Given everything that has happened over the years, why hasn’t the uk ripped the band aid off and went for more federalization of the country. Given the divisions and bicameral legislature it might be a good idea
Literally from Parliament's website: "the Dutch ruler William of Orange landed at Brixham with an invasion force on 5 November 1688". That is very much the definition of a foreign invasion regardless of purpose.
Fun Fact: The British Monarchy still holds a surprising amount of power, however, it's not exercised by Elizabeth II because she, rightly, believes if she did so it would lead to the abolishment of the monarchy.
Here’s what I’m trying to understand. Americans seem to always frame the American Revolution as a fight against a tyrannical king in King George III. But wasn’t England basically 100% a democracy (for men at least) since the 1689 Bill of Rights?
@@CharlieZColt this question has multiple layers to it. The top layer ( the stuff taught in US history classes) is that the bill of rights of 1689 only extended to the vote to people who owned land, and did not extend to Britain’s colonies. So the king and parliament were able to raise taxes on the colonist with out their representation (which is why “no taxation without representation” os a famous slogan in the US) A deeper layer is that there were a ton of other ideological differences between the colonies and the UK. The colonies wanted to expand west, despite treaties with Native Americans and the UK forbade it. The UK was also in the process of ending the slave trade/abolishing slavery in the UK, something that angered the southerners
@@CharlieZColt ehh, it was only a democracy for those who had land, or very highly educated, and a few other exceptions. otherwise not really. like just over 2% of the white male population in britian could vote in 1770s, which considering how much of the population was under-literate and lacked understanding of noble politics its unlikely they would be able to make a educated response anyway america was very unique in having such a high literacy rate plus being so spread out with a lot of land to spread out with that democracy worked relatively well, especially with the method in america, where states today are still semi-autonomous even after several waves of centralization over the years
@@mharley3791 *The colonies wanted to expand west, despite treaties with Native Americans and the UK forbade it.* In reality, the only reason why Britain forbade it was because it helped to lower the cost of defending the colonies by minimizing the number of forts needed to cover the Trans-Mississippian West. Basically the British couldn't stop the colonists from moving west (and they knew it), but if they did move West past the line they would be outside Royal Protection. Essentially, the British didn't give a damn about the Natives any more than the colonists did. Basically, during this period the British operated in regards to the Thirteen Colonies with three motivations: Cut Costs, Raise Revenue, and Punish any Intransigence from the Colonists.
I'm surprised there's not many comments about Ireland and Northern Ireland actually being seperate now, I thought for sure when I saw the graphic at the end and heard "UK we all know and love"
IRA bombed the British into their place after famine, cultural genocide, and serfdom were imposed on Ireland. Though with Brexit, Cromwell's legacy may be undone if both sides decide to reunify in the coming decades due to the added stress of Brexit on trade in Northern Ireland. Ironic, since Brexit was an attempt to create the "UK we all know and love" even though it was more powerful under the EU.
Yeah, I can't tell if they were just playing up the British caricature of thoughtless self-centredness. Or if they genuinely forgot/didn't care about the bitter rebellions of the Irish against English rule.
Yeah the fact that Cromwell's new model army was responsible for a native population decline of between 15% and 50% (older estimates go as high as 83%), amongst the many policies of ethnic cleansing enacted by the parliamentarians, you'd think it would be worth inserting an ironic pause at very least...
To clear up some confusion in this video: James II was the son of Charles I not Charles II as many have pointed out, James II became King because Charles II had no legitimate children.
The primary reason James II was deposed was more due to the fact that he was Catholic. Also I kinda find it weird you just completely skipped Charles II and the restoration of the monarchy.
This is inaccurate and provides false facts. Monarch is the most powerful office. Even above supreme Court. Parliament is just a rubber stamp and pm can be removed by the crown but not the other way around. Propaganda piece tbh.
"Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other." -Oscar Ameringer
The Second Barons war was actually caused by the taxes imposed by Henry III to raise funds for the Pope’s war against Sicily - which would give the title to his son, Edmund - as well as the favouritism he gave to the Lusingans and the Savoyards (the Lusingans were even above the law at one point). It was actually Simon de Montfort and later Edward I who instituted the House of Lords.
I loved Saturday morning cartoons as a kid and I still love them as a middle-aged man. Thank you SideQuest for your EXCELLENT content, even the advert.
The kings of Britain lost all power forever when Elizabeth II took the throne and declared she would reign forever. Our immortal queen will make sure that another king will not sit on the throne of Great Britain ever again. Long live the Queen.
I think the irony of changing the Line of Succession from semi-salic (women can succeed, but only if they have no brothers), to absolute primogeniture (eldest child of the monarch can succeed no matter their gender)in Britain, while I am of course, totally in favour of it, is that literally everybody in the direct line of succession is male. So, no matter what happens (barring the highly unlikely event Britain becomes a republic in the future, or an unlikely series of deaths), we'll end up with Kings reigning over Britain for pretty much the next 150 years. This is equally true for Denmark and Luxembourg, who have both changed the law of succession to be gender-neutral, yet all those in the direct line of succession are all male.
It’s fascinating how an icon of actual power has become a pop icon instead. I wonder which force to be reckoned with today will be looked back on like the English monarchy today
I remember visiting this channel for the first time, it only had 32k subs a couple of months ago, but now it's ten times that, they've finally got the attention they deserve
I have a new video idea: "That time, when a Swedish company had a monopoly over the German match-market" After WW1 Germany was completely out of money and a Swedish match making company offered a deal for some money, if they could have the monopoly over the entire German match-market. With the "Zündwarenmonopolgesetz" (lighting ware monopoly act) that Swedish company controlled the German match-market from the 20's to the 80's
@@lucaswebdev A match is a little piece of wood and if you strike it on a rough surface it ignites (fire is then on it) and you can use that to light other things, like candles or fireplaces. The Match Market is the market for said matches
I recently found this channel. I’ve always been a history buff, but I learn about everything I was never taught in school on this channel. Well done! You earned another subscriber!
Same here, I was initially stunned to see how few subscribers they had considering the great video quality. Now I'm happily surprised to see the channel doing well
Man I really love this channel. I swear I see it coming 1-2 years from now you will have at least 1,2 million subs and still be making this kind of videos hopefully. Really enjoy:)
England has had 7 Queens not 6, Jane, Mary , Elizabeth , Mary , Anne , Victoria , Elizabeth. Or 8 if you include Matilda (although not generally classed as queen)
@@trooololol Mary the 2nd was the eldest daughter of James the 2nd , she ruled jointly with her husband William from 1689 to 1694, Queen Anne was her younger sister
It was my understanding from watching previous RUclips videos that the Queen has the same powers as Charles 1 claimed. If she were to commit a crime she couldn't be arrested because the ability to arrest people is done in the name of "Her Majesty's court service".
I really enjoy the animation. I even fully watched the sponsored part! Also because I'm happy that you actually found a sponsor. I'm already looking forward for the next video!
Keep your royal/power status tax free, and accept an initial sharing/distribution? Or execution. The gradual discentegration of relevance of the monarchy is complex, yet misunderstood as there are powers still held. From an external view the monarchy might seem silly, but it's importance as a unifying culture figure is accepted by many British. Not to mention, the tourism profits from its properties maintain a healthy profit (legitimate fiscal reason for its existence). -coming from an American 😉
Animated movements of some long standing figures in the frame is somewhat torn... But damn, adaptation of a spongebob meme is priceless I generally thought that obsession with land (in contrast to the obsession with a murdering and pillaging strongman AKA the king) formed somewhere in Germany or Italy (since the realms were long disunited). But your description of the king's court cleared up what took Historia Civillis two protracted videos to cover. No wonder nationalistic historians call England one of the first nations around (plus the Dutch and the Cossacks) since they first started paying attention to land more than to the king.
4:50 Parliament: "Charles I committed treason against England, therefore he must be executed!" Also Parliament: *Organizes a literal invasion against England*
Mentioning Henry III without mentioning the role of William Marshal was a great shame. it's also important to mention that the Barons where demanding the ancient liberties of their Anglo-Saxon ancestors that where lost when the normans invaded.
@@anderskorsback4104 yes exactly, they where the decendants of both and basically decided the Anglo-Saxons had the right idea on kingship (mainly because it benefited them)
I'm pretty sure that those Kings disposed saw the corruption of parliament such as how did the parliament execute Charles is by literally forcing their own people to sign his execution
Have you told the Americans? According to them the Tyrannical King personally led the troops into battle in the American Revolutionary War. In reality, he probably didn’t have a clue what was going on (as he had ongoing dementia and other mental health issues). Parliament had all the power.
"The king can't be prosecuted for treason, because treason is against the king!" "The king's behaviour has lead to the king being prosecuted by us and risking his head, I'd say he did in fact act against the king."
Your content is very interesting and well made, and the narrator's posh accent is the cherry on top 👌 I'm glad this channel is slowly getting more recognition. Hope the best to you!
We did skip over parliament illegally bleeding the monarchy of it's power over time. Here and there they passed little laws that stripped the monarchy of powers such as vetoing many things, raising taxes during a time of war without consulting parliament first and deciding the budget of branches of government etc. until we get to post WW1 where the monarchy lost the last of it's power except as commander of the Royal Armed Forces and the ability to declare war and sign peace treaties. It's a real shame because the monarchy was doing real good for the people in the late 1800s and really was being lead by kings who wanted to better the life of everyone. Parliament actually in many ways caused worsened conditions after WW1 because they gave so much power to big business, and since the monarchy just before the war was working to remove big business monopolies and power the businesses clung to it like never before when they got it back. And it is the cause of many economic problems the UK faces today.
@@zacharygustafson8714 I wish I could tell you friend, but I've watched hundreds of documentaries and read lots of books about the subject of UK history alone. I just turn on a documentary or audio book when I play games. I really don't remember what specific title of the one it was I got this particular bit of information from. I think the title was something along the lines of "The innocents of the last monarchs of Europe." It was an audio book, and it went over how most of WW1 was to blame on big business buying out parliaments, or what ever version of it a country had to pressure them into wars and how they did it. It also goes over how they used the wars to strip the last of the power away from littlerly all monarchs in Europe. It also shows that WW1 was a war everyone should've saw coming because of all these small micro wars nations were getting in, raising tensions but the media was covering it up because the wars were all basically big businesses competing for resources not countries. Very fascinating stuff. Also I to am a staunch loyalist to the monarchy, though the German monarchy, but I root for the Queen across the channel all the time. I do hope you get your monarchy back and your empire one day.
@@wilhelmhetrick8948 I don’t know, I’ve just never ever met anyone who was pro-monarchy. Like I’ve been plenty of people quibble over what flavor of republicanism a country should adopt, but this is the first time I’m seeing anyone want a return to monarchy. I always thought monarchists were a meme
“The prince's official job description as king will be 'defender of the faith,' which currently means the state-financed absurdity of the Anglican Church, but he has more than once said publicly that he wants to be anointed as defender of all faiths-another indication of the amazing conceit he has developed in six decades of performing the only job allowed him by the hereditary principle: that of waiting for his mother to expire.” ― Christopher Hitchens
Unfortunately, Ol' Hitch was mistaken in respect to this: the title 'Defender of the Faith' (Latin: 'Fidei Defensor') has absolutely nothing to do with the monarch being head of the Church of England: it was originally granted (somewhat ironically, by the Pope) to Henry VIII for his defence, in his book, of the Roman Catholic Church against Martin Luther and the then-nascent Lutheranism. The title was then *re-granted* to the monarch by subsequent Act of Parliament. It was the later Act of Supremacy that established the monarch being head of the church. So the title is, just like the crown itself, the gift of parliament, who can rescind it by simple Act of Parliament (as they can the crown).
I always imagined how much it'd suck to know that you're of royal descent, yet you end up being a celebrity at best with no actual benefit of rolling lucky to be born onto that family.
"No. I am not a royalist. Not at all. I am definitely a republican in the British sense of the word. I just don't see the use of the monarchy though I'm fierce patriot. I'm proud proud proud of being English, but I think the monarchy symbolizes a lot of what was wrong with the country" -Daniel Radcliffe
@@WanderTheNomad "Those who imagine that a politician would make a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch might perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians." -oh no, shit, that's Margaret Thatcher 🤦 the moral equivalent of dog shit, only not as fragrant (or as attractive). To be fair, I hate everything the woman stood for, but I think she had a point this once. Also as someone from the North and more particularly, Lincolnshire, sorry for producing Maggie Thatcher. No really, sorry about that. Sorry.
@@WanderTheNomad "The monarchy is a political referee, not a political player, and there is a lot of sense in choosing the referee by a different principle from the players. It lessens the danger that the referee might try to start playing" -Bertrand Russell.
wow i discovered your channel when it was roughly 50k subscribers! I'm glad you expanded but i didnt even see any notifications from your channel! youtube is messed up
wait a minute, I'm sure Ireland rebelled took back the southern part of the land mass and GB somehow held on to the Northern land mass we call Northern Ireland? I think you ended a little prematurely, A bone of contempt for many
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mV5bGIswTtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Download Kingdom Maker on iOS & Android and start ruling today: pixly.go2cloud.org/SH3It
we respect the hussle
Given everything that has happened over the years, why hasn’t the uk ripped the band aid off and went for more federalization of the country. Given the divisions and bicameral legislature it might be a good idea
We need to be able to simply click on the screen when a QR code shows up when using your phone to activate it. Or can we I just don't know how?
same, link doesn't work for me.
Honestly it’s actually not that bad
Parliament: Treason is an offence against the country, not the King, and treason is bad.
Also Parliament: Literally collaborates in a foreign invasion
Eh it was less of a foreign invasion and more of just getting Dutch troops to take Parliament’s side in a civil war.
It's only treason if you lose
@@lioraselby5328 and many royal family of many europe kingdoms is just like uncle, grandsons or distance relative to each other.
@@LtZetarn yep
Literally from Parliament's website: "the Dutch ruler William of Orange landed at Brixham with an invasion force on 5 November 1688". That is very much the definition of a foreign invasion regardless of purpose.
Fun Fact: The British Monarchy still holds a surprising amount of power, however, it's not exercised by Elizabeth II because she, rightly, believes if she did so it would lead to the abolishment of the monarchy.
Here’s what I’m trying to understand. Americans seem to always frame the American Revolution as a fight against a tyrannical king in King George III. But wasn’t England basically 100% a democracy (for men at least) since the 1689 Bill of Rights?
@@CharlieZColt this question has multiple layers to it. The top layer ( the stuff taught in US history classes) is that the bill of rights of 1689 only extended to the vote to people who owned land, and did not extend to Britain’s colonies. So the king and parliament were able to raise taxes on the colonist with out their representation (which is why “no taxation without representation” os a famous slogan in the US)
A deeper layer is that there were a ton of other ideological differences between the colonies and the UK. The colonies wanted to expand west, despite treaties with Native Americans and the UK forbade it. The UK was also in the process of ending the slave trade/abolishing slavery in the UK, something that angered the southerners
@@CharlieZColt ehh, it was only a democracy for those who had land, or very highly educated, and a few other exceptions. otherwise not really. like just over 2% of the white male population in britian could vote in 1770s, which considering how much of the population was under-literate and lacked understanding of noble politics its unlikely they would be able to make a educated response anyway
america was very unique in having such a high literacy rate plus being so spread out with a lot of land to spread out with that democracy worked relatively well, especially with the method in america, where states today are still semi-autonomous even after several waves of centralization over the years
@@mharley3791 *The colonies wanted to expand west, despite treaties with Native Americans and the UK forbade it.*
In reality, the only reason why Britain forbade it was because it helped to lower the cost of defending the colonies by minimizing the number of forts needed to cover the Trans-Mississippian West.
Basically the British couldn't stop the colonists from moving west (and they knew it), but if they did move West past the line they would be outside Royal Protection.
Essentially, the British didn't give a damn about the Natives any more than the colonists did. Basically, during this period the British operated in regards to the Thirteen Colonies with three motivations: Cut Costs, Raise Revenue, and Punish any Intransigence from the Colonists.
Actually The queen is still the most powerful person in GB,
because government doesn't have the power. Money dose.
Glad to see SideQuest is getting sponsors, can’t wait to see you at one million subscribers!
Fr
He’s shot up a lot, which is good, he deserves it
if the sponsor money allows for more frequent updates, it'll be the best thing that ever happened to SQ
|redacted|
You realise you can get sponsors at like thousands of subs right and not even hundreds of thousands
I'm surprised there's not many comments about Ireland and Northern Ireland actually being seperate now, I thought for sure when I saw the graphic at the end and heard "UK we all know and love"
IRA bombed the British into their place after famine, cultural genocide, and serfdom were imposed on Ireland. Though with Brexit, Cromwell's legacy may be undone if both sides decide to reunify in the coming decades due to the added stress of Brexit on trade in Northern Ireland. Ironic, since Brexit was an attempt to create the "UK we all know and love" even though it was more powerful under the EU.
Yeah, I can't tell if they were just playing up the British caricature of thoughtless self-centredness. Or if they genuinely forgot/didn't care about the bitter rebellions of the Irish against English rule.
it was a picture of the UK in the 1800's so its accurate and Sidequest is a british stereotype who of course loves the UK when it was at its height
Yeah the fact that Cromwell's new model army was responsible for a native population decline of between 15% and 50% (older estimates go as high as 83%), amongst the many policies of ethnic cleansing enacted by the parliamentarians, you'd think it would be worth inserting an ironic pause at very least...
I think it was a deliberate joke
To clear up some confusion in this video: James II was the son of Charles I not Charles II as many have pointed out, James II became King because Charles II had no legitimate children.
My understanding is that James II's unpopularity was partly due to his Catholicism, whereas his daughters Mary and Anne were Protestant.
@@brendansunra correct. That’s why his daughter Anne was co-monarch alongside her husband William of Orange.
@@Hollows1997 William III co-reigned with Mary not Anne.
The primary reason James II was deposed was more due to the fact that he was Catholic. Also I kinda find it weird you just completely skipped Charles II and the restoration of the monarchy.
kind of weird tbh
i noticed that as well
I loved the people and the people loved me, so much that they restored the british monachy!
Catholic and had an heir. No heir and it would have been fine.
This is inaccurate and provides false facts. Monarch is the most powerful office. Even above supreme Court.
Parliament is just a rubber stamp and pm can be removed by the crown but not the other way around. Propaganda piece tbh.
"Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other."
-Oscar Ameringer
The Second Barons war was actually caused by the taxes imposed by Henry III to raise funds for the Pope’s war against Sicily - which would give the title to his son, Edmund - as well as the favouritism he gave to the Lusingans and the Savoyards (the Lusingans were even above the law at one point). It was actually Simon de Montfort and later Edward I who instituted the House of Lords.
I loved Saturday morning cartoons as a kid and I still love them as a middle-aged man. Thank you SideQuest for your EXCELLENT content, even the advert.
The kings of Britain lost all power forever when Elizabeth II took the throne and declared she would reign forever. Our immortal queen will make sure that another king will not sit on the throne of Great Britain ever again.
Long live the Queen.
I think the irony of changing the Line of Succession from semi-salic (women can succeed, but only if they have no brothers), to absolute primogeniture (eldest child of the monarch can succeed no matter their gender)in Britain, while I am of course, totally in favour of it, is that literally everybody in the direct line of succession is male.
So, no matter what happens (barring the highly unlikely event Britain becomes a republic in the future, or an unlikely series of deaths), we'll end up with Kings reigning over Britain for pretty much the next 150 years.
This is equally true for Denmark and Luxembourg, who have both changed the law of succession to be gender-neutral, yet all those in the direct line of succession are all male.
Don't threaten me with a good time.
so this is where the plot of "alice in wonderland" comes from, its actually a documentary
God save (us from) the Queen!
It is the 41st Millenium, and the Goddess Empress of Mankind sits upon her Golden Throne...
It’s fascinating how an icon of actual power has become a pop icon instead. I wonder which force to be reckoned with today will be looked back on like the English monarchy today
I bet its Parliament.
@@sirnikkel6746 man we really will be ruled by wealthy cyborg elites in the future won’t we. 😩
Maybe the parliament itself being driven by the wants and needs of corporations?
The United States
Oh wait, we’re already there
@@Ren_out_of_Ten China, Russia and the entirety of Latinamerica: *YES, JUST WEAKEN A LITTLE MORE...*
I remember visiting this channel for the first time, it only had 32k subs a couple of months ago, but now it's ten times that, they've finally got the attention they deserve
Yeah, I remember when the subs used to grow by 10k or so every few hours, that sure is what you call peak period
I have a new video idea: "That time, when a Swedish company had a monopoly over the German match-market"
After WW1 Germany was completely out of money and a Swedish match making company offered a deal for some money, if they could have the monopoly over the entire German match-market. With the "Zündwarenmonopolgesetz" (lighting ware monopoly act) that Swedish company controlled the German match-market from the 20's to the 80's
Yes!
non english native here, what's the match market ?
@@lucaswebdev A match is a little piece of wood and if you strike it on a rough surface it ignites (fire is then on it) and you can use that to light other things, like candles or fireplaces. The Match Market is the market for said matches
@@mokinsen oh ok thanks alot, i had forgotten it was called that way
@Sabizos It is an easy word, it's just like writing reallyeasywordingerman.
I've read a lot about this but I still didn't know about things like the Provisions of Oxford. Nice video.
Same, it's a TIL moment for me too just now 💯
I recently found this channel. I’ve always been a history buff, but I learn about everything I was never taught in school on this channel. Well done! You earned another subscriber!
While it hasn’t started yet I’m absolutely positive this will be yet another good video of sidequest
Hey dude you seem comment afore watchin' video, watch till end then comment 😎😎
@@bahrom942 way to necro an old comment that was just mean to complement the channel
Crazy how fast this channel is growing, I remember subscribing at 10k.
Same here, I was initially stunned to see how few subscribers they had considering the great video quality. Now I'm happily surprised to see the channel doing well
@@fireproximity4225 Me too. These are top notch videos.
Yeah I subbed at 1k and thought he was stealing videos from a bigger channel bc I couldn't believe a channel with this production would be that tiny
Man I really love this channel. I swear I see it coming 1-2 years from now you will have at least 1,2 million subs and still be making this kind of videos hopefully. Really enjoy:)
1:59 Ha, I see what you did there. 😂
lol mr z got the joke
"My name is Chri-"
Happy to see this channel getting the attention it deserves!
I look forward to SideQuest hitting 1 million subs, the deserve it for this content.
This channel is brilliant at shining a light on so many lesser-known facts!!!
I love the Chris Hansen cameo. I couldn't stop laughing. It's the little things like that I love about these videos.
On the whole king idea. It would be interesting to see a video on hungary after ww2. A regent without a king and an admiral without a navy. Yknow..
This channel is so high quality in its education and entertainment that I get giddy seeing a new upload.
A wonderful platform you have created. Keep up the good work kind sir!
England has had 7 Queens not 6, Jane, Mary , Elizabeth , Mary , Anne , Victoria , Elizabeth. Or 8 if you include Matilda (although not generally classed as queen)
Does Jane really count though ? Edward’s will wasn’t approved by parliament so you could argue she wasn’t the legitimate queen.
I’d probably be inclined to include her though.
Freddie Mercury?
Why are there 2 Mary? There's only one. Are you thinking of Mary queen of scots? She was never queen of England
@@trooololol Mary the 2nd was the eldest daughter of James the 2nd , she ruled jointly with her husband William from 1689 to 1694, Queen Anne was her younger sister
Wow just saw your subscriber count! I’m pumped you’re finally getting some of the recognition you deserve! Congrats!!!
I personally am glad it’s a constitutional monarchy. I think it brings stability without authoritarianism
If German bombs knocked out the electricity at Buckingham, would that count as the king losing his power?
Edit: Buckingham, not Buckminster
👌😂😂
😂😂😂😂
When HM Queen Elizabeth was Queen, why dont we use to call that palace bucqueenham?
Nobody signed the Magna Carta, it was a verbal agreement between the king and the barons
It was my understanding from watching previous RUclips videos that the Queen has the same powers as Charles 1 claimed.
If she were to commit a crime she couldn't be arrested because the ability to arrest people is done in the name of "Her Majesty's court service".
Charles III should abolish the parliament immediately and restore power to the crown.
I'm not sure the Irish are going to like that last depiction of the UK....
Still... love this channel. Great as always .
new to the channel, content is straight to the point and easy to follow. excellent work
it's rare for me to ever download from a sponsor but I trust this will be fun
I really enjoy the animation. I even fully watched the sponsored part! Also because I'm happy that you actually found a sponsor. I'm already looking forward for the next video!
Keep your royal/power status tax free, and accept an initial sharing/distribution? Or execution. The gradual discentegration of relevance of the monarchy is complex, yet misunderstood as there are powers still held. From an external view the monarchy might seem silly, but it's importance as a unifying culture figure is accepted by many British. Not to mention, the tourism profits from its properties maintain a healthy profit (legitimate fiscal reason for its existence). -coming from an American 😉
What an amazing video for someone who is not experienced within the British early history, this is probably my favorite sidequest video ever
Looking forward to part 2 about how we got from Queen Victoria's relative political activism to the political neutrality of Queen Elizabeth II.
Okay the sponge bob reference is what makes this channel god damn amazing. Keep up the good work!!!
Rest in peace queen
Newly subbed. Me and my 8yo an 6yo love these videos. Kudos to whoever you are
Animated movements of some long standing figures in the frame is somewhat torn... But damn, adaptation of a spongebob meme is priceless
I generally thought that obsession with land (in contrast to the obsession with a murdering and pillaging strongman AKA the king) formed somewhere in Germany or Italy (since the realms were long disunited). But your description of the king's court cleared up what took Historia Civillis two protracted videos to cover. No wonder nationalistic historians call England one of the first nations around (plus the Dutch and the Cossacks) since they first started paying attention to land more than to the king.
Great Video. I Am Enjoying These
Im so shocked. This has the quality of animation and writing as a multi million view channel. Sharing with everyone!
I physically flinched when you covered the Republic of Ireland with the Union Jack
4:50
Parliament: "Charles I committed treason against England, therefore he must be executed!"
Also Parliament: *Organizes a literal invasion against England*
LOVE IT ! Very Monty Pythonesque and highly informative, although many historians consider that the process continued right up till Victoria.
6:06 Wilhelm scream!
That artistic 13th was beautiful!
Mentioning Henry III without mentioning the role of William Marshal was a great shame. it's also important to mention that the Barons where demanding the ancient liberties of their Anglo-Saxon ancestors that where lost when the normans invaded.
Which is rather ironic considering how the great majority of those barons were descendants of those invading Normans.
@@anderskorsback4104 yes exactly, they where the decendants of both and basically decided the Anglo-Saxons had the right idea on kingship (mainly because it benefited them)
“They also added Ireland into the mix.” is a bit of an *oversimplification*
Congrats on getting that Cards, The Universe, and Everything Money. Hope it helps keep this show going.
Every episode gets better. Well done
“ … to form the United Kingdom that we all know and love.”
Ireland: “Eh, hold my Guinness.”
O'Doyle rules!
Great video! It's nice to see you grow fast because you deserve it!
MAKE THE KING GREAT AGAIN!
"Honey wake up sidequest just posted" 🤩🤩🤩🤩
Based on how the modern British Parliament behaves I long for the days of divine right
Just be glad y'all didn't end up with King Boris. Imagine trying to put a crown on that mop head, yikes!
@@brendansunra haha that's true, glad we avoided that! However, a Stewart Monarch would be much better than BoJo, would be difficult to be worse
Look at that nice, juicy sub count. I'm not sure what took so long, but lads (and lasses?) you've made it. Congrats, SideQuest! See you at 1 million!
People still blaming the royal family for colonialism though
Ahh.. My birthday and my good friend Sidequest. Very Much Invited..
I'm pretty sure that those Kings disposed saw the corruption of parliament such as how did the parliament execute Charles is by literally forcing their own people to sign his execution
Glad to see this chanel doing well.
Have you told the Americans? According to them the Tyrannical King personally led the troops into battle in the American Revolutionary War. In reality, he probably didn’t have a clue what was going on (as he had ongoing dementia and other mental health issues). Parliament had all the power.
"The king can't be prosecuted for treason, because treason is against the king!"
"The king's behaviour has lead to the king being prosecuted by us and risking his head, I'd say he did in fact act against the king."
At least them Kings kept slavery tamped, until the glorious revolution that is
Well played at making my eye twitch with the Ireland joke
King has more power then you think
nice job blowing up! i remember when you were below 100k
RIP Elisabeth II
Very nice presentation and a soothing voice. Well done 👍
RIP for the Queen
nah
@@AG4HUNNA edgy
I remember commenting before you got to 100k and now you're so close to 400k. Keep up the amazing videos!
With people being arrested for holding up signs saying not my king it seems like the current king still has a dangerous amount of power.
To be fair it’s a stupid thing to do.
A very educative video sir, thank you for taking your time out for educating.🙂
Fun to watch my bachelor's degree thesis in a 6 minutes video
Your content is very interesting and well made, and the narrator's posh accent is the cherry on top 👌
I'm glad this channel is slowly getting more recognition. Hope the best to you!
We did skip over parliament illegally bleeding the monarchy of it's power over time. Here and there they passed little laws that stripped the monarchy of powers such as vetoing many things, raising taxes during a time of war without consulting parliament first and deciding the budget of branches of government etc. until we get to post WW1 where the monarchy lost the last of it's power except as commander of the Royal Armed Forces and the ability to declare war and sign peace treaties. It's a real shame because the monarchy was doing real good for the people in the late 1800s and really was being lead by kings who wanted to better the life of everyone. Parliament actually in many ways caused worsened conditions after WW1 because they gave so much power to big business, and since the monarchy just before the war was working to remove big business monopolies and power the businesses clung to it like never before when they got it back. And it is the cause of many economic problems the UK faces today.
Mind sharing where you learned this info? I know a fair few loyal chaps who would love to use this info against the republicans.
@@zacharygustafson8714 I wish I could tell you friend, but I've watched hundreds of documentaries and read lots of books about the subject of UK history alone. I just turn on a documentary or audio book when I play games. I really don't remember what specific title of the one it was I got this particular bit of information from. I think the title was something along the lines of "The innocents of the last monarchs of Europe." It was an audio book, and it went over how most of WW1 was to blame on big business buying out parliaments, or what ever version of it a country had to pressure them into wars and how they did it. It also goes over how they used the wars to strip the last of the power away from littlerly all monarchs in Europe. It also shows that WW1 was a war everyone should've saw coming because of all these small micro wars nations were getting in, raising tensions but the media was covering it up because the wars were all basically big businesses competing for resources not countries. Very fascinating stuff.
Also I to am a staunch loyalist to the monarchy, though the German monarchy, but I root for the Queen across the channel all the time. I do hope you get your monarchy back and your empire one day.
@@wilhelmhetrick8948 Is this a LARP?
@@FirstNameLastName-gq3uv yes people having different opinions is clearly the definition of larp
@@wilhelmhetrick8948 I don’t know, I’ve just never ever met anyone who was pro-monarchy. Like I’ve been plenty of people quibble over what flavor of republicanism a country should adopt, but this is the first time I’m seeing anyone want a return to monarchy.
I always thought monarchists were a meme
I've been in the hospital for a week. Hope I get home soon. Thanks for the video.
“The prince's official job description as king will be 'defender of the faith,' which currently means the state-financed absurdity of the Anglican Church, but he has more than once said publicly that he wants to be anointed as defender of all faiths-another indication of the amazing conceit he has developed in six decades of performing the only job allowed him by the hereditary principle: that of waiting for his mother to expire.”
― Christopher Hitchens
You are on a quest to single handily amend Pakistans international reputation
Unfortunately, Ol' Hitch was mistaken in respect to this: the title 'Defender of the Faith' (Latin: 'Fidei Defensor') has absolutely nothing to do with the monarch being head of the Church of England: it was originally granted (somewhat ironically, by the Pope) to Henry VIII for his defence, in his book, of the Roman Catholic Church against Martin Luther and the then-nascent Lutheranism.
The title was then *re-granted* to the monarch by subsequent Act of Parliament.
It was the later Act of Supremacy that established the monarch being head of the church.
So the title is, just like the crown itself, the gift of parliament, who can rescind it by simple Act of Parliament (as they can the crown).
Only a few months ago you were so small, im so happy to see you get the subscribers you deserve!
“100 years later they also added Ireland into the mix; to form the United Kingdom we all know and love!”
The Irish: “Are ya sure about that?”
Classic British sarcasm
I swear I just heard an ad that was voiced by this guy right before the video started
1:59 pun moment.
This channel deserves more views
I always imagined how much it'd suck to know that you're of royal descent, yet you end up being a celebrity at best with no actual benefit of rolling lucky to be born onto that family.
One of my new favourite channels! Great animations, short and informative! Didn’t know about the name of “house of commons”
5:29 trigger warning
2:31 I like the reference to the rather obscure 80s film, _Breakin' 2._
"No. I am not a royalist. Not at all. I am definitely a republican in the British sense of the word. I just don't see the use of the monarchy though I'm fierce patriot. I'm proud proud proud of being English, but I think the monarchy symbolizes a lot of what was wrong with the country"
-Daniel Radcliffe
Meh, I think there's better people to represent Britain than "that guy who became famous for playing Harry Potter".
@@jonathanwebster7091 no one's stopping you from quoting those "better people"
@@WanderTheNomad "Those who imagine that a politician would make a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch might perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians."
-oh no, shit, that's Margaret Thatcher 🤦 the moral equivalent of dog shit, only not as fragrant (or as attractive).
To be fair, I hate everything the woman stood for, but I think she had a point this once.
Also as someone from the North and more particularly, Lincolnshire, sorry for producing Maggie Thatcher.
No really, sorry about that.
Sorry.
@@WanderTheNomad "The monarchy is a political referee, not a political player, and there is a lot of sense in choosing the referee by a different principle from the players. It lessens the danger that the referee might try to start playing"
-Bertrand Russell.
wow i discovered your channel when it was roughly 50k subscribers! I'm glad you expanded but i didnt even see any notifications from your channel! youtube is messed up
The UK has actually had queen’s almost exactly 20% of the time
I love seeing sidequest grow baby. Lets get 500k
wait a minute, I'm sure Ireland rebelled took back the southern part of the land mass and GB somehow held on to the Northern land mass we call Northern Ireland?
I think you ended a little prematurely,
A bone of contempt for many
whoa wait, when did you become a hit! I remember being worried as your awesome channel had too few subs! I missed the explosion; congrats!
alot of british communist or socialists hate the monarchy lol
that just fitting lol
Please do a video about how and when kings in the UK became figureheads.