Monarchies can be good (Japan) or terrible (Saudi Arabia) and republics can also be good (USA) or terrible (China). This alone is enough evidence for me that no one system of government is so far inferior that it would be abolished globally.
China is "a republic" mostly because the term itself is very vague, so even China fulfils the definition, but it has almost nothing in common with most other republics as we usually imagine them. (although the US isn´t much better...)
Saudi Arabia's monarchy is fine. It's a theocratic monarchy. The Muslim world are okay with Saudi Arabia being an absolute monarch and so are the Saudis. In Islam, there are no divine rights. Kings are slaves of God just as the people. They do have checks and balances and it is in Sharia Law. A King will lose their legitimacy if they do not abide by Sharia Law. Because Kings are religious, they will try to not break Islamic laws because they will answer to God on the Day of Judgement. Saudi Arabia's second king, King Saud was overthrown because he was not very religious. So Saudi Kings are not immune to political repercussions because their own family members can overthrow them. The Saudi King is also the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques which is a big religious responsibility.
Saudi Arabia's monarchy is fine. It's a theocratic monarchy. The Muslim world is okay with Saudi Arabia being an absolute monarchy and so are the Saudis. In Islam, there are no divine rights. Kings are slaves of God just as the people. They do have checks and balances and it is in Sharia Law. A king will lose their legitimacy if they do not abide by Sharia Law. Because kings are religious, they will try to not break Islamic laws because they will answer to God on the Day of Judgement. Saudi Arabia's second king, King Saud was overthrown because he was not very religious. So Saudi Kings are not immune to political repercussions because their own family members can overthrow them. The Saudi King is also the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques which is a big religious responsibility.
An absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy are TOTALLY different things. A republic is ironically have some similarities to an absolute monarchy because it's a one mans state. Where the leader has both the biggest power and social status of the entire country A constitutional monarchy has actually two leaders. The pm who wields power , and the monarch who wields the head of state and it's representation of the nation but has no power.
The Monarch frees the Prime Minister up to concentrate on governance. Not so “easy” to be the President of the United States of America...ESPECIALLY IF YOU’RE DONALD J TRUMP AT THIS PRECISE MOMENT IN TIME UNDER NUMEROUS STATE & FEDERAL CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS’!
A constitutional monarchy doesn't make much sense to me. If you just want to give all power to someone else with the excuse being "Oh but we elect him" just seems very stupid to me. I believe a semi traditional or semi constitutional monarchy is the best form as it balances out both the head of government and the head of state. That's what we had in the German empire with the Chancellor and Kaiser being heads of government and state, though Bismarck generally wanted more power for himself and Kaiser Wilhelm I was pretty ok with this. His son, however, was not. As for Germany today, we maintain this very same system with the Chancellor being head of state and the president being head of government. It's funny to see the old remnants Germany has to the Empire. We're not as far away as we like to think, but all Republics are more monarchistic and feudal than what they'd like to admit
"constitutional(ceremonial) monarchy" Is the one which is rightfully called "crowned Republic" by being simply a Republic whith a symbolic chieff noblemen. Absolute monarchies or even constitutional monarchies where monarch is still important are the one which are fully different from the modern plutocratic demagogery
I don't understand people who say monarchies are expensive they say this even though politicians are taking more from us than the royal family would, and also I don't see whats wrong with dynastic succession.
@@EmeraldPixelGamingEPG Poland for example, my beautiful country is getting essentially robbed by the ruling party PiS (Law and Justice), that's their goddamned speciality! That's why Konfederacja (Confederacy) needs to win this year. And an added bonus is that Konfederacja is composed of a few parties and that includes Konfederacja Korony Polskiej (Confederacy of the Polish Crown) which is monarchist.
Here n the UK, they arrest anti-monarchists if the police think there's going to be public protest. They generously allow you to be an anti-monarchist, so long as you never mention the fact. That's British democracy at its finest.
Mainly because presidents are very bad at representing their country. Something a prime minister won't have to worry about, because someone has already dedicated their life to that one job.
Even in Democracy monarchy exists in a different form. Political parties are completely under the control of one family whose members inherit the party leadership after the death of the leader of the party.
The truth is that there aren't any such things as "republics" or "democracies." The instant you allow laws and regulations to be written and enacted by some sort of legislative body of people, elected or otherwise, you've just created Oligarchy, which is the worst form of government there is. It's based entirely on force, not on what is morally right, and it is utterly irresponsible to the country they rule. Government under Oligarchy is merely a brokerage where lives and political power is traded for wealth. There are two forms of Oligarchy: Open and Closed. For most Oligarchies, they're Open, meaning that anyone who has wealth may trade for political power. A Closed Oligarchy, like you have in North Korea, and historically other places like Venice or Florence, restricted who had access to political power. Dictatorships exclusively come from Oligarchy, because that's what it takes in order for the dictator to have so much executive power. You need to have people who are willing to control various aspects of society and its economy in order to achieve that kind of power. The concept of Absolute Monarchy is a bit of a myth because no ruler, on his own, no matter how right it might be for him to have this kind of power, can only do so much because he's limited by time and space. But an Oligarchy isn't so much, because so many people within and outside of government can be everywhere at once. A Monarch can become a dictator, as with Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, but he needs to set up an Oligarchy to help him do it, and in so doing, sows the seeds for his dynasty's eventual overthrow, because sooner or later, the Oligarchs are going to want power without any oversight.
I wish if Jesus or a deity or anything that people believe in in their faith I wish that there was a pure righteous person to make everything fair and even and justice I wish that we all live in prosperity
Need a gentleman I don't mean to be biased man but I know I speak the facts guys we're human so we're born to send in human being is never satisfied man or woman I wish that we all can be blessed that we can just wake up and breathe end of the day until we live forever or we can't die none of this matters
Democracy and variants Oligocracy and variants Autocracy and variants Republic and Tyranny Republics can have dynasties, and monarchies can be elective and reign for a limited time. Republican regimes have also had typically monarchical institutions so… The only thing that differentiates one from the other is the Crown, one more institution in the Republic and Tyranny that transforms it into a monarchy and its role can be absolute or merely ornamental. For me, honestly, monarchy does not exist. There are republics and tyrannies, crowned or not.
I wish there was a pure person if if they're going to rule a country I wish there was person that runs all things in the world but they're pure with righteousness but that'll never happen until men and women get over greed this world always be corrupted
@themonarchistchannel they are outdated and out of touch with the public and there wealth is quite astonishing. Would you actually vote for king charles as our head of state if we had elections like America?
@@cw736monarchs in constitutional monarchies have soft power and they are a good tool to inform and stabilize the whole system, because it is in their interest to give advise to politicians and people with their generational knowledge regardless how smart are the politicians, and has a diplomatic network.
Check out the next video: ruclips.net/video/Ps5jGW8EwN8/видео.html
The monarchy vs republic debate is very topical in the Commonwealth especially in Caribbean countries like Jamaica
I used to hate monarchist but now I am all for the monarchy
What changed your mind?
@@themonarchistchannel yes cause of the middle east
same here, i also like a bit of socialism.
So you want to be a prince or a king?
Monarchies today are mostly symbolic with the exception of Saudi Arabia
I'm from the UK and a Republic sounds awful.
Yet look at Americans who aren't in red states, and look at us. This is a cesspit in comparison and you know it.
Bring on the monarchy
Monarchies can be good (Japan) or terrible (Saudi Arabia) and republics can also be good (USA) or terrible (China). This alone is enough evidence for me that no one system of government is so far inferior that it would be abolished globally.
China is "a republic" mostly because the term itself is very vague, so even China fulfils the definition, but it has almost nothing in common with most other republics as we usually imagine them. (although the US isn´t much better...)
Saudi Arabia's monarchy is fine. It's a theocratic monarchy. The Muslim world are okay with Saudi Arabia being an absolute monarch and so are the Saudis. In Islam, there are no divine rights. Kings are slaves of God just as the people. They do have checks and balances and it is in Sharia Law. A King will lose their legitimacy if they do not abide by Sharia Law. Because Kings are religious, they will try to not break Islamic laws because they will answer to God on the Day of Judgement.
Saudi Arabia's second king, King Saud was overthrown because he was not very religious. So Saudi Kings are not immune to political repercussions because their own family members can overthrow them. The Saudi King is also the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques which is a big religious responsibility.
Saudi Arabia's monarchy is fine. It's a theocratic monarchy. The Muslim world is okay with Saudi Arabia being an absolute monarchy and so are the Saudis. In Islam, there are no divine rights. Kings are slaves of God just as the people. They do have checks and balances and it is in Sharia Law. A king will lose their legitimacy if they do not abide by Sharia Law. Because kings are religious, they will try to not break Islamic laws because they will answer to God on the Day of Judgement.
Saudi Arabia's second king, King Saud was overthrown because he was not very religious. So Saudi Kings are not immune to political repercussions because their own family members can overthrow them. The Saudi King is also the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques which is a big religious responsibility.
An absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy are TOTALLY different things.
A republic is ironically have some similarities to an absolute monarchy because it's a one mans state.
Where the leader has both the biggest power and social status of the entire country
A constitutional monarchy has actually two leaders. The pm who wields power , and the monarch who wields the head of state and it's representation of the nation but has no power.
The Monarch frees the Prime Minister up to concentrate on governance.
Not so “easy” to be the President of the United States of America...ESPECIALLY IF YOU’RE DONALD J TRUMP AT THIS PRECISE MOMENT IN TIME UNDER NUMEROUS STATE & FEDERAL CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS’!
Not that FASCIST NAZISM IS AN ACTUAL THREAT STILL TO THE CIVILIZED FREE WORLD?
A constitutional monarchy doesn't make much sense to me. If you just want to give all power to someone else with the excuse being "Oh but we elect him" just seems very stupid to me. I believe a semi traditional or semi constitutional monarchy is the best form as it balances out both the head of government and the head of state. That's what we had in the German empire with the Chancellor and Kaiser being heads of government and state, though Bismarck generally wanted more power for himself and Kaiser Wilhelm I was pretty ok with this. His son, however, was not. As for Germany today, we maintain this very same system with the Chancellor being head of state and the president being head of government. It's funny to see the old remnants Germany has to the Empire. We're not as far away as we like to think, but all Republics are more monarchistic and feudal than what they'd like to admit
"constitutional(ceremonial) monarchy" Is the one which is rightfully called "crowned Republic" by being simply a Republic whith a symbolic chieff noblemen. Absolute monarchies or even constitutional monarchies where monarch is still important are the one which are fully different from the modern plutocratic demagogery
I don't understand people who say monarchies are expensive they say this even though politicians are taking more from us than the royal family would, and also I don't see whats wrong with dynastic succession.
Where
@@EmeraldPixelGamingEPG Poland for example, my beautiful country is getting essentially robbed by the ruling party PiS (Law and Justice), that's their goddamned speciality! That's why Konfederacja (Confederacy) needs to win this year. And an added bonus is that Konfederacja is composed of a few parties and that includes Konfederacja Korony Polskiej (Confederacy of the Polish Crown) which is monarchist.
@@SmelvinTheSmelver Is there a constitution in Poland?
@@EmeraldPixelGamingEPG Yes, why?
@@EmeraldPixelGamingEPG Also forgot to mention, it was the second constitution in the world and the first in Europe.
The monarchy vs republic
Monarchy is better ❤
Long live king, or long live Christ of king, God save the king.
Why
@@EmeraldPixelGamingEPGbecause why not beach
I'm a Christian and I would never want to live under a Christian government. I and many others would resist, violently.
Here n the UK, they arrest anti-monarchists if the police think there's going to be public protest. They generously allow you to be an anti-monarchist, so long as you never mention the fact. That's British democracy at its finest.
I believe the US would be better with a monarch.
Not with a king, with an emperor.
Mainly because presidents are very bad at representing their country. Something a prime minister won't have to worry about, because someone has already dedicated their life to that one job.
@@MrDoom885hell yeah
As an American midwesterner monarchist I agree
Even in Democracy monarchy exists in a different form. Political parties are completely under the control of one family whose members inherit the party leadership after the death of the leader of the party.
The truth is that there aren't any such things as "republics" or "democracies." The instant you allow laws and regulations to be written and enacted by some sort of legislative body of people, elected or otherwise, you've just created Oligarchy, which is the worst form of government there is. It's based entirely on force, not on what is morally right, and it is utterly irresponsible to the country they rule. Government under Oligarchy is merely a brokerage where lives and political power is traded for wealth.
There are two forms of Oligarchy: Open and Closed. For most Oligarchies, they're Open, meaning that anyone who has wealth may trade for political power. A Closed Oligarchy, like you have in North Korea, and historically other places like Venice or Florence, restricted who had access to political power.
Dictatorships exclusively come from Oligarchy, because that's what it takes in order for the dictator to have so much executive power. You need to have people who are willing to control various aspects of society and its economy in order to achieve that kind of power. The concept of Absolute Monarchy is a bit of a myth because no ruler, on his own, no matter how right it might be for him to have this kind of power, can only do so much because he's limited by time and space. But an Oligarchy isn't so much, because so many people within and outside of government can be everywhere at once. A Monarch can become a dictator, as with Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, but he needs to set up an Oligarchy to help him do it, and in so doing, sows the seeds for his dynasty's eventual overthrow, because sooner or later, the Oligarchs are going to want power without any oversight.
Monarchy
I wish if Jesus or a deity or anything that people believe in in their faith I wish that there was a pure righteous person to make everything fair and even and justice I wish that we all live in prosperity
Constitutional monarchy best(in my opinion)
3:34
What's wrong with dancing like this
Arab Monarchs also dance like this
Nothing. Just showing different way to behave during the official visit
I have a vision that as us being the people how come we can't have votes to determine things and in the world basically we govern ourselves
Need a gentleman I don't mean to be biased man but I know I speak the facts guys we're human so we're born to send in human being is never satisfied man or woman I wish that we all can be blessed that we can just wake up and breathe end of the day until we live forever or we can't die none of this matters
By recusal enchainement against? By revoked authority?
It depends...
Democracy and variants
Oligocracy and variants
Autocracy and variants
Republic and Tyranny
Republics can have dynasties, and monarchies can be elective and reign for a limited time. Republican regimes have also had typically monarchical institutions so… The only thing that differentiates one from the other is the Crown, one more institution in the Republic and Tyranny that transforms it into a monarchy and its role can be absolute or merely ornamental.
For me, honestly, monarchy does not exist. There are republics and tyrannies, crowned or not.
Like the ottoman empire dynasty rule 3 continent for 600 years and it was peaceful all religions and ethics ppl live peacefully together
I wish there was a pure person if if they're going to rule a country I wish there was person that runs all things in the world but they're pure with righteousness but that'll never happen until men and women get over greed this world always be corrupted
Down with the crown
Why?
@themonarchistchannel they are outdated and out of touch with the public and there wealth is quite astonishing. Would you actually vote for king charles as our head of state if we had elections like America?
@themonarchistchannel whatever your opinion is on this I respect it 👍
@@cw736 Likewise! Thanks for sharing it and thanks for watching the video from the monarchist perspective
@@cw736monarchs in constitutional monarchies have soft power and they are a good tool to inform and stabilize the whole system, because it is in their interest to give advise to politicians and people with their generational knowledge regardless how smart are the politicians, and has a diplomatic network.
Hi