British monarchy Charles address to parliament (copyright edit edition)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 янв 2019
- His majesty shuts down the crooks and thieves in parliament. God save the king.
Video: (2017) King Charles III
I apologise i had to cut this down at least 10 times before i was allowed to post on youtube. Everything is copyrighted. I probably wont be making anymore videos. I dont have the time or patience to deal with these stupid policies.
I think my other one was a little better • Russian Tsar (song)- Р...
Who watching this in 2022 like "Come on, do it already"
I saw the full clip a few years ago then it was taken down but It gave me boosebumbs lol
Yes King Charles needs to do this as it's in his blood... he will get more people behind him
the only way to save that shithole
King Charles is less King Chad and more Cuck King so far. Not disowning the son that isnt his and now that france is on the brink of collapse again he doesnt kick it over the edge by going to that banquet in Versailles.
Who knows it could happen. British politics is a complete disaster rn.. 3 prime ministers in only a few months with economic depression looming
If your name is Charles and you become the King, you must dissolve the Parliament. It's tradition!
Edit: The Queen is dead. Long live the King.
This is one of the reasons why Charles may NOT become the King. 😉
@@asheer9114 I hope he does dissolve Parliament, the current lot are awful!
Emir Mohamed Al-Bergha
I hope he doesn’t call himself George! That’s so boring. I want there to be a Charles III.
@@joellaz9836 Totally agree!
You mean he must dissolve Parliament BY entering the House of Commons as did his 2 predecessors.
Now is the time Your Majesty
True that we need monarchy more than ever
Now Charles is now king
And in the words of the Senate
"DO IT"
*#DewIt****
Cringe….
Abolish the monarchy
@@DhukuAC
How compelling, now carry the cross
@@genghiskhan5701 they should be taken to the guillotine 😉
@@DhukuAC A Brit from the late 80's early 90's would say, "Abolish both of them. ANARCHY IN THE UK!!!"
DO IT CHARLES.
DO IT.
DEWIT
He did it already
It baffles me how the BBC made something so incredibly based and yet expects us to see this as anything but awesome, courageous, and righteous.
It was a play, not written by the BBC regardless of whether they broadcast it. It’s fiction so there is no element of bias relevant.
Cringe
Enjoy the taste of that boot
@@DhukuAC Better than to lick Zionist, anti-white parliament boot.
@@eastcoast4233 he said based not biased, its a zoomer term
@@dvs5494 I was more bothered by him saying made by BBC…
"your majesty, if this is what you want, then you can as King command." Man. Being king is something else.
Edit: The Queen is dead. Long live the King.
Yes. Others (specifically Americans) often think the royal family are just figureheads, what they don't seem to realise is they are because they choose to be. Should the Queen exercise some of her rights she could make an American President seem quite powerless by comparison.
Well, in this part of the movie we can see how powerful the monarch is when uses his ancient constitutional powers as sovereign.
The Knights of the Vale clearly support him!
@@Hereticalable But wouldn't that mean you will be vulnerable to a dictatorship? I'm not familiar with British politics so I apologize for my ignorance.
@@MinhNguyen-pk9qk this could never happen in reality Minh. If it did Charles the 3rd would be summoned to the Supreme Court and told to justify the constitutional disruption similar to the Case of Proclamations hearing of 1611. It is the Prime minister who has sole constitutional authority and its up to the Supreme Court whether they are justified in law. The royal prerogative used in this manner would force nothing but disruption and then eventually a continuation of the current government.
I am not a monarchist. But by christ if he did this now I would be dancing in the street
Better to have monarch than those Parliamentarians who doing nothing but shouting dissing each other in the house of common
God save the King
As a monarchist myself I’ll join you in the celebrations
If King Charles III actually tried to walk into the House of Commons, they would stone him.
@@warblerab2955 Britain isn’t the Middle East
that pounding of the door really set the mood, once you hear it, you know shits about to go down
I believe the Black Rod does the pounding
That is not a euphemism
@@HaydenLau. “Black rod does the pounding”
😏 😏 😏
That is a sound heard at every state opening of parliament, when that happens the sound means the crowns representative in parliament wishes to enter so that they can order the Commons to enter the House of Lords.
@@Oxley016 true, but in terms of the movie, it sets the tone for the scene
@@Oxley016 Brits love their rituals and ceremonies
This scene is ever more relevant now that he is now King.
The king can be a hero if he wants. Pray his majesty still loves the United Kingdom. Someone must?
He will pass the throne to William at 80s
@@vincesu2738 He will never abdicate. He has been waiting for the throne all his life he won't give it away.
@@vincesu2738
God has anointed him as King Charles and he will reign until God summons him to heaven.
Charles must follow his mother command's and wish
Long live the King. It’s your moment Charles, rise and shine.
Lol
IF Charles(Mountbatten/windsor) III. Then who was Charles II?
Could the King Disolve the Parliament?
@@reboxtherapy no lol, parliamentary sovereignty goes about the monarchy
Wrong. The monarch can deny royal assent which would dissolve Parliament. The way I understand it, this doesn’t mean to King would gain absolute power. It just means an entirely new government would need to be elected.
I was an Australian Soldier and I swore an oath to Queen Elizabeth II. This scene gave me Goosebumps
@@chrislogan33 Then that person is no longer a rightful claimant to the Crown. They are made to abdicate and the next in line is anointed as king or queen. After all, they must not only embody the constitution of the kingdom and the will of the people, but the temperament and impartiality to balance power with Parliament to prevent the rise of an absolute monarchy or an absolutist democracy.
I swore an oath , to myself
Good thing Australia will become a republic in due time. ;)
@@funhausfunhaus.. yeaa mate not happening thanks
@@funhausfunhaus.. Obviously not.
For the sake of our nation, our people, our rights and our reputation globally! Do it Charles!
you know his is an islamist right?
@@KristerAndersson-nc8zo i dont know what that is but it doesnt sound that bad
Why? Aren't the MPs elected by the people?
@@HaydenLau. because the only way to be democratic in this country is to not inform the people
@@Thatspuremental
So you would prefer an unelected hereditary king have absolute power?
"If this is what You want, then this You can". Powerful.
Nenad Novakovic gave me chills
Nenad Novakovic Yeah, if the Monarch so chooses as a last resort and in dire situations to use his royal prerogative as Sovereign.
And then, the 2nd British civil war starts!
"If this is what you want, then this you can as King comand!"
I'm not even British, I'm an American; but recent events have shown me that this, THIS exact thing is what we need.
The way King Charles dissolve the parliament is pretty badass
In the old days a few heads would roll
His first of all...
"Unlike you all, im born and raise to rule" Wow! God Save The King.
The premise in this matter lies in the fact that for near on 52 years, Queen Elizabeth II never exercised the Crown's constitutional prerogative to send back a bill of Parliament, always assenting to what she viewed as "the will of the people".
Viewing such as their ability to do as they pleased with the country, Parliament intended to mute the public's ability to criticize them, and dually, expected the Monarchy to assent as it always had.
Not intending to carry on the traditions of his mother, a newly crowned King Charles III in fact refuses to assent to the bill, an action that prompts the Prime Minister to propose amending the country's constitution in order to remove the Crown's right to review any legislation forevermore, thereafter prompting the King to utilize evermore controversial constitutional powers to combat his own Prime Minister, essentially putting the British government at war with itself, within itself.
And Charles is supposed to be the bad guy here??
@@polkka7797 Nope.
@@polkka7797 Actually yes, when I first read about this play and movie existing, Charles is supposed to be the bad guy, but they did a horrible job of writing it. Charles comes off as a good guy, making a last heroic last stand against a really bad law. If the writers wanted Charles to look bad, they should have had him veto a more popular law.
@@polkka7797 Yes, he even resigns at the end. He's just not cartoonishly evil.
@@polkka7797 Apparently? Because the public protests the decision… even though it would harm them the most
who’s here after he’s become king
Me
Hi
Me
Holler
Me
When a ruler is able to read the fine print of a constitution
Ruler: huh, forgot I can do that.
For me he did the right thing protecting freedom of press.
Um, how do you read the fine print of an unwritten constitution? Why would there be any fine print if it WAS written? Even if it was made up of many documents?
@@Egilhelmson well it technically is on multiple documents, every act of parliament becomes part of the uncodified constitution, with president to the newer laws over the older ones unless otherwise stated. So you look for the laws regarding the king's power such as the emergency powers act which imports the king not the prime minister in emergencies.
@@Egilhelmson WRONG we do have a written constitution - the bill of rights 1688
@@greg-qc4iy wrong
The makers of the movie and the theatrical play never understood and never will understand what wast amount of people that would support his majesty if he gave the word.
Ahhhh supporting an unelected aristocratic remnant of the feudal age who couldn’t give a Corgi’s shit for you to get rid a bunch of capitalist corporate sellouts in elected Parliament.
God save the King 👑🇬🇧
Especially in the context that they wrote,
This hits different since he’s King now
Now this has a chance to be a reality.
Long live King Charles III 👑 🇬🇧
Oh I'd love to see king charles go in and tell parliament you're all scum and corrupt, I'm the ruler.
Long live King Charles III 🏴🇬🇧
EMPOWERED, BY ANCIENT DECREE, I DO, AS KING OF
KING OF ROYAL PREROGATIVE
a fraction sooner it would if sounded like key. no joke i had to redo this like 10 times. copyrights man- nothing else i could do
@@monarchyforever3024
It's really confusing they would be so hard with the take-down notices. This scene, and the one immediately proceeding it (with William, Kate, and Camilla having lunch) is the reason why I bought this movie. It's one of my favorite.
As KING of England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, Use my _Royal Perogative here,_ to *dissolve the Parliment **_at once!!"_*
@@davecrupel2817 As a Welshman I sincerely and very clearly tell you that Charles is not my prince and neither will he be my king.🏴 Yes Cymru!
I would become British in a second if this happened
🙄
Good for you Ol' Chap.
I thought the same haha
Unfortunately, I don't have perspective for this to happen in my homeland. No monarchy
But I can always stand for foreign Crown, just for the sake of defending it
You can only be British by birth
We're rooting for you, Charles!
LOL 😆 I want this to happen
"His majesty shuts down the crooks and thieves in parliament. God save the king."
The description is the stuff of legend.
@AJ K. Lawson Exactly everyone hates the one guy defending the rights of his people. What a life!
Well, after he makes sure he has the entire UK military on his side!
@@jamiestewart48 - Naturally. Planning beforehand is the smart thing to do.
Yes. Precisely. Legend. Or fairy tale.
@@jamiestewart48 time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted..
with liz truss’ recent resignation he just might dissolve it lol
Dear, oh dear 😂
This sadly is what we need to happen. Parliament needs to remember that they represent the people of Great Britian and not their own personal interests.
Good God who the hell edited this like just leave the scene whole
Yeah I was thinking that
read the description. I couldnt even use the full walking in scene without getting copyright claim by nbc.
There was another RUclipsr that had the full walk in scene. He put it up no worries. This was just like going from 1912 to 2019 in a day. 😂😂
@@SpaceCommand proof?
UNSC INFINITY yeah but I can’t find the scene from the uploader
This is probably what's about to happen. This movie predicted history.
It could happen in the future under Charles, but to use it right now would seem inherently political to one side or another. The current crisis is in Parliament among membership in one party. The monarch is inherently a political by nature of the position. If a game down to locking up journalists though, it would be his duty I would think.
It’s time for this to become a reality
Absolutely
YES
God save the King.
why not long live the king
the way the government have just crashed the pound id welcome this now honest to god being run by monkeys atm
In peace and war you'll hear us sing,
GOD SAVE THE FLAG,
GOD SAVE THE KING!
Long live King Charles III.
If Charles the 3rd actually did this, I think I would have a lot more respect for him as a king. But certain criteria had to be met for him to take this decision to desolve parliament.
If Parliament has gone rogue and is clearly acting against the interests of the people, the King would be irresponsible *not* to step in and dissolve Parliament.
That's the whole point of royal prerogative.
It acts as a check and balance to the legislature in a constitutional monarchy system.
The over the top response to Covid is one such example.
It put me in mind of an overzealous immune response which ends up killing the host.
Ahhhh supporting an unelected aristocratic remnant of the feudal age who couldn’t give a Corgi’s shit for you to get rid a bunch of capitalist corporate sellouts in elected Parliament.
I know the queen is meant to be neutral in respects of the national interests. However I think though if Boris was still here as prime minister, she should have stepped in.
What type of loyalty is this when you need certain conditions to be fulfilled first?The King will do as per his constitutional duties requires him to do. He doesn’t need your flimsy respect , he doesn’t have to prove to anyone. He is the King, not a politician. The crown whoever wears it, is well respected because of its history and culture that it represents and that’s why we sing God save the King. Because the 👑 is the soul of 🇬🇧
God save the King. Long live the King.
Can this happen this week please.What a complete mess Truss has caused.
She just bites the dust 😉
I don't know how he could do it without it becoming political to both sides, both conservative or labour. The King has an inherently non-political position. It would look political to get involved with mechanical issues inside Parliament that they should resolve themselves, more specifically issues inside a single political party that happens to control the majority.
If this ever happens, parliament will dissolve the monarchy and business will return to normal.
@@garysmith1863 Well that's if parliment has the backing of a large part of the population or the army. I don't know any man in their right mind who'd be willing to fight for the tories of parliament in general. In fact in the first civil war the king had more support but lose the industrial areas of britian so he couldn't do anything with his numbers. God forbid if it came to civil war I know who I'm serving.
I just finished watching this movie and I’ve got to say despite my own grievances with Charles’ past he did the right thing in this situation. Parliament was about to past a law to regulate the press which had questionable breaches of free speech one of the foundations of any free and functioning democratic society. Charles actually read the bill and listened to his Prime Minister and the opposition party and decided to refuse Royal Assent as he was acting to protect his peoples rights which he has sworn as their King to protect. Although the act of giving Royal Assent is largely ceremonial it has in the past been refused, in 1707 by Queen Anne for instance. The Prime Minister then requested the King to sign the bill unchanged after Charles told him he would sign if the bill’s contents were change so it wouldn’t be questionably breaching his peoples rights. The Prime Minister then decided to pass a bill in Parliament to bypass Royal Assent for the passing of new legislation by Parliament, basically excluding the King from his position in Government and unable to fulfill his oath as King. So Charles did the only thing he could do in the situation. As the Prime Minister and his party only half heartily tried to meet Charles halfway. If the Prime Minister had his way he would have made a vital part of the institution he helps represent become completely irrelevant which could’ve resulted in the state being plunged into a political/constitutional crisis (even though the British Constitution is comprised of written and unwritten arrangements that establishes the U.K. as a political body) even if Charles abstained from acting on his right to dissolve parliament by way of William IV provisions and example. However this time public opinion was split equally between the Monarchy and Parliament. And Charles again in the scene confirmed with his Speaker that it is his Right as King to do this which the Speaker consented to and reaffirmed. What transpired next was Charles’ mistake in not being prepared for and meeting with the press immediately to inform his people what his intentions were. Which resulted in the very institution he was trying to protect to start twisting the events to suit an Anti Monarchist message and inflame Pro Republic sentiment. Which caused civil unrest and riots amongst the masses. Which lead Charles to request protection from the military by parking a tank behind the gates of Buckingham Palace. Which only made the situation even worse. However it makes sense Charles couldn’t prepare a statement immediately because the precedent of such a situation occurring hasn’t been taken into account before so he was sailing in unknown waters which caused him to take things slowly and properly. However the press and people would take advantage of the situation as seen throughout history. This then helped the Prime Minister to persuade William with Kate’s help to come over to his way of thinking and completely ruin his father’s only chance to right the situation when his father was finished with his preparations and ready to speak to the press. Clearly painting him in the wrong and needing to mediate between a good parliament and mad king. This lead to public opinion shifting toward parliament due to William’s and Kate’s popularity but in doing so completely putting the monarchy in danger. Which caused Charles being forced to abdicate. The sad thing here was that despite Charles actually trying to follow the constitution, written and unwritten arrangements. Basically trying to solve the crisis by the book William’s sole argument to end the situation was that Charles should have tried to engaged all parties from the beginning which Charles attempted to do but Parliament didn’t want to. This has occurred in the past before. One time resulted in the Monarch getting the concession to be given the Cabinet minutes to better and more effectively serve as a Constitutional Monarch. In the end the problem wasn’t solved through rational and legal means but by treacherous and dishonest means. Which is why at the end Charles took and crowned William saying “God save you”. Charles at least stood on principle and the institution while William in the film forfeited all that for his family. Which in the end devalued the crown even further to point where the monarchy’s future is uncertain in the end. As he preserved and obtain the crown through very questionable means which could set a dangerous precedent for the future.
What movie is it?
“King Charles III” 2017 BBC film.
Word for word!
Why does every King Charles of England want to dissolve Parliament?
IN this play, the irony is parliament wants to pass laws that diminish freedom of the press and speech.
Of course, this is done on purpose to give sympathy to the monarch.
Then as the play goes on, he blunders on protecting himself by calling out tanks at the palace.
It's a silly play. But I do like his little speech.
So glad my country blew off the monarchy long ago.
Too bad we can't blow off the plutocracy that has entrapped it ever since :(
Actually it's King Charles of the United Kingdom. England stopped being a sovereign nation after 1707 I believe.
Charles I to stop parliament from attempting to curb his royal autocratic power
Charles II to make sure his brother isn't cast aside as heir to the British throne
Charles III probably to preserve the democratic voice of the people and the voice of the royal family.
@@jmitterii2 they’re literally doing that now but get away with it by calling what they ban hate speech
@@KingAgniKai England is still a country, just with limited self-rule. The United Kingdom is a union made up four countries: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Island.
I would unironically support this
Same
Without a doubt I would follow the king and remove those thieves and morons in parliament.
@@blacklighthologram5339 And now's your chance. RIP Elizabeth II.
Me as well 100%
well a lot of commonwealth nations commander in chief is the queen well now its king Charles so yeah he has power
God save the queen!!!!!! God save the crown of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the commonwealth!!!!!
Wales ?
And Wales! Sorry
@@seangallagher5695 everyone forgets us 😅
@@jarredgoulding2684 probably doesn’t help that you didn’t really exist for a while after England kind of enveloped(?) you (Wales)
@@jarredgoulding2684 In terms of the Crown, Wales is part of the Kingdom of England (despite being a separate country yes).
The UK is made up of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland to create the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, and then the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland (amended to Northern Ireland in 1922) to make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1801.
"A multitude of rulers is not a good thing. Let there be one ruler, one king." - Homer
What if the one ruler is insane eg King George III of Great Britain
We have a one ruler system in the US...with constituents who provide checks and balances so he doesn't become ultimate dictator. If you believe all the negative stuff about President Trump...I pity you.
@@nyboy76 What about the Unitary Executive Theory? As well as the legal arguments within this theory which basically allowed Cheney and Bush to torture people without due process, spy on american through surveillance etc
William Hutt that why homer left his country noricum who was a monarchy and the democracy. homer hated democracy
@@nyboy76 I'm not American so I don't care what you guys do so long if the rest of us are left out of it.
Constitutionally, the play has a few problems. For example, a bill to change any aspect of the royal prerogative must receive permission ahead of time. So the bill that caused concern and led to the dissolution would never have received its first reading. Tony Blair made use of this constitutional restriction when he asked the Queen to ignore a bill that would have limited his government's ability to wage war in Iraq. He asked her to simply never reply to the request to read it, and it was in fact never read in Parliament at all. It's up to the monarch to allow a bill that curbs the monarch's power. :-)
Another thing...the king of course would never have entered the House of Commons. However, when the monarch touches the property of the Palace of Westminster, all business stops. Nothing happens after the monarch steps foot on the property. Thereupon, Black Rod would summon the Commons to the House of Lords to hear whatever it is the monarch needs or wants.
Also, as of the Fixed Term Parliament Act, the sovereign would *prorogue* Parliament, not dissolve it. :-)
But the current British government has referred a bill to Parliament to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act, and reinstate the previous situation in which the Monarch had the power to dissolve Parliament.
@@joaogabriel36557 : Now they need to put the Supreme Court back into Parliament, and they'll be back to normal.
Wow! Thank you for all this information, I love the film and the play its based upon but was not aware of such important details. Thanks a lot.
And Prince Charles knows full well that he was born to reign, not to rule.
I have come from the future to say that Prime Minister Johnson and the Conservatives have given back the royal prerogative, nullifying the 2011 law.
The pounding on the door man
The Usher of the Black Rod.
It was a wooden mallet ordered directly from the ACME warehouse
They are imitating what Charles I did.
@@amritpalsingh3293 yh exactly what I thought.
It's like God himself pounding
Britain unironically needs this right now.
More than ever
Unfortunately the entire royal family has been corrupted and the last decent royal just died
@Sanctus Paulus yes, shes allowed Britain to pretty much collapse and held zero resistance against it
We do
@@englishimperialist9279 she's not stupid, the elite now are the businessmen, the private interest, she's knows that she has to play along or she ends up like the french monarchy, the Russian Tsars, the German Kaiser, there are many examples of why she is at the mercy of the wealthy if she ever did anything like this do you think the population (made up of people brainwashed by american media or immigrant communities) would side with the monarch out of loyalty to age old institutions or side with wealthy who would see this as a chance to get rid of the middleman of government.
I would cry tears of joy if this happened
Why
@@tbphillips9649 Because politicians are corrupt.
But as an American I'm good with a king. We have one and he sucks.
Ahhhh supporting an unelected aristocratic remnant of the feudal age who couldn’t give a Corgi’s shit for you to get rid a bunch of capitalist corporate sellouts in elected Parliament.
I am sure that the present PM would say that that is a disgrace.
Uuuuurrrrm 😅
much different feeling watching this after the death of her majesty
Now it's happening, let see if King Charles III in real life will disband the Parliament
Parliament, and the Crown are one thing, but the power of International Finance is another.
What's funny is that an action like this is entirely outside of Charles's character.
Probably so, but much like the original "House of Cards" Charles IRL has done or said enough flaky things to give this just enough credibility.
People change after their anointing ceremony...
Indeed, but people love to keep clinging onto the idea that Charles will want to be an absolute monarch or some nonsense, despite his repeated statements to the contrary.
Exactly!
Based on what I've read of the play, the king seems to be absolutely justified in doing this based on what Parliament is doing. Could someone explain to me why is he being vilified in his actions?
The Monarch has a lot of powers, but abuse of this power may lead to revolution and abolishment of the Monarchy in favor of a republic. Dissolving Parlament, the Representation of the people, is a dangerous move, even if it is to the benefit of the people.
Once the dam is breached, water will flow, no matter what. Once the King uses his many powers, the fear of retaliation shrinks, because he got away with it more often and often
@@alexanderzippel8809 this edit doesn't do the full scene justice. He calls for new elections on all the seats which would have split the country for sure but it was his sworn duty to protect the people as King.
A lot of pretend constitutional experts claim the monarch doesn't really have prerogative powers any more. That's incorrect, with the falseness supported by the current queen only doing what her ministers tell her and not even bothering to look at laws. As the Vagrancy Act proves, something not being used for ages doesn't make it no longer exist - the powers exist (although the Fixed Term Parliaments Act removed one of them) and the monarch can - and should - use them if absolutely necessary.
It wouldnt be the first English royal king to lose his head by doing exactly this.
@@alexanderzippel8809 and what about the Parliament abusing its power and "breaking the dam"?
Born of British Soil. The soul of any nation is in its King ruling not by choice but by duty. GOD SAVE THE KING 👑.
*RIP Queen Elizabeth the II (1926-2022)*
Long Live The King
The King is right and has the right in this scene.
Down with the anti-monarchists and the anti-monarchist writers!
I, for one, don't believe that someone should be somehow higher than I am just because they were born in a Royal family.
@@HaydenLau. why?
@Old Monty I don't have to call them her majesty. They aren't above the law and commit whatever crime they want. They aren't the largest landowner in the world with 1/6 of the Earth's land area being their personal property. They may be richer but we are still equal. With the Queen the same is not true.
@Old Monty
Hahahaha
Oh wait, you were serious?
You can keep waiting if you're hoping for the reinstatement of the British monarchy as an absolute monarchy, or even just one that has any actual power. What they are are simply expensive tourist attractions, nothing more.
@Old Monty I've said no such thing
To whom may concern:
Queen Elizabeth ii has died on 8 Sept 2022, aged 96
Charles is now king
With Lizz Truss’s Resignation I feel Monarch need some rightful power back can’t trust those blinded Parliamentarians who literally do nothing in House of Commons
I doubt it would be the monarch place to involve themselves in a crisis contained within one party in Parliament. It's a parliament problem unfortunately. Now if an election occurs and they try something stupid that threatens the British people after that it would not be inherently political and it might be something that would be duty to act upon. The monarchy is reserved by nature. I doubt that it will interfere in a mechanical squabble inside Parliament because the political backlash would be quite large from the political class. Conservatives would feel backstabbed (despite the fact they're just as useless as labor) and labor after a fresh election would say that the monarchy had become political and needs to be abolished (which several of their member have advocated for).
However if an election was held because it came by through means not triggered by Charles, and then they did something above average in stupidity or corruption then simple petty squabbles... Yes, it might be possible and become likely.
"His majesty, why you disband the parliament ?"
BECAUSE MY NAME IS *CHARLES !* and it's tradition.
God Save the King
@Jack Cade - Well... the Monarchy has endured intact through less than gifted kings... it will survive Charles as well, although I'm fully satisfied he will be an above average king.
Rhodesians never die!
Richard Johnson Because our government has gone further into the shit than the monarchy or the parliament could ever attempt to. The events this movie was based off of is exactly what our government has been trying to do with us for decades now and we have no other power to stop it. Our presidents have sucked the toes of our senate constantly just trying to get one of their agendas done and yet even then it never works, even if something is passed and we make progress the next president is bound to tear it away because it’s not within their agenda and therefore do not want it. Our last hope is the judicial branch and even then there is no solid guarantee that they won’t be bribed by corrupt senators as that has happened in the past. Our military swears it’s oath to the President and so if we were to rebel there is an even less guarantee that in that event they would side with us. We are caged dogs, fighting amongst ourselves while the real enemy watches us and cheers us on while making bets on who will win. And when we bite them hard enough they’ll just take us outside and shoot us. And with all that I will gladly state with my heart and soul, God Save the Queen!
Watching this after the official coronation. Waiting for the moment
I’d support this with my life
Likewise, for freedom of the press and accountable government, and looking at what has happened to Rotherham, Tommy and Brexit.....this Aussie thinks it is time for the Queen to flex her authority and to drain the Thames 😉
I would lay my life down for the monarchy if asked to do so. It has kept our nation alive and unconquered for a thousand years, we owe them our allegiance.
@@etherealhawk in this grave hour, it is time to unite the kingdoms once more under the banner of lion (perhaps)
"oy m8, da -dog-fuckers- furries gon unite ta bring back da monarchy, bruv"
Now is your chance
Now, he is the King of England in real life. I hope this fiction becomes the reality
Ahhhh supporting an unelected aristocrat who couldn’t give a Corgi’s shit for you to get rid a bunch of capitalist corporate sellouts in elected Parliament.
@Dark Shadow Reality will be much better? How so?
1. Nobody should remain sitting - EVER - when the Monarch stands.
2. A law is not passed without Royal Assent declared in the House of Lords after having been duly signed by The Sovereign.
Let us pray Charles can live up to this imaginative portrayal.
This scene brought me to tears It is so powerful and the beauty of the establishment is often forgotten these days.
Long live the monarchs of the UK
Long live the King
Long live the Queen
As a Uruguayan, I and my country and its citizens must remember that it was the British Empire
Who intervened to give us our independence from the Barzil Empire
and the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata
Che, ¿vos que dices? vos no sois inglés , che sho no entiendo
@@muhammadalkafari3743 Y tampoco argentino
Agradecido al Imperio Británico por salvarnos de Argentina 🙏
I wish the Queen would walk into Parliament and speak these words to Boris now.
Why? Because She doesnt like his hair?
@@joaofernandes4769 Absolutely! Have you seen the mans cut?
@@theimperium4900 Haha
Boris is a charming person to have at a dinner party and better as a foreign secretary. The problem is no one is competent or strong enough to stand up to the corporate powers and oligarchs in England.
So far the real King Charles III has handled himself with great dignity
Long live the King!
The music playing when King Charles enters the parliament is the final boss greeting you while you're least expecting it
The ball's in your court, Queen Liz
"If this is what you want, then this you can as King comand!"
*Guess we can all see how this truly plays out now!*
I love how the industry has kept this movie very quiet
Lmao Charles is the literal definition of unelected ruler
Ahhhh supporting an unelected aristocratic remnant of the feudal age who couldn’t give a Corgi’s shit for you to get rid a bunch of capitalist corporate sellouts in elected Parliament.
I believe that movie was on PBS here in America
Do it Charles. Become an absolute monarch and restore the British Empire
in your dreams
If he tried doing that, he'd end up being the second King Charles to have his head cut off.
@@syedsadiquehussain3714
I agree.
That will drawn USA’s dark side against the UK.
Cringe monarchist.
@@whathell6t it was only dark when it was wasp against wasp. Now they can't control their own nation, let alone us.
Never get tired of this scene. There once was a saying: when the Prime Minister bows before the Crown, they bow before all of us. It would certainly do the PM of Canada well to remember that he answers to higher power.
The monarchy needs to get involved more in politics and help the wishes of the people as all the governments do as they please most times
This aged well
@@Patrick3183 It actually did age well as Trudeau is a fascist nonce
Higher power? Trudeau is elected and Charles reigns over him as an unelected aristocrat remnant of the feudal age
Cmon Charlie, dissolve the parliament like what your counterpart did in this movie. Save Britain from the clownery of democracy lol
This movie foretold a lot, like Harry's affair etc.
Maybe he will do that
@@alani3992 movie name?
@@GreenPartyHat Movie 'King Charles III'
@@alani3992 thanks
As an Irish Catholic....if only these dreams were realized. I'm a monarchist at heart!
Gaelic monarchy is better with Brehon law.
If the Gaelic monarchy does return with an O'brien ruling Munster once again, does that mean I get my ancestral Earldom back?
@@specialunit0428 of course pal we all do
@@specialunit0428 we retake the north of course
Michael Collins once said that if England had been a republic, Ireland would have a monarch.
Well... here we go.
Can we have this happen now?
this work of theatrical art makes a fair point that the nation would be quite divided in such a scenario. Although the monarch would probably not dissolve parliament the military is oath bound to serve and protect the monarch and his or her family. I doubt the entire military would go along with this but the crown would have the initial advantage. However this nation; though a constitutional monarchy has built up century's of institutions that serve the house of commons i.e. the MOD, home office and foreign office. They may have the crown and blessing of the crown, they have been quite infested with political careerists that would stand with the parliamentarians. So politically the crown would also be isolated. And then there is the general public who would be outraged, that mixed with the social and economic troubles they have faced in the last decade combined with there representation being taken from them would result in riots across the entire nation. This would compromise our economy and standing in the international community. Now this Charles failed because he hesitated too long and did not wield the authority efficiently and as a result was worn down through by the political establishment and the nations stand still. Militarily speaking he and his inner circle along with the loyal part of the military would have had to retreat from England in its entirety and establish a new government in Scotland as well as a re structured military command. His first priory then would be to ensure that no member of NATO or foreign power get involved (so yeah good luck with that). Then the now restructured military would pacify northern Ireland first, followed by a steady campaign going through northern England/wales pacifying resistance and detaining/eliminating the military command that sided with the Parliamentarians; while also conducting a bombing campaign to eliminate the political opposition, major military strongholds and third party resistance (such as regional secessionists trying to establish more autonomous regions) groups. Large population centres like: London, Manchester, Cardiff, Leeds, Birmingham etc would have to be initially isolated and cut off from outside support. The vast consumption of food would result in a mass famine which could be dealt with using humanitarian aid from the UN that would be handed over to the Loyalist government (in Edinburgh) who could then use the food to feed to populace while also demonstrating mercy to the civilian populace who (as portrayed by media outlets under state control) were simply miss led into an unconstitutional rebellion by godless/ unscrupulous politicians who wanted more power over the people. Eventually the populace would tire and gradually begin to question there loyalty. Once London and all the British territories had been recaptured The King would likely reform parliament but with certain limiting factors that would give the king and crown more power to at least observe the new regime. Finally it would be best if he then abdicate and hand the thrown to his much younger son. Who in his inauguration speech would highlight how this transition of power represents the re birth of the United kingdom and in his first address to Parliament would outline how the UK will remain a constitutional Monarchy. This entire scenario would crash the economy for sure and the resulting collapse in social order and services would lead to the deaths of a couple of hundred thousands of civilians to a max of about 1.5-2.5 million civilian casualties with a further 23-25 million displaced from there homes. The campaign could last up to two years and the economic recovery of the nation and rebuilding would take decades but could present an opportunity to modernise the Nation and further unify its institutions. It would bankrupt the nation and the outrage from the rest of the world could result in harsh trade sanction or even embargos on our weakened nation. Our military would be in no position to flex muscles at the foreign powers so the crown would desperately try to establish ties with the common wealth who may have dis owned the crown and the UK and we would likely be excluded from NATO.
So aside from of that would you be up for it?
@@tiberbrutus2093 you've got way too much time on your hands buddy
not really, doesn't take too long to think about the consequences of national/ geopolitical decisions like depicted in Charles iii
@@tiberbrutus2093 I would be up for it 😂
Once the old hag dies this can happen
The Brexit solution
That would just trigger a General Election, which I think would be unlikely to have a major impact on how much support different Brexit options have in parliament. Though this close to the deadline it might mean we crash out of the EU with no deal because government would be unable to legislate anything else. In any case, the monarch's right to dissolve parliament was revoked by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, so this couldn't happen anyway.
@Soham Sharma Yes they can. Only on rare occasions. Technically this is one of the powers they still retain.
@@TheMoonRover disagree, if remain politicians campaign right. There is a very noticeable shift towards remain since the middle of 2018.
TheMoonRover the Queen could revoke the Fixes Term Parliament act through an Order-In-Council by the privy council
And to protect Tommy Robinson.
one good thing about having a monarchy is because its a one constant figure head that remains neutral, they watch and insure political party leaders are in line and are acting in there best interests of its people
The Queen stood back and watched the government strip away our rights and flood the country with migrants. Here's hoping Charles III intervenes on the British people's behalf. God save the King.
I was chosen by heavens, say my name when you pray...
Silas Braun To the skies see Carolus rise
And in reality Kind Charles III should exactly do that - the scandals on the Tories go too far and since Brexit the UK lost billions over billions ....
What a great actor, he literally took my breath away
Now this is what I call power!! LONG LIVE THE BRITISH MONARCHY and long may Her Majesty reign!!
Hear hear !! long live the Queen!
Yesterday's fiction is today's fact
I'm just here because the Queen agreed to suspend Parliament at Boris Johnson's request. This shit is wild.
And when the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom declared it unlawful and the Queen misled, Johnson should have resigned at once!
@@wcryan31 the supreme court is a joke, it was added only a few years ago and has none of the checks and balances the Law Lords used to have. Another Americanism
@@wcryan31 Instead, the country voted for him with great majority.
@@wcryan31 Here in Canada parliament has been prorogued 4 times in the last decade, one of those times to stop a vote of no confidence. The courts never stopped it (I think because we have proper constitutions with a more clearly defined royal prerogative and less reliance on courts). Still though, no major freak out anyone. It was never that huge of a deal, and this despite the Governor General being reluctant to do so and the PM threatening to advise the queen to do it!
@@verabolton And then lots of people who voted for Boris Johnson died from Covid due to his incompetence. Karma is tough.
I hope and pray this happens in the near future.
I'm starting to think with our current administration in office at the moment the King will have no choice but to sack government to get things back on track!
You know buddy, I am probably one the most anti absolute monarchist going, and totally believe in a constitutional monarchy, if how HM King Charles does do this, then I would applaud him.
I would go as far as I hope he does do this
Savagely brutal, but no british monarch will ever have courage again to do something like this.
Der Alte it is bad to see another charles I!
Ahhhh supporting an unelected aristocratic remnant of the feudal age who couldn’t give a Corgi’s shit for you to get rid a bunch of capitalist corporate sellouts in elected Parliament.
I could see William doing this. He has the popularity to get away with it
2:40 Why am I suddenly feeling like a monarchist
Just do it, your majesty. It now or never.
Its time to disband the parliament and ministers
The crown just regained the power to dissolve parliament at will, let's gooooooo
I can't wait for that day....
Long live the Monarchy!!!
Charles, it’s your time to shine.
I'm an American and a Texan and even I would love to see this happen for real. United KINGdom
Texan myself here. I hope you've see the actual movie. The whole point is that Charles starts a constitutional crisis by not assenting to a bill of Parliament. His reasoning is that bill constrains freedom of speech. Pretty sure it's been almost 300 years since royal assent was declined for this type of bill.
Also, if I understand things correctly, if Parliament is dissolved, they hold elections and re-form pretty quickly. If I understand correctly from the movie "Darkest Hour". Labour led by Atlee held out the threat of a no confidence vote that would oust Chamberlin and call a dissolved Parliament and a snap election as long as the Conservatives replaced Chamberlin with Churchill and appointed Atlee and other Labour leaders to a War Cabinet.
So that people can’t vote and that people’s rights can be taken away simply because the king doesn’t think they’re good rights. Like the right to marry who you want, and the freedom to worship not surprised
Same
Mate just wait an see when Charlie boy finally becomes king
@@Trishula707 Well didn't King Boris try and do this in 2019 to shut it down that is, so he could get his sodding Brexit through Commons.
Thank you for the upload! Been looking for this scene forever.
A referendum could be held on the powers of the monarch, like in Luxembourg, then if the public wished, they could be granted more legislative authority. A popular monarch could be truly sovereign in this way.
That didn't happen in Luxembourg, but in Lichtenstein
Republics are better
Monarchies are for bootlickers
I would like to see King Charles take a more proactive role in ruling. I think that he would be a good and fair King. I also believe it's worth a change in seeing a little bit more power taken from Parliament and brought back the monarchy.
Ahhhh supporting an unelected aristocrat who couldn’t give a Corgi’s shit for you to get rid a bunch of capitalist corporate sellouts in elected Parliament.
Says here his brothers a nonce?
2:20 that entrance though!
A king entering the House of Commons? Shocker.
He will be the first King since Charles I to enter the House of Commons
Another Civil War could occur again if the events in this film took place. In real life, this scenario would not happen, well I hope not. When Charles becomes King he would be told that Parliament rules and he is there for show.
The last king to enter the Commons, if I remember the history, literally lost his head.
@@gidzmobug2323 not literally, he did loose his head
@@amritpalsingh3293 - .....you....DO know the meaning of the word "literally", right?
Actually Charles II did this too