Americans React to the Royal Family 🇬🇧
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июл 2024
- The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/wanderingravens06211
Today we're reacting to the British royal family and monarchy system! We're learning how the monarchy works, what the Queen's powers are, how the royals make money, and more!
Here is a list of all the videos we reacted to in this video:
👉 What Powers Does the Queen of England Actually Have? • What Powers Does the Q...
👉 Line of Succession to the British Throne • Video
👉 How the British Royal Family Makes Money • How the British royal ...
Did these videos get anything wrong about the royal family? Let us know in the comments!
👍 SUBSCRIBE - for fresh British culture videos every month! ruclips.net/user/wanderingra...
🔴 WATCH NEXT
👉 British Food BANNED In America • British Foods BANNED I...
👉 Our Top 10 Favourite Things About The UK • Top 5 Things Americans...
❤️️ PATREON
Support the channel and get special access to live streams, behind-the-scenes videos, our private Facebook group, and more! / wanderingravens
🌍 JOIN THE ADVENTURE
Follow our social media pages for updates and additional content!
Facebook Page: / wanderingrav…
Instagram: / wandering.r…
Travel Blog: www.wanderingravens.org/
Pinterest: / thewanderin .
💑 WHO ARE THE WANDERING RAVENS?
Hi! We're Eric & Grace, a couple of travelers who have been wandering around the world for over 3 years. We make videos about travel and British culture and release new episodes 3x per week.
Don't forget to subscribe and hit the notification bell so that you get an alert every time we release a new travel & culture video!
Our favorite aspect of doing RUclips is interacting with you in the comments, so make sure you stop by and say hi! 😊😄
#british #britishculture #thequeen
The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/wanderingravens06211
I suggest you look at the official Royal Family Website and documentations of which they're quite a few,as what you've learnt is actually very very little, and yes I'm a very proud British person,and quite a bit older than both of you, it'll be a very long post even too scratch the surface,the family do way more than what you appear to think
@@sandrabutler3752 Thank you for the suggestion! We'll do that!
Hi ravens, happy fourth. You do know that the declaration was actually signed on the 3rd 1776,but a delegation was late. As for today, their was a sporting clash between England and USA at rugby football. England won.m.ruclips.net/video/oSa92kf3ezk/видео.html
You should check out this video by americans living in Denmark. 😉
Why the Danish Royal Family is better than the British Royal Family:
ruclips.net/video/Ps4XfO241Lk/видео.html
Get back to America 😡
To claim that the queen doesn't work misses the point entirely. She's given 70+ years of service to this country starting in the war. That's 2 lifetimes of work. She will die on the job. She is highly unlikely to abdicate in favour of her son (Charles) as her own position came about through the constitutional crisis brought about by the abdication of her uncle.
Edit: There's a film called Kind Hearts and Coronets (B&W) that's about 'adjusting' the line of accession. Full of dark humour (as we like it).
I've died on thevjob a few times, mainly when drunk
Alec Guinness x9
I'd much rather give money to the monarchy than politicians! Our royalty is what's kept many castles, stately homes, parks and estates intact. Apart from the ones Cromwell blew up! I hope the monarchy continues, it is the one, solid, unchanging thing that makes me feel British...
No, the taxpayer has kept those properties intact. The Royal Family haven't paid a penny.
@@sandersson2813 wrong !
did you not watch the vlog or just come straight on here to troll ?
@@dave_h_8742
The Royal Family are supported by money from the taxpayer. They also have land gifted such as the Duchy of Cornwall, Isles of Scilly etc from which further revenue is generated.
Whether or not this family contribute or not is irrelevant, because their wealth originates from taxpayers, not theor own endeavour.
@@sandersson2813 As far as the Duchy of Cornwall goes, whilst Charles inherited the earnings of the estate, he and his advisors have greatly increased the earnings of the estate by their hard work.
@@stevebarlow3154 Ha ha ham Charles has done absolutely fuck all.
He got all that for free and it is his staff that have increased the revenue, not him.
He's an imbecile
Happy 4th of July,
remember 'You see it as a win, We see it as a lucky escape ' ( The Pub Landlord )
Thanks!! :D
The one that got away
I think of it as anti Britain day so it seems like a conflict of interest for Americans with an interest in Britain to celebrate it. I suppose the police could raid the homes of Americans in UK on 4th July and arrest those having parties for treason!
@@Phiyedough Darn, I didn't know that! And this is my birthday.
When The Queen was celebrating her 50th wedding aniversary, I said to her congratulations and she said thank you very much.
Wow! That's so cool! :D
The first thing you should learn is the Queen is NOT The Queen of England, that title went extinct in 1707, it is not one of her titles. It's like calling President Biden the President of Texas. Remember, she is also the Queen of Australia, the Queen of New Zealand, the Queen o fthe United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Queen of Canada.
Agreed. I keep telling people from the USA that calling her the "Queen of England" is like saying I own a toilet. I actually own a whole house!
Scotland's royal family took England's crown, so although the Queen is the head of state of more nations than England, it's fair to say she is also the Queen of England too.
England's crown is superior.
@@gaynor1721 Yes. She is the queen of England in the same way that I own a lavatory, The lavatory is one part of my house in the same way England is part of the UK.
So what's the Queen's last name? Is it Winsor or something else?
Pedo joe is senile and no legitimate President of anything. Time for the 25th amendment. Then the world can see how incapable Kameltoe really is.
The Sovereign Grant covers the living and working costs of the Royal Family,ie. staffing, property maintenance, travel etc. The private income is used for the racehorses, private holidays etc. In the same way the US president is not expected to fund all of his presidency from his own pocket.
Just looked up about how much an individual pays towards The Royal Family each year and found in 2019 it was £1.27 per person. So the tax payer is paying per year in essence less than it would cost for a coffee or sandwich.
That's not bad! :D
@@WanderingRavens I'd rather have a cup of coffee and a sandwich.
@@jillhobson6128 If we had no Queen, we would have a President who would cost you far more......and let's not forget that the Blair creature would likely have taken that position at some point which is a truly terrifying thought.
@@jillhobson6128 president Johnson? Not a chance in hell
@@WanderingRavens We actually get reimbursed by the crown estate too. So technically the country gets more money in return for giving her a salary.
All laws passed in the UK have to be signed by the Queen. She reads them all and if there is something she is not happy about, as in not happy with the way part of it is worded, she does not sign it and sends it back to be ammended. This does not happen often. She is our final failsafe in laws. Also the Armed Forces take there instructions from Parliment but swear allegiance to the Queen.
Actually the British are more clever than that. The Queen's private advisors are involved in the preparation of every bill even before they're presented in parliament for a first reading. So by the time it gets passed by both houses of parliament and reaches the The Queen's desk, there's nothing to object to. No British king or queen has refused or withheld the Royal Assent since Queen Anne did so in 1708 from the Scottish Militia Bill. Interestingly, she did so on the advice of her government. Nobody really knows when it last happened that the king or queen derailed legislation at whim.
The Convid Vax bullshit proves that she did what her Satanic overlords instructed her to do.
33rd degree Freemason witch as is Charlie.
They're all in a club that we aren't.
Serfdom is alive and kicking and perpetuates this.
@@szabados1980 just because it hasn’t happened in a long time doesn’t mean it can’t happen lol
As for the commandeering ships thing, during the Falklands, some 47 civillian vessels were pressed into service, including 3 ocean liners (Canberra, Queen Elizabth 2, Uganda), roll on roll off ferries (including the Norland, a ship I've travelled on several times), container ships (including Atlantic Conveyor, sunk with the loss of 12 hands), and other logistic and support vessels.
And of course the commandeering of river cruisers and other small craft for the Dunkirk evacuation.
Actually this isn't a big deal. The same would happen in every country. In the UK things can be commandeered in The Queen's name, in France in the name of the republic. I'm absolutely certain that in the Stakes police can throw you out of your own car to pursue a criminal on the run if their own car breaks down. In name of the president, local governor, chieftain, shaman or whoever... who cares?
Love the idea of The Queen acting like Black Widow, assassinating heads of state with impunity
I'd pay to watch that movie! xD
@@WanderingRavens Hello Ravens, please see opening of 2012 Olympics. She was in character with 007, but who knows if she goes to Balmoral or on assignment? She was in the army in WW2.
Although it would probably lead to some uneasy moments and maybe a little skirmish with this unfortunate foreign country. Being cool headed and professional as Her Majesty is, she managed not to dip a dagger into President Trump, either. Isn't she remarkable?
i dont mind tax money going to them because the revenue generated from their tourism massively outweighs the amount an individual spends on them (as a proportion of your tax). Like the government makes a net profit off of them.
Obviously the tourism wouldn't dissapear if the royal family all suddenly died, but seeing a castle isn't as interesting as seeing a castle real royals live in. As said in the video, tourists come for the brand, not specifically the buildings
People don't visit the Uk because we have a Royal Family because no one ever gets to see them.
France is the most visited country in the world by a mile, and they killed their Royals.
@@sandersson2813 France has its own charms, but the UK is not that far behind as a tourist destination. I've never been to the Queen's garden party or anything like that, but I've physically seen the Queen or a member of the Royal Family on 20 or more occasions. Only about a year or so ago I saw Princess Anne being driven along Acton High Street! The two police motorcyclists with her were absolutely brutal in forcing their way through the traffic.
@@stevebarlow3154 not sure i see your point. The UK would be fine regarding tourists without Royals. How long are we going to cling to this lie that their worth our taxes
@@stevebarlow3154
Britain is MILES behind Steve.
France gets 87 million visitors a year, UK gets 37 million. That's 50 million less.
Acton high Street? 🤣 🤣 🤣 Yeah, real tourist area that. I'd rather go there than France any day, just in the hope of seeing Princess Anne. 🤣🤣🤣
At least in Denmark or Norway their Royal family would be driving themselves down Acton high Street, there wouldn't be police or a security detail.
@@sandersson2813 Name just one thing that would remain a point of interest in Brexit Britain and why people would bother to travel there if the Monarchy were cancelled. Besides the rain, fog and weird habit of driving on the wrong side of the road.
I also think the royal family allows for a smooth transition for prime ministers, compared to the US where chaos ensues when there is a new president
The monarchy is one of the best things in the UK - the monarch and the "team" are servants to the country - they are trained to do a difficult job which is to provide stable non-controversial leadership - provide a constant focal point for the country in good times and bad. They meet and greet foreign leaders and keep the links with the disparate countries of the commonwealth. The ribbon cutting and "awards' are not random events but are in general a "seal of approval" from the nation. The alternative would be a President Boris or even worse a President Trump (God forbid.)
The Queens powers are super strength and flight. She would often be seen during the war smacking german bombers out of the sky
The Royals own acres and acres of farms that they let out to farmers the Queen also pays taxes to HMRC or Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs on her income the palaces and castles she lives in are actually owned by the people of the UK but she has exclusive rights to them. The office of Monarchy is above the Law but the King or Queen as in the person is not above the Law hence the arrest and beheading of Charles I in the 1600s.
The Monarch can seize anything in the UK she so wishes from any Subject but she also has immense power around the entire Commonwealth and world to protect all of her Subjects if she so wishes ie if a British Subject were to be ill treated abroad then the UK has to do what they can to stop the ill treatment of the Subjects of the UK. A Subject of the UK is a person born on UK soil and holding a British Passport this includes bringing a British Subject home from anywhere in the world at the Queens or her Govt's expense if the Subject can't get their own way home for what ever reason
The role of the Monarch is to actually be a balance to Government. Meaning that she has the power to disolve the Government & run the country with the Privy Council (selected members of the establishment) this is to prevent the UK ever becoming taken over by a dictatorial or tyrannical leader who will not relinquish the power of Prime Minister when voted our of office by the electorate!
Great commet
In theory the Government, in the form of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is supposed to aid any British subject to return to the UK. In practice that is rare. If you go on holiday and are unlucky enough to be robbed of all your money and tickets, the most the local Consulate will normally do is lend you a phone so that you can call family and friends to pay for tickets home. Likewise if you end up in a foreign jail the most they normally do is give you a list of English speaking local lawyers.
The castles and palaces she lives in are owned by the Crown estate, which the Queen owns by right of being the monarch and not the people of the UK. Its the same entailment system in Downton Abbey where the house has to go to the next legal heir of the peerage title. Sandringham and Balmoral where the Queen also stays are owned separately and are not part of the Crown estate. There is a long standing tradition (agreement) that all revenues of the crown estates are surrendered to parliament in exchange for a guarantee that all the monarchs expenses will be paid for. Charles when he becomes King, to my understanding, has the right to choose to end this agreement. However, Charles would then likely need to resume the monarchs responsibility to pay for the Government. The cost of the Government is astronomically higher today than what it was when the original agreement was drawn up, so I doubt very much any monarch would go back to the old system as they would be bankrupt very quickly.
@@martingibbs1179 have you actually read the what the Crown Estate actually is? Right at the start of the link I'm going to add it says the Crown Estates is a Public Body not owned by the Queen or the Government it also states it is a Public Body. Incase you don't know what "Public Body" means, it means it is a Trust owned by the people this particular Trust is managed by eight Trustees so it isn't owned by them either it is managed by them for Profit and to add value. But the sheer term Public Body means it is owned by the Public paid for through taxation alongside any other means of raising money that the Trustees can come up via a vote on a board meeting to enhance the lands or Palaces the Monarch effectively lives in rent free for the duration of their reign . So before you try to split hairs please understand what the Crown Estate is and acknowledge the fact that it isn't owned by the Queen. Which I believe was the very point I originally made in my original comment without going all around the Mulberry bush. It still ends up with the castles and Palaces the Queen lives in is owned by the British Public by means of management of a Public Body!
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate&ved=2ahUKEwi1mY_Z0s_xAhVDilwKHXJdAYIQFjAHegQILxAF&usg=AOvVaw2yPMLw7JAedBPdcdMOltH5
@@britbazza3568 The crown estates official website says that the crown estates are owned by the Monarch (in right of the crown) and even the wikipedia link you provided also states that the crown estates are owned by the crown. The way I read the article was that by tradition the monarch at the beginning of their reign voluntarily hands over the "powers of ownership" to a "public body" that manages the estates on behalf of parliament, but that actual ownership of the assets remains with the crown and not parliament. The next monarch has the right to reject the old deal and retake control of the "powers of ownership" running the crown estates just like they do the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. However, the crown estates would still have a duty to pay for the government, so most of the revenues if not all would still have to be handed to the treasury. There would be no tangible benefit I can think of for a monarch to assume control, but I wonder if they really wanted to, could the monarch take a position of one of the commissioners and vote on the board. I know that Prince Philip was Ranger of Windsor park, so basically an employee of the crown estates.
www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/resources/faqs/
Nice to see you back :)
I think what amuses me is that some Americans think that we are the only country with a royal family. Just considering Europe - Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and Spain have a king or a queen as head of state. Monaco and Lichtenstein have a Prince as their monarch and Luxembourg a Grand Duke.
On this side of the pond, we never hear about any other royal family but the UK's :D
Pity you didn't watch the whole bit about "what powers does the queen have". On her 21st birthday, this 95 year old gave the speech "I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong." and has totally fulfilled that promise. In 2002 the list stood at 251 official overseas visits to 128 different countries. The year she turned 90, she broke Queen Victoria's record, carrying out 306 engagements in the UK and 35 overseas. Wish I could be working as hard when I hit 90. Public service personified.
on a overseas royal tour the Queen does not stop from dawn to dusk and beyond full of official engagements works very hard
YAY. Another video. I was wondering when you were going to upload another one
Hiii!!! :D
Same here, had to look as I thought YT had unsubscribed me !
The British people would back the Queen no matter what she did. We like her. Also, calling her a mascot is an insult to our entire country. Don't do that.
Thats a bold statement to make you can't possibly know if all British people like her 66 million people is a lot to talk for "DONT DO THAT"
I don't think that the British people would back the Queen no matter what. while she is personally very popular, this hasn't always been the case.
@@luxford60 I'm British "Scottish" and as you can see from my comment this is very much the case that lady is probably English more than likely 😁👍
@@Davidjohnson-o6g The Queen's mother was Scottish if I remember correctly, so the Queen is at least half Scots.
@@stevebarlow3154 I already new that what I was meaning she can't speak for 66 million people not everyone in the UK is a royalist
I hope your both doing well missed watching yourselves
We're doing well!! Thank you!!
You guys seemed to know more than expected to be fair, especially Grace :) was it learnt from watching the Crown?? I think 1 thing the queen can't do is appoint herself as prime minister, but she could appoint someone who would do exactly as she wanted, to the letter (not totally sure though)
Or appoint no prime minister at all! There's no law that requires her to do so. There's not even a law that establishes the office of the prime minister or how The Queen is supposed to appoint and dismiss him. In the UK it's done at private audiences.
In Canada and Australia the governors general, acting on The Queen's behalf, make a big fuss of it. Televised ceremonies, scripted oaths of office and affirmation of allegiance to The Crown, big thank you's. And they say it's the British who overdo ceremonial events.
Might have been mentioned already - one of the queen's duties is to meet weekly with the PM to discuss their policies etc Obv this is a key thing in the plot of the film The Queen. A lot of PMs have said its really helpful and some have even said its like political therapy lol (Apparently was quite a lot of tension between her and Thatcher though)
The powers she has are predominantly technical - if she were ever to use them there'd obv be horrific consequences
We've really missed you. Good to see you back. Wish you made more content like you used to do.
Thank you!! We hope to make more videos soon!
At the beginning of the video I thought I was watching Ever Decreasing Circles, a mid 1980's BBC sitcom where characters Howard & Hilda always wore matching clothes
I was going to make exactly the same point! I think that matching tops should be a regular feature on this channel, preferably home-knitted jumpers.
Post Modern Family seem to be doing something similar...
Makes a change from the days of Eric's one wash 'n' wear shirt 😂
The most refreshing drink during the hot weather in Boston is, of course, a cup of tea.
“service to the Realm” would include requisitioning merchant ships for military service, as actually happened in 1982 when the SS Canberra, QEII, and the ferry Norland, along with a number of other civilian ships were requisitioned for the Falklands Taskforce.
Great editing, I enjoyed this video. :)
Thank you so much!
It doesn't reply retrospectively, because when they asked Princess Anne about it she said not to change the order in her favour. Basically, she got the opportunity to bump herself up the pecking order without resorting to the traditional method of murdering siblings, but decided not to take it up.
It's a principal set out in international human rights law.
Its not true that the queen doesn't need to obey the law, a agreement called Magna Carta was created, one of the things it states that 'the king and his government was not above the law'
I literally spat my tea out when you said Is Williams son called Oliver. That would totally be the worst name ever for a future monarch. A man called Oliver Cromwell ran the country for a short while after having had King Charles I beheaded and deposed after the English Civil war
No never call her the queen of England, that is not her title ,the last queen of England died hundreds of years ago ,you don't want to upset the scots,n Irish and Welsh .
There is always a discussion by the public whenever an increase in the Sovereign Grant or Civil List as it is commonly known as and who is actually on it. People complained about the taxes they paid to pay it, not realising it comes from the income the Government has earned from the Crown Estate. Admission fees/merchandise, farms, property rents and hunting/shooting rights. Her Majesty now pays income tax on the profits of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Prince of Wales voluntarily pays tax on the Duchy of Cornwall's profits. The exact amounts are a state secret. The Financial Times is always speculating on the amount.
Thank you for letting us know!
This is a year late but you in a boat called for service for the realm...Dunkirk immediately came to mind, must watch! It's such a moment when all these civilian boats went to rescue the trapped soldiers.
Don't think Anne would want to jump up the line tbh
Last time you did a video about the royal family, you didn't even know that princess Anne existed!
@@jillhobson6128 True!!! That was a wild day! :D
Lovely to see you both back but disappointed and surprised by your lack of knowledge about the royals and their role in our culture. I got the impression you would be more interested and would have researched it more before now. There are so many videos out there on youtube explaining it all. The queen gets paid for what she does and is worth every penny we pay. She has earned respect after 70+ years of service..... especially in the present situation. To understand the british you need to understand our history and the origins of our culture. You're right, some of us are anti-monarchists but the majority are not.
They probably know as much as many British people!
Very interesting things I never knew anything about thank you for the great content and very informative
Glad you enjoyed this one!!
@@WanderingRavens I'm English and still don't know what the Boston Tea Party was.
I wasn't taught about it in history lessons, in fact nothing about the war of independence
@@WanderingRavens I definitely did, thanks
@@jillhobson6128 There was an interesting TV programme about the Boston Tea Party on some years ago. It seems the version taught to American school kids is basically lies and the actual event was nothing to do with patriotism and everything to do with the greed of certain Boston business men!
The sovereign grant, isn't really a political issue in the UK, even though I'm pretty sure very few people understand the historic deal. But Presidents aren't really cheaper, the Italian President costs over £200 million. The Monarchy is our most popular institution with support for a Republic at only 20%, and that proportion has been stable for years. Remember they whole family get paid out of that.
The Sussexes did try to use their title, but that was stopped. The other stuff is allowed, though they are of course cashing in on the fame they have purely from his position. The Duchess of York has done the same but only after leaving the family. Of course the Sussexes are working the American Market, their popularity in the UK has fallen from just below the Queen and William, to down with Andrew in the UK.
The first clip is really not a good guide to the powers. Those are theoretical powers, but they are expressed through Her Majesty's Government, and are subject to Parliament who hold the purse strings. Even when monarchs ruled directly, they could only levy taxes through Parliament. The diplomatic immunity issue is nothing special. There is that American embassy woman who killed a man on a British street in a hit and run, and the US Government won't allow her extradition.
The woman concerned who drove on the wrong side of the road and killed a motorcyclist, was the wife of an American Intelligence officer who was working at a RAF/USAF listening station. She used his diplomatic immunity to avoid arrest and flee the UK. It's not the first time something like this has happened. Several decades back an American airman based at RAF St Mawgan in Cornwall killed a pedestrian when driving whilst drunk. The airman concerned was immediately flown out of the UK and has never been prosecuted. The US Embassy is one of only a handful of embassies to abuse diplomatic immunity to avoid paying parking fines.
Don't underestimate the power to dissolve parliament. The one has been exercised not so long ago by the Queen's representative in Australia to break a government deadlock.
And what a mess that was. You had a rogue Governor General acting off his own bat, albeit with the encouragement of the opposition party and doing enormous damage to the monarchy.
Now you only have nine ruling European Royal families left to learn about and some "pausing" families waiting to reign.
In my country Sweden we have had Kings/Queens since AD 970 and among these 14 King Erik, 6 King Gustav and only 16 King Charles. We have also had several ruling Queens.
And wait until you have learn lineage of Royals throughout Europe: They are all relatives... 😃
In explanation of the Queen’s income visa vis taxes, the Queen voluntarily pays 100% tax (legally she doesn’t need to pay any) and in return she is provided a grant by the government which is equal to 20% of the tax she paid in the previous financial year. So yes, she receives money from taxes, but the government also receives from her 4x the amount of money that they give her from that pool of taxes.
Its an incredibly and needlessly convoluted system tbh
The queen is basically one of our national tourism magnets
True!!
@@BinkyTheGoddessDivine Your point being...?
Nice to see you back.
Thanks!! It's good to be back!
The Queen is the commander and chief of all the British armed forces, as well as head of the church of England.
Get rid of the church of England as well
No, she's the Supreme Governor on Earth of the Church of England. The head of the CofE is Jesus.
@@neuralwarp We don't need a CofE and not all believe in Jesus.
Good to see you back 🤘😀
Thanks!!
Missed watching you guys, hope u well..luv from UK :)
Thank you! Much love back!
Andrew, his daughters and their children, then Edward and his children all take precedence in the line of succession over Anne - even though Anne is older.
They didn't change the order for living persons. That would have been rude. They couldn't just change the rules because the Queen is also the Queen of about 13 other realms. They needed to get agreement from them all.
Technically, there is no taxpayer funding of the royal family aside from security/protection and travel on official duties. The Crown Estate still belongs to the Crown as an institution but jot as personal property so the Queen is sort of de facto owner as long as she remains Queen although it is operated through a board of trustees and she has little or no say in it's management etc. The C. E. makes a profit from it's properties/land etc of around £350-400 million a year and that is given over to the Government, in return, The Queen receives the Sovereign Grant which is normally 18% of the profits (currently it's been increased to 25% to cover the cost of the repairs and renovations to Buckingham Palace and will go back down once they're completed). In effect that means that The Queen is paying a 75% income tax. From that Grant, she pays the upkeep of all the senior Royal family except for Princes Charles and William who derive their income from the Duchy of Cornwall. An interesting side note, The Queen can't officially pay tax as it is she who tax is paid to (the tax office is called her majesties revenue and customs) so she'd technically be paying herself anyway.
In 1994 I was seconded to Staten Island (NY) for 6 months. I got a day off for the 4th July. It was a very hot day and when I got to the Cargo Cafe that evening for a beer I was a bit downcast. One of the regulars said “Cheer up, it’s the 4th July!” My response was “How do I celebrate something we lost?? jokingly of course.
We didn't lose it. We .. mislaid it during the Napoleonic Wars.
First, new shirts, his and hers👍
Indeed xD
Props to Liz for not just constantly flexing all her powers!
Would be wild if every year she murdered some random head of state, just to let us know she's still got it xD
@@WanderingRavens Why didn't she murder a random head of stste?
No names mentioned!
Some of the Queen Elizabeth II's childrens lastnames are Mountbatten Windsor. It is only used on documents, for instants in school Prince George's " surname" is Windsor, because the houses name is the House of Windsor. And yes Archie in in the line of succession after his father. After him and his sister it's Prince Andrew and his children and there children. After him it's Prince Edward and his children and then it's Princess Anne and her children and there children and then the line of succession gets very fussy.
The profits made by the crown estates exceed the sovereign grant, the royals actually pax tax on their profits from the duchies. They also bring in wedges of cash in tourism and the visits she makes around the world also include trade delegations that usually mean British companies make more money than the visit actually cost. In pure financial terms, having the royal family is very good value, and they also enhance our influence in the world.
Dingbat, you do appear to be susceptible to Brainwashing think if they make so much profit why do they need the grant doh!
@@stansalt3198 The crown estates do bring in more money to the exchequer than is paid out for the sovereign grant, not brain washing but fact. There is also the legal obligation for us to do so, as George III gave the crown estates to the government for the yearly Grant. The grant basically pays them to perform their public functions, ie their job.
The money that comes from the duchies is their own personal wealth, they do not have to pay tax on this but they do.
It would seem to be that it is you who is susceptible to the brainwashing of the anti monarchists, I am not, I look at the facts to base my statements on them. From a purely financial standpoint they are a financial asset to the country, the tax aspect is a not starter in an argument against them.
In the scenario you suggested, a huge amount of political pressure would be put on Andrew to abdicate and it would be more likely that his eldest daughter would become Queen.
Oooo! Good to know!
And yet Prince Andrew is still in the line of succession and hasn't been asked to step down.
@@gaynor1721 Has he actually been found guilty of anything, Gaynor? His legal team have told the FBI that he’s available for questioning, but they haven’t interviewed him yet. That may be because they are building a case first, or it may be that attention was directed towards him to distract from the fact that the US President at the time, as well as a previous President, had very strong ties to Epstein. We still have innocent until proven guilty in both the UK and the US, you appear to be advocating that people be fired based on speculation. That’s a very slippery slope. He’s stood down from all Royal duties at The Queen’s request, he receives no public money. Until the FBI actually get their act together I think that’s enough. If he is found guilty he should spend time in prison, but nothing has actually been proved yet, he was just a useful distraction so people weren’t looking at Trump.
7:17 a good example is the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940 when around 800 yachts were requisitioned by to evacuate soldiers. Also on the queens powers, she’s restricted by very complicated “laws” called conventions which are kind of laws but no one really knows what would happen if you broke them. Her “powers” really depend on who you ask since one might say that she’s allowed to exercise them “in the national interest” and others are staunchly opposed to her using any powers.
In terms of her role, it’s mostly just greeting foreign dignitaries so the PM doesn’t have to
Yes, but even in wartime, she can't just take them. She (her govt) needs to issue an order in the privy council, and pay the owner compensation for his losses.
Where have you two been? Missed you!🥂
Quite literally the name Windsor is a nom de guerre, the royal families real name is Saxe Coburg Gotha. The change of name to Windsor occurred during the latter years of First World War [1917]. It became increasingly obvious being named Saxe Coburg Gotha during a war again Germany had public relations implications. The family were renamed after the Windsor Castle, which had a long historical royal British provenance.
Also Mountbatten was Battenberg,too German for Britain
This is incorrect. The Royal Family's surname is *not* Saxe-Coburg-Gotha for obvious reasons. It's the name of the place in Germany where Prince Albert (husband of Queen Victoria) held titles.
He was Prince Albert *of* Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
As Prince Albert's paternal grandfather was Duke Francis of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, it wasn't a hereditary surname.
The Royal Family didn't have a surname until 1917 when George V declared the Royal Family to be of the House of Windsor due to anti-German hostilities from the British public during World War I.
The royal family only need a surname for the registration of births, marriages and deaths for indexing purposes.
However, they are deemed too famous to need a surname. Before Windsor became their surname in 1917, the British Royal Family didn't have a surname and to this day, the royal family don't sign their names in visitors books, registers etc. with anything other than their forenames.
The British Royal Family are the only people in the UK that can sign official documents with only their forenames. Everyone else must sign their names using their surnames.
Other than the monarch, members of the royal family (and the British aristocracy) can take the place names of their titles and apply them as surnames.
For example, when Prince William was born he was styled HRH The Prince William of Wales. He became known as William Wales, until his wedding in 2011 when he was created Duke of Cambridge.
Now he is known as William Cambridge and his children are George Cambridge, Charlotte Cambridge and Louis Cambridge.
Together with HRH Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, they are collectively known as "The Cambridges".
This is because they are members of the Cambridge Household.
Similarly, Prince Harry was known as Harry Wales, until his wedding in 2018 when he was created HRH The Duke of Sussex. Now he's Harry Sussex.
The Queen's late husband, Prince Philip, took the name Mountbatten which was Anglicised from the German place name Battenberg in 1917 - again because of anti-German hostilities.
Prince Philip's mother's title before marriage was Princess Alice *of* Battenberg.
However, Prince Philip's father, Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark had the same surname as the Danish royal family which is ...
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.
As there is already a royal dynasty of this name, the British Royal Family couldn't use the same name as it would be too confusing.
The descendants of the Queen in the direct line of succession are allowed to use Windsor as a surname - that's Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince George.
All other descendants of the Queen including her other 3 children are entitled to use Mountbatten-Windsor as their surnames.
The monarchy will still be known as the Royal House of Windsor.
@@gaynor1721 Who really cares?
@@jillhobson6128 It's not about caring. It's about getting one's facts right. Otherwise you're in no position to try and educate others.
Incidentally, Queen Victoria was the last monarch of the House of Hanover. Her surname was not Saxe-Coburg-Gotha but her eldest son, Edward VII became the first monarch of the House of Wettin and not Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. His son, George V was the last monarch of the House of Wettin and the first of the House of Windsor.
The crown estates, still owned as a public trust, is a profit making company including tourist destinations, farmland and much more. The total profit from the crown estates is paid into the National treasury. Each year this equates to more £500 million, of which the Queen gets about £80 million. Security etc is paid for from the treasury primarily because they do act in a diplomatic fashion and the Queen is the commander in chief of the armed forces. She was in the Army’s Royal Engineers and drove ambulances during the 2nd world war, just as a fun fact.
She was in fact in the ATS (Auxiliary Territorial Service) and trained as a mechanic.
The children of the princes take the name of their parents duchy (if that's the right term) as their surname (publicly at least). So because William is Duke of Cambridge, Prince George would be called George Cambridge. Similarly, Archie would be Archie Sussex, Edwards' children have the surname Wessex, etc. Andrews children have the surname York, when they're not busy eating at Pizza Express Woking :).
Also, on names, Prince Harry's name isn't actually Harry. Officially, his name is Henry, but by some sort of tradition everyone calls him Harry.
Okay, some small misunderstandings at the start of the video. The Royal family are hereditary heads of state for the UK and other Commonwealth countries. But not all commonwealth countries. The royal family is educated to the role, and in many ways their options and choices in life are limited. The Monarch (Queen) of the UK does have some limited authority to reject some decisions by the government of the day but does not create policy. The government has influence over the monarch's itinerary to represent the UK. Commonwealth countries also can be represented by the monarch. The UK taxpayer pays for the upkeep of the royal family but it could equally be construed as paying for a service from a hereditary institution that trains professional heads of state.
I would say it is bold to wear those shirts especially as Magnum PI would not wear them.
It may be Independence Day to you, but to us in the UK it's Got Rid Of Those Quarrelsome People Day.
Lol
"Now where did we put it? I think we left it somewhere over there .."
Hawaii was a bit annoying though.
The reason why the new law (on gender equality in the order of succession to the throne) is not applied retrospectively is because it would be too complicated to get the agreement of the governments of all of the 16 Commonwealth countries of which she is Queen.
The complete line of succession is actually very long and includes several other European royal families. All protestant descendants of Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover are in the line of succession, and after more than 300 years that's a lot of people.
All the descendants of Queen Victoria (the "Grandmother of Europe") are in the line of succession.
Princess Margaret's side of the family are quite interesting. Her grandsons, the Chatto boys, have attained "most eligible bachelor" status.
I don't know if someone else has already answered this for you. You asked what would happen in the unlikely event of the entire royal family being wiped out. Well, next in line in those circumstances is the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Here in the UK a lot of people would like Harry and his family, plus Andrew removed from the line of succession
Why lump Harry and Andrew together?
Harry has withdrawn from the service of the family for self preservation reasons whereas Andrew was bosom buddies with a depraved criminal and is definitely looking to cling on to his position.
They are horses of very different colours - unless there’s another reason Harry has offended your sensibilities...
Only Andrew
@@PoppyCorn144 they're both a disgrace to the RF, I'd like to have removed Charles and Cowmilla also, they don't deserve to be rewarded for adultery. The parentage of Harry's children is questionable. Most people believe a surrogate for each pregnancy. Succession rules clearly state children born of the body, not just anybodies body. They clearly have no regard for the monarchy, they no longer serve it, so he should be removed. There's always been doubts over his father. He would be the end of the monarchy if ginge and cringe were at the healm
Law are not made retrospectively as in the UK we used to hang people for murder but as the law was changed if you were found guilty of murdering before the punishment was changed a judge could not sentence you to hang if you were found guilty today. when the laws of succession were change a decision was made a date to least interrupt the order.
I don't know if this point was made clearly, but the income the government gets from the crown estate is vastly more than the sovereign grant. So the taxpayer makes a net profit from it. The crown estate is still owned by the crown, so if the monarchy and the sovereign grant is abolished, they will just keep all the profits and the taxpayer will be worse off. (That's to say nothing about the loss of tourism income etc.)
It's not a map of (just) the uk...it's the British Isles-a purely geographical term-that refers to all the islands in the group,including all of Ireland (All of Ireland was part of the UK until 1921 and there were Members of Parliament representing Iceland in the Houses of Parliament until then)🎩
Calling the Queen "the Queen of England" is the same as calling the USA President "the President of Florida".
Or more realistically, Chief Inmate of the Western Penal Colonies. Times long past.
Just to clarify. The Crown estate is still owned by the Crown and each Monarch allows the profits from the estate to go to the treasury. From the profits they are then payed the Sovereign Grant. So if Parliament decided to stop the grant the King or Queen would stop the profits from the estate and live of this instead. The profits are far greater than the grant this is why successive Governments do not remove the grant as the treasury and thus the country would be worse off and the Crown considerably richer. Also the Queen is (I think) the second largest land owner in the world and this is worth trillions
7:51 You've been wrong in so many ways but let's attribute it to Americans' ignorance of the topic. However, it has to be pointed out that yes, The Queen can and will use any of her royal prerogatives in case of a crisis. As long as it's business as usual, World Wars I & II, the crumbling of the British Empire, the national suicide called Brexit, she isn't going to interfere. Why would she? The people want the politicians to run the country and the politicians will take the blame for screwing up. In the meantime she can live a happy life.
But occasionally when there's a crises, things get out of the groove, she steps in. Like when her British prime minister lost his majority in Parliament and refused to resign, she went to see her in hospital and told him it was time to go. Or when her Australian governor general and prime minister had a row over who can dismiss the other, she was almost dragged into the issue. However the two finally came to their senses and figured out how to leave The Sovereign out of it.
You wouldn't consider it a constitutional power but she does remarkable things like dancing with a black president of one of her former colonies endorsing people of colour around the negotiating table when it was a big-big taboo not only in America but Britain as well. Althugh don't believe everything you've seen in The Crown or what "that woman" keeps saying.
Queen Elizabeth 🇬🇧❣️
having the queen as head of state means it is not a politician
Hi, I think you did not quite get the third income stream of the Queen.
It is an income from property which was handed over to the State.
The property is handle by the Crown Estates, it creates a profit, which is split between the exchequer and the monarch/royal family.
The Queen can appoint whomever she wants as Prime Minister, possibly including herself, but it is pointless nominating someone who cannot obtain the support of the majority of MPs. Without this support, the PM would be unable to get any bills approved in Parliament.
Members of the royal family usually have the last name Mountbatten, Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor
Without the Windsor renaming to appear less German it would be Mountbatten-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
They’ve got a Howard and Hilda thing going on.
Any drink not made from apples is not Cider so Apple Cider is tautological.
Hello! As Americans you might not know very much about Lawn Bowls - not to be confused with your Bowling which is very good fun indeed - so might I suggest reacting to the World Indoor Bowls in January of next year. You'll be either/or charmed or excited by it, I am sure. Yours, Bob Willoughby.
As used to be the case, when a woman marries, she takes the name of her husband, so the Queen's surname really should be Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderberg-Glücksburg, as Prince Philip was a member of that Royal family. He was a nephew of the King of Greece and was heir to the thrones of Greece and Denmark. However, when he became a British citizen, he chose the surname Mountbatten, which was the name of his maternal grandparents and he gave up any claim to the Greek and Danish thrones. Philip's grandparents' family name was originally Battenberg, but because of a little thing called the First World War, this was thought to sound too Germanic, so was Anglicised to Mountbatten. Similarly, when Queen Victoria married Prince Albert, the family name became, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which was changed to Windsor for the same reason, by declaration of George V, who said all male heirs should be known by that name. In 1952, Queen Elizabeth said she would abide by that ruling. So unless a future monarch changes this, the Queen is "of the family and House of Windsor" and Philip adopted that surname.
Miss you guys ❤❤❤
The crown estate generated £345 million net profit in the fiscal year ending march 2020.
The Queen receives 25% of this as the sovereign grant.
The remaining 75% goes to the treasury.
Seems like a good deal all round.
Not really; not for her. Bear in mind that money needs to cover all her travel, employment of secretarial staff, writing letters and telegrams, maintenance of the public palaces, ceremonial duties, gold and silver medals and crosses for knighthoods etc. ...
In terms of the monarchy, the UK has an uncodified constitution (Basically it hasn't been written down on one single document), because of this the government functions via tradition and customs. There are 3 branches to the UK parliamentary democracy, the first is the House of commons, the elected individuals. The second is the House of Lords, people are suggested by the prime minister and appointed by the Queen, and then there is the crown (the monarch). A lot of people don't realise that the removal of the Queen would result in a constitutional crisis and mean that the UK constitution has to be flipped and changed completely as she is the cornerstone of the traditional and customs aspect of the constitution which allows the government to work effectively. It is also worth noting that our system works really well, and the only time there are issues is dependant on the individuals elected to represent the people. Plus it would result in widespread changes across the world as the crown is a direct link to other nations across the world such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia. You can disagree with the Monarchy via principle, but they serve an important role in the ability in the UK parliamentary system functioning as well as being a representative for the UK across the world. The monarchy also provides stability as you do not have a political head of state with an agenda coming up every 4-5 years. Then of course there is all the stuff about being an embodiment of British culture etc that i wont go into.
The weird thing is, it isn’t the 4th of July here in England
I'm pretty sure that the Fourth of July is July 4th in England, the same as it is in the U.S., but it's not Independence Day in England, just in the U.S.
@@rettawhinnery Obviously
@@rettawhinnery I do have more than 1 brain cell I know how time difference works
I never used to sweat when I was younger, instead my face would go red and white. It was weird because I'd be just as shattered as everyone else but my body just never sweat
OMG I was waiting for a Horrible Histories song!!
😂😂
@@WanderingRavens If you get a chance I'd suggest watching the 'Horrible Histories' TV series. They were intended for kids, but were so good a lot of adults like myself watched them. They were wonderfully funny, as well as being full of interesting historical information. Great songs too !
Pleased you’ve posted. Are you enjoying being back home after being away for so long? You should do a tour of where you are for us brits missing travelling because of Covid-19 restrictions
Great idea!!
The castle in Scotland where she loves to go to is called Balmoral Castle not Balimor Castle and all those palaces and castles are here but she mostly ( almost everytime ) in Buckingham palace and for her vacations she goes to Balmoral Castle. Prince William and his wife and children live in Kensington palace.
The queen can veto any bill passed if she doesn’t like - but she doesn’t use these powers
Who is Chris Peace in your patrons?? My surname is Peace too and I’ve never met another Peace (apart from my known family of course 😂)
happy 4th july weekend hope your well missed your videos be safe
Thanks! You too!
The Queen and Prince Charles makes money from the Duchy of Lancaster for the Queen and the Duchy of Cornwall for Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales. They also make money from the sovereign grant where they get there salarys. The Royal Family does more than cutting ribbons. Particularly Her Majesty The Queen. She governs 16 UN nations around the world as Head of State and she also heads lots of UK territories. She is also the head of the Commonwealth of nations and is the head and protector of the Church of England.
If "they" wished to stop paying the sovereign grant, they would need to return all those properties. I think that the government/taxman has currently got the better deal for this.
The thing the rest of the world doesn't get about Britain is that this country hasn't been reset since 1066. William the Bastard shook things up a bit back then but then the rule of law has been maintained ever since. A contract signed in 1760 is still valid and nobody questions that. At other places the world has been burnt to the ground on multiple occasions since then, and such a contract is either forgotten about or at most a sought-after collectors' item only.
It's a pity you didn't react to whole videos and not just selected snippets
The vox video was partially wrong the crown estate is owned by the monarch,
but its profits are handed over to parliament in exchange for a wage for being the head of state
Which works out to be about 25% of the value of the profits per year.
If the UK were ever to become a republic, the estate will still be the “former” monarchs property but the profits will then go to them as well and parliament will only get taxes rather then the lion’s share
(meaning taxes of the rest of the nation would go up to cover the loss of income).
That's good to know! Thank you!
Just to clarify (incase it hasn't already) the Sovereign Grant or as you say 'Tax payers from Crown estate' seeing as the Crown estate is owned by the Government (the reigning monarch) the wealth received from that isn't spent on personal things... Money made from the sovereign grant is spent on government matters such as hosting foreign heads of states, diplomats or travelling to other countries (That is also funded by the country the monarch is visiting too)
The monarch makes money using any personal private estate they own as well as the Dutchy of Lancaster.
The Prince or Princess of Wales makes their wealth the same way and also by the Dutchy of Cornwall (Not Lancaster)
Any crown estate is owned by the monarch on the throne, in right of the crown.. Meaning, it's not privately owned by the individual but by the government of the United Kingdom but in the name and use of the current reigning Sovereign.. Crown Estate means Buckingham palace, Windsor Castle, the Tower of London, Westminster Abbey, Palace of Westminster (Parliament building and Big Ben), and the crown jewels.
To further clarify, one could make the argument that the income on the crown estates would be more from tourism both from British citizens and overseas tourists rather than tax.. Majority of the tax in the United Kingdom goes towards Heath and Welfare, making up nearly half (43.2%) of all expenditure at £216.8 billion and £194.2 billion, respectively. The sovereign grant is 10th in line, behind Defense, Transport and Public Order and Safety at £21.9 billion.
If you ask me I think it's fair and very widely misunderstood, people assume that ALL the money goes to the monarch and they're greedy but it's not the case at all... I'd rather the Sovereign have my tax than any politician in government though 100%!
I do hope this helps and clarifies some things for you 😁
Yassss cheers guys ;) HAPPY VERY BELATED 4TH JULY
EXTREMELY BELATED** :'(
Hey Brandon! Thanks!! Good to see you down here :D
Ps the sovereign grants usually pay for royal maintenance, staff, state dinners, garden parties, general anything official they have to do, which includes state visit ie to the USA etc. While the duchy pay for personal use and can be used top up sovereign grant