintaining a system that guarantees one family lives in extreme extravagant wealth at the expense of society boggles my mind.

@ValaHough

Жыл бұрын

Not mutually excluding. So this is a logical fallacy.

@Kneephry

Жыл бұрын

@@ValaHough Tax dollars-or tax breaks- can only be put towards one purpose. Anything spent on maintaining the royal family or special tax breaks they alone enjoy cannot be spent on social services.

@mateo_sid

Жыл бұрын

@@Kneephry not a brit, but buddy, you can count that spent money to promotion of UK, trust me. she built you a whole tourism branch by herself.

@johnnotrealname8168

8 ай бұрын

@@Kneephry Believe it or not social services are not the entirety of the government's existence, and they seem fine scrounging up money for such services anyway. Furthermore, the Queen's assets go into the government too.

@penultimateh766

7 ай бұрын

What SHOULD boggle your mind is that your country can't grow enough food to feed yourselves, so you depend on the opinions of foreign countries to stay alive. And we like the Monarch.

Long live the king

Thanks.

Well at the end of the day, the monarch is the head of the armed forces and they all swear their oath to the sovereign and NOT the government.

This shows even more how racism prevailed in the monarchy

@csbalachandran

Жыл бұрын

*prevails*

@INKPREET

Жыл бұрын

@@csbalachandran brownskin beast

to me it doesn't matter who you are.. what you do is what matters.. riches or not.

This video changed my life

The bill of rights tells you who is in charge and that is is the people are sovereign not the tyrants

Lol. It still amazes me that Britain continues to revere the ideals of a monarchy.

The Guardian trying their best to turn people against the monarchy.

@e.g.4483

Жыл бұрын

They don't have to....younger generations know how terrible and inappropriate having a monarchy is. They will become obsolete one day.

@Andrea-1998

Жыл бұрын

@@e.g.4483 Because our government is so great and not obsolete. 😅

@03.achyuthans39

Жыл бұрын

@@e.g.4483 surely the British people (all generations) think the monarchy is much better than the current circus that is called the House of Commons. If anything has to go, it's the commons

@atrailmckinley4786

Жыл бұрын

They are just saying facts

Scary stuff man 🙏🏾

I respect the Americans for sticking the middle finger to all this and going their own way. Idk how the British still put up with it to this day

@Jackie-wn5hx

6 ай бұрын

The US has a nearly identical system with a republican form of government. The American revolution was triggered by taxation without have a representative in Parliament. Even King George III was a constitutional monarch with no political powers. The British monarchy is compatible with democracy. The UK monarchy has survived this long because all of the monarchs have followed constitutional convention and observed parliamentary sovereignty. I doubt you speak for the majority of the UK, but inheariting a title, land, and property comes with a legal duty to serve the nation as a figurehead. International human rights and English common law requires a crime or wrongdoing. The Brexit breakup with the EU was already a self-inflicted injury. I'm not sure why you'd expect Scotland and the rest of the UK to remain part of a English republic.

Running a government is difficult so they handed off all the administrative duties but kept the power and income, without any accountability. Must be nice.

The system works very well.

Oh you