@Jamie Owns you can try, but they have a lot of fancy expensive stuff to trade with specialist mercenaries to stop you. good luck, cuz if you're coming for royal land, you are going to have trouble paying the army I wouldn't worry about the royals. They're not worried.
I think Grey got confused between Mont Saint-Michel and St. Michael's Mount. The former is in France, but the latter is in Cornwall, in England. He pictured the French one, but the English one isn't too different in appearance -- except the church on St. Michael's Mount isn't as pointy as the French one.
Forgive him, Yank. Wouldn't know an ancient building if he crashed into one. 1900 is ancient there. If it looks like Cinderella's "castle "at Disney, it's a castle.
Might also have something to do with that America is from there and its deeply tied to their countries history. Other countries don't go to Britain that much, and when we do it's not because of the royal family. Of course I can't speak for everyone, but a bunch of us have our own royal family and know how boring they are.
@@rafaelluna2529 I doubt you've ever listened to hello internet, but that kind of "joke" is very much not Grey's style. He accidentally put the wrong photo in, or misidentified it, he doesn't do misinfo as comedy, and he particularly dislikes people doing it in informative videos.
What's bold here is to assume that the royal family would just be able to claim back the profits of their land after being abolished, as if they currently have private ownership over it
As a Spaniard I am wondering if the same thing applies to Spain... but I don't think we get any tourism because of the royal family, it's probably mostly our beaches and clubs that attract them
Marc Latorre It's probably because to Americans, Spain isn't as popular to them. American's came from the UK, and thus find a fascination with the Queen and the rest of the royal family. Americans are not actually taught much about Spain, even in AP World HIstory- most of any royal family they learn about is the UK's royal family. Hence, why if you mentioned that to most Americans, they would most likely act surprised- not even knowing Spain has one.
2:55 I'm 100% sure that it's in France. Saint-Michel Mt. By the way, it alone makes 2 million tourists and 80 million euros profit. France's tourism is in another dimension, rosbif.
Yes, it's Saint-Michel. France also makes about 200 billion euros in annual revenue from tourism, compared to the 120 billion euros Britain makes. But I'd still agree with his estimate of "british castles seem cooler than french ones because they're still in use". It's just a bit hard to compete with Paris, the city of love, you see. Also not a reason to pick such a dickish tone there, pal.
@@alduinfeetpic9250 I didn't want to offend anyone, that "rosbif" was based on a rival-friendship - if that's correct (sorry, English isn't my mother tongue as may already have guessed).
@@bobing1752 I've only seen "rosbif" used to refer to the British once up until now. It was graffiti on British war dead memorials in France, and perhaps you can imagine that not-so-nice things were written around that word. If you meant no offense then it's fine, but from my understanding this is pretty incendiary, or at least preferably used by people who mean to incend. You should perhaps not use it that way anymore. Then again, maybe I don't know full context either. Maybe I was out of line, in which case I apologise. I'm glad you took a step back when you realised you may have crossed a line, and explained you meant no harm instead of doubling down or something. More people should do that, thanks.
@@alduinfeetpic9250 though it’s mostly subjective the numbers don’t lie when it comes to tourists. Bucking ham lags behind Versailles immensely and that makes sense. You can’t enter buckingham and see the queen’s bedroom, 99.9999999% of people who set foot in England will never get within 500 yards of the the royal family. The “novelty” that royals still live in the palace is not a selling point but the main reason why tourist aren’t allowed inside Buckingham palace at all. Versailles on the other hand has its rooms open to tourist and draws in millions more each year. I think out of the many arguments that are halftruths in the video that one there is just a blatant conjecture presented as if it’s fact.
@@druzo5198 Yeah this whole Video was so dishonest and just eucking up all the propaganda about the royals. If anybody wants to know the real cost of the monarchs they should watch Shaun's Video.
lucas henrique OMG!!!! The solution why it is 9-2(!!!!!) !! didnt even thought about that! you are correct. now everything comes together. also, what has...3 corners!!!! double confirmed!
Was about to write the same thing. Claims to show how cool English castles after complaining about French castles but shows a picture of a 1) french 2) not castle.
+realevilcorgi An American ending a YT video with god save the queen. The Founders must be turning in their graves. That said, god save the queen. Republicanism hasn't worked out so well.
I think the reason the yanks visit the castles in britain over the ones in france is because it is more convenient to be in a countries which speaks english too. With french and spanish i have found it to be that native speakers there have no incentive to learn english. Why would they? When they can also continue on with their lives using only their languages. And so when tourists from the anglospere come. Many people there dont speak english.
"We can't remove the royal family from this position of incredible power they inherited because they have this other position of incredible power they also inherited"
@@goranpersson7726 Assuming this is a comparable situation, which it isn't, because nobody here has tens of millions of pounds in annual income, wouldn't you also do that? Keep enough money to live comfortably and give the rest to whoever needs it more than you. Basic humanity. Anyways this also doesn't address the actual argument, that the royals created their privileged position with no say from the citizen and are using it to justify their other privileged positions. The reasoning in this video hinges on "respecting royal property" which in its inception was actually state property, meaning belonging to the community and handled by the ruler. Changing the definition to mean "owned privately by the queen" does not make their owning justified. Moreso when large parts of "royal" land is national parks and public spaces, which under no circumstance should belong to a single person.
@@dankos2556 and noone ever creates a "privelaged" position by letting others decide if they should be in that position, doesn't mean they didn't earn it by successful getting there
@@goranpersson7726 Precisely my point. If my friends and I beat up a person and steal their money it doesn't mean that it's rightfully mine because I "successfully got there" and that you can't make me give it back. Legally, ethically and morally it should not belong to me or to any of my descendents. No royal family derives its power from the consent and decisions of the citizens, they take a hold of it and retroactively justify it by maintaining and strengthening their power and supporters. It's a cycle, they have power (or lands or whatever they want) because they allow themselves to have it and they do that because they hold the power. It's a system that allows no change to itself and has no right to exist in a country that claims to be democratic.
@@dankos2556 fun little fact, the UK is not a democracy it's a constitutional monarchy.... And before that a feudal monarchy so that's a moot point, also how do you justify taxes? Because for the most part that was about the only thing a king could take from his own subjects because otherwise there would have been civil wars and uprising supported by vassals/people alike to overthrow them which happened. The taxes? Mostly went to keeping the kingdom running (fueling the army, upkeep of fortifications (those castles weren't just a swag place to live but also to protect and house just about everyone living in the local area incase of invasion) and upgrades to industry n the likes) sure a part of it went to the king's personal upkeep but that was usually not that large a part of it. They really weren't all that different from modern politicians.
Although I found the video very interesting I think there are a couple of factors that aren't taken in. Mainly those not being the real numbers/ possessions of the royal family. If you count all the possesions of the Queen of England worldwide it's benefits are ginormus if i remember correctly, mostly from the commonwealth, taking a share of oil production, etc. I think this would be a very interesting stuff to go in depth, and i would like to compare the European monarchies.
I think he’s just using figures from just the royal lands in the UK alone. But even just using that figure, it’s still a 160 million pound profit for Parliament. 160 million pound is still no joke.
Watch Shaun's rebuttal video to this. Most of the numbers were wrong in this video unfortunately. The royal family costs us a lot more than 40 million.
@@alexanderchristopher6237 Not true. If the monarchy were abolished, that land wouldn't go the former royals. The British Royal Family don't actually own the Crown Estate as private property! That land, and its revenue, belong to the State.
+William Bushe yeah I'm bilingual (French and English) and always found it utterly hilarious when English kids would use google translate for French presentations and go up to the front of the class and read that crap. They rarely had any idea how dumb they sounded ahaha
Yep, he made a google image search for Saint Michel Mount (in England) but got instead the way more famous and huge Mont Saint Michel in France). That's a huge fail when attempting to proove that english castles are more attractive than french ones.
I don't think that the anger towards the royal family stems from the fact that they earn 40 million from the government yearly, but more so with how they gained those lands through which the government earns 200 mil from. Btw the Palace of Versailles garners more visitors per year than any other UK castle, all without a royal family. My point is that it is hard to discern how much tourism is garnered through the royal family, and certainly not the figure so nonchalantly.
The idea that the Queen has no political power sounds pretty damn ludicrous to me. She may not make any direct decisions but she still meets with the PM regularly and other politicians world wide and commands a lot of respect. What she says matters to some people and she certainly has the ability to influence people and possibly even their careers especially when you think about OBE's and the like. How much power does her selecting people to different ranks and structuring parts of British society have?
None at all mate my grandad got an MBE 20 years ago and he still lives the same way today as he did then. And in reference to influencing options, most celebrities world wide are more influential on political opinions by a large margin.
@@zilionis8003 I think he's talking about the willingness (of the mean US American visitor or the mean French citizen) to speak another language than English (or French) - or rather the lack thereof. It's pars pro toto, the monarchs speak English because it's an English speaking country.
Yeah, the revenue of tourism in UK, a monarchy is *145.9 billion GBP* while France, a republic is *170.6 billion GBP.* So, yeah I guess the Theocratic Government doesn't have effect on tourism.
@@aidanquiett668 Nope, does Russia has the most tourist revenue because it has the biggest area? No it doesn't. Though UK has ⅛ of French land, they have almost the same population count.
Technically, that's only the royal family's land by inheritance. You don't have to let them keep it. Heck, the Swedish government once replaced their royal family wholecloth, it's not that much of a stretch just kicking them out and tell them to get a real job. Or work a job promoting the country I guess, but it can't be that much fun.
Yeah sure, but the profits of those lands would go down anyway, because like he said, they attract tourists because they have royals using/living in them. If they were just big government owned mansions with nothing there it'd attract waaay less money for the government. Thereforce kicking them out turns out in a net loss which they don't want
@@captdarkstar3238 Thing is, he says this without evidence (and there is only evidence to the contrary out there from organisations like Visit England), and when if you look at somewhere like France, which gets *far* more tourists than we do, you'll see people go for the buildings, not the people. BTW, Buckingham Palace is often closed to the public *because* the queen is there. So you could easily argue the opposite - that the revenue would go *up* because they could open them all the time. He also assigned all £7bn in tourism to be because of the royal family for some reason, as if London is the only city that exists, and has nothing but the Mall and Buckingham Palace or something.
Well you do. When your parents die, you should inherit their estate. So why should the royals be stripped of theirs? If you believe in stripping the royals of their salary AND lands, you support theft. If you agree with that, then you might as well dissolve parliament and voting for your leaders.
@@azzameentv I mean, taxation is also theft, as is the very institution of private property. The question is what forms of theft are considered socially acceptable and in what kind of circumstances.
@@azzameentv You know, I've seen some logical leaps in my day, but "If you support stripping a single family of the land they gained over centuries of unjust rule and conquest, you support theft, and therefore are against democracy and also the concept of voting" is a unique level of bumbling, careless and inept logic that I don't even really know where to start with.
3:46 Actually, the official name for the sovereign state is 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,' but most people are unaware of that.
They’d be forced to take back their profits? The issue so you assume the crown should keep its private property (a bigger issue in itself) but especially for a privileged class of people who just get to inherit it because at some point their family killed some people.
They can keep their private properties but the crown estates are not their private property. They belong to the crown which for all intents and purposes belongs to the government.
Atokasa Take two seconds and Google "most visited castles in the world". Versailles is 2-3 times more than the Tower of London, which is the highest of ALL English tourist attractions.
+The 7th Hold your longbow, I come in peace ! And I learned recently there IS an actual castle/monastery in Cornwalls named Saint Michael's Mount that is almost a clone of OUR Mont St Michel... ... ... ...Seriously, -Britannia- Great Britain ? ^^
when he says that Englands castles are awsome and france sucks he shows the french monastrey and castle le mont Saint Michelle Wich is The most popular visitation place in entire france with over 3 million visitors a year. that is What i call irony
So basically it would have been in France's best interest to keep Napoleon as emperor, so in 200 years France's tourism would generate an amazing profit.
Joe JJ I know, but let's be honest, as awesome as Napoleon was, at a certain point he was definitely acting *not* in France's best interests, by his constant expansionist attitude and his refusal to make any compromises.
The coalition restored the bourbons to power after Napoleon got defeated. It was in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 when the French got sick and tired of Napoleon III and formed their republic
Make dublin the capital city and make irish gaelic compulsory in schools.Convert everyone to catholicism..Ban Soccer,rugby league and cricket and replace them with the irish games of gaelic football and hurling.And of course the flag well that would have to be green white and orange.
***** To be brutally honest, our American stereotype is that of being overweight, dim-witted and overly patriotic to the point of being nearly indoctrinated. (Not that I'm at all saying that that's what you are like).
Hah! If only. By the way, if anyone wants to have this video dissected into pieces, watch Shaun's video. The title is "Abolish the Monarchy! - A response to CGP Grey". He published it 7 years later after this video.
The tourist argument is utterly specious. Tourists don't MEET the royals. If the royals didn't exist all the attractions would still be there. There's no pharaohs in Egypt - doesn't hurt the tourist industry, though, does it?
***** Sorry, I don't follow you. I'm not arguing that - the video is. I'm saying the tourists would come anyway if there was no Queen etc. because what the tourists actually visit would still be there, royals or not.
***** I'm saying although there are people that would visit the place anyway, the reason that some people visit in the first place is because of the queen.
***** No, but they go to visit her property and pay to do so. As such, she is (indirectly) responsible for the income tourists provide. If the royal family -- or rather, The Crown - to vanish, her property would be privately sold, and it is highly unlikely that most of the people rich enough to buy them would maintain the "I'll let the government take the profit from this property" deal.
Damian Freeman That's not what happens and there's no reason to think it would in future. The idea that Buckingham Palace might be put up for auction so that a private person or company could own it is impossible and would never be allowed in the UK. The Crown properties would be held in trust by the nation (as is normal for historic properties of special importance, eg. by the National Trust or English Heritage), their character preserved so that the public could continue to enjoy them. It would make no economic sense to sell them - and even if it did there would be no public support to do so.
@@luisandrade2254 i was a tourist and I visited Buckingham Palace, but I didn't do to see the queen and she is never there anyway. I did it for the history and the historic landmark. Those would not vanish if the royal family stopped holding political power or stopped being funded by the tax payer.
If it were just a question of speaking English, we'd just go to Ireland. They're closer, and we like the Irish more than we like the English. Stop popping out adorable royal babies and hosting fairytale royal weddings and you can kiss American tourist dollars cheerio.
@@jesseberg3271 Tourism to Versailles makes more money than tourism to the UK because of the Royal Family. Need I remind you of what the French did to their king?
@Duncan Whyte We Americans call our country “the land of the free” because our national anthem refers to the US as “the land of the free.” In case you didn’t know, that song was written in 1813, back when we were fighting against Europeans for our freedom. The more you know.
"I take this opportunity to confirm my willingness and intention to continue the tradition of surrendering the hereditary revenues, including the crown estate, to my government for the benefit of all, in return for the sovereign grant, which supports my official duties as head of state and head of nation." - King Charles III, Declaration to the Accession Council, 10 September 2022
But the UK is officially known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Wales, and Scotland in a neat little package) and Northern Ireland, with the full name rarely ever abbreviated anyway, because the "United Kingdom" is more preferred. More accurately a republican variant would simply supplant the "Kingdom" part of the name with "Republic", becoming the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or simply the United Republic, also known as the Uuuuurrr...
If it changed from the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" to the "United Republic of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland", why would it be known as URESWNI? The "United States of America" is usually known as just "America", but also just by its title, "United States"... Just like United Kingdom. Because there are no other places with those titles, at least not in their commonly used name, the titles are treated like the names. So it would go from the "United Kingdom" to the "United Republic".
chiefHunzahua My suggestion would be the Commonwealth of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I don't believe the the UK would use the word Republic, nor do I think it should take a name similar to another nation (like your US suggestion). Alternatively, it may just go with simply 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland', as with our neighbour Ireland. Or maybe the Union if Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Republic is a distinctly un-British word, and I would be greatly opposed to including it in our country's formal name. (Though i'm a monarchist, so this point is fairly moot, i'm happy with UK)
ProMonarchyGenius Are you? I thought you were a royal lickarse, I pity Russia having a despot like him as their leader, oh and fast 'thumbing' yourself up makes you look quite sad.
The whole argument of why the queen is profitable is because of the revenue of the royal family lands, forgeting that the reason they own this lands is BECAUSE they are the royal family. If there were no queen, that would be state land and the profit would go to the state anyway
I'm never in favor of the government taking someone's land for profit. in fact the government would make some profit if they take your land how about they take yours too.
HAHAHA! As a Norwegian, the "Hva faen?!" is one of the funniest things I've experienced all year! It was just such an absurdely surprising twist of events, and it gets even funnier when I think about the fact that we're one of the last remaining monarchies as well (albeit purely symbolic). I'm imagining the royal family chatting with the prime minister in a party, before watching the news, spitting out their drinks, and yelling "What the fuck?!". Would be even better with the prime minister at the time of upload, as he had a hilariously bad English... I'm just adding more and more to the scenario now, this is great!
2:58 is the Tower of London. If that's the one you mean, then it's true that its design is French. It was created by William I, the first king of 'modern' England who famously invaded England in and around 1066.
Cgp was mistaken, the picture in the video is of the French one. But beside having the same name they also look very similar and even a google image search gives pictures of both. So it's easy fore someone who doesn't know one of them to be mistaken. You can tell the French one because the island is more anthropized and the architecture is more developeped (there's no free space left on the island).
it is indeed a picture of Mont Saint-Michel and not St Michael Mount. Though funnily enough they do look similar, have practically the same name and lie on opposite side of each other of the English Channel.
Yes, but its not their land and the UK attracts a fraction of the tourists who visit France. Moreover, there is some seriously shady accounting going into calculating how much the RF costs the community. The cost of their security is not included in the figures quoted and remains hidden from the public, for instance.
Yeah for reasons mostly unrelated to castles and queens. Good weather and good food, nice mountains, lakes, and beaches, and it's easier to get to for most Europeans. Why make the extra effort and cost to come to the grey and dreary UK?
@@MarcoTheGreat2008 but the Palace of Versailles gets way more visitors than any castle in England. Most Americans don't to to the UK for their monarchs, we go there because they speak the same language as us.
It translates to "What the fuck?!" I believe he laughed more at it being surprising, than actually funny. Still, that's a very common Norwegian phrase over the gazillion English ones ("What the fuck" "What the hell "What the heck" and so on) and can, indeed, be rather funny in the right circustanses, such as this - directly destroying my previous thought. Enjoy the ramble. :)
If you think about how most royal families came to "own" all that land (lots of murdering) it does lead you to question if we should respect the descendants claims to it.
Not true, generally land became merged with Crown property when a family died out, or they were disposed as punishment for: raising an army against others in dispute. The majority of English Crown territory. Continental Crown property is more complicated.
Except for big events, tourists dont go to the uk only to see the royals or anything associated with them. Thats ludicorus. And by the way, france is still number one in the world when it comes to tourists, so their castles must not be too smelly.
yeah but castles and stuff like like that arent the reasons people visit france. people visit france because of its countryside, beaches, food and paris
err.. it was not the only reason I visited London, but I'd be lying if I said the notion of the royal family that is part of the history of thoses places (and things) being still there and reigning was not a major plus. So yeah. To many people, the fact that you still have the royal family is an important detail when choosing to visit.
seleniaactimel I will not deny that it is a very nice, and awfully pretty thing. But it is not in line with the British values of fairness and democracy. It is a relic of something that we as a modern people are striving to move beyond... that god awful class system where people are simply BORN better than others...
He was being funny, wasn't he, 7 thousand million = 7 billion.....just a funny, exaggerated way of saying it...that's what I thought. British English used to have a Billion equal a million million......but later they adopted the American meaning of a Billion which equals a thousand million.
I am not English so get rid of the royal family, don't, whatever. Doesn't matter to me, but to those that this does effect, I do want to bring up that while I originally thought these videos were educational based on the first few I watched, these are actually persuasive, not educational, so they are one sided, on all of them not just this one. So on this one, it doesn't affect me, so I stay neutral, really couldn't care, just don't want anyone's opinion completely shifted on a one sided video. Make sure to educate yourself fully on all of these videos, though they do provide a good starting point of learning ONE side of the story, find something that gives you the other side, and you have a really good start on being somewhat informed on the issue.
***** I am not going to get into an argument, but he doesn't give the side "republicans" would say. If you don't think there are two sides two every story, then....I am not going to argue with you. (Also its typically best to only give one side in short videos, since if you want to give both sides then they will be significantly longer...especially if you are going to give rebuttals to each side. I never said he didn't complete his objective....in fact I said the opposite). :)
There's a ton of problems with this video, which is really unlike you, Grey. Can we ever expect a sort of update fixing these or a retraction? Some sort of official acknowledgement of the mistakes.
Even though I doubt he intended it as this, this video is blatang monarchist propaganda. He's better off unlisting this one and pretending it didnt happen
@@wadezabel5306 i would prefer an informative video correcting his mistakes to simply pretending it never happened. but yeah, this video is not up to snuff for Grey's usual diligence (not that he hasn't made other mistakes or videos i disagree with before). not to mention, economics aside, there are other serious problems with preserving the monarchy which this video completely sweeps under the rug.
@@wadezabel5306 I think it would be way more impactful if he actually acknowledged it considering what an impact it had and continues to have on debates about monarchism
It’s a 10 year old video, I’m pretty sure he knows there’s errors. But he said it himself, updating and reviewing old videos would be a waste of time cause he would infinitely have to improve old videos. I’m pretty sure most of the facts in this video along with most old videos like his coffee has tunnel vision and acknowledging mistakes from a 10 year old video would improve his reputation. But it delays modern newer videos, which bring in income and views which isn’t worth his trade off.
Grey, you mentioned in the video that the Queen has no powers, but you didn't mention Royal Prerogative, which would give the Queen the power to dissolve Parliament and remove the Prime Minister from office and establish an absolute monarchy if she so pleases. Can you explain more about this? Maybe in a future video...please?
It would be a good topic. From what a few minutes googling found for me, it looks like the Royal Prerogative was trimmed back rather severely following the Glorious Revolution by the Bill of Rights of 1689. It made suspension or execution of laws without consent of parliament illegal, and established that parliament could limit remaining prerogatives. The Triennial Act of 1694 required the monarch to call and dissolve parliament only at certain times. There are still quite a few Royal Prerogatives left (enough to make an interesting video) but not it would seem enough to establish an absolute monarchy.
tristan perdoux Neither. It looks similar to a real English castle, st. Michael's mount in cornwall. Considering they both look similar and both have the same name, it's an easy mistake to make.
Thorntonian English and french castles were the same, after the french domination of more than 350 years on England, england was a vassal of France, so they used the same techniques than the french to build their castles.
Thorntonian St. Michael's mount has some resemblance to Mont St. Michel, but I'm pretty sure the castle in the picture shown is the latter. Not that it really matters for his monologue :)
On the pro-royal-family side: a well made video, with good points, examples and reasonable, calm and collected arguments. On the anti-royal-family side: "Fuk dis stoopid sheet fuk!!!" For some reason I think I'll go with CGP on this one...
GBD1000 On the anti-royal-family side: Attention to historical progression of systems of government, an analysis of the problems with private ownership of land by a monarch, and a detailed insight into the vast wealth gap between average British citizens and the Queen. On the pro-royal-family side: Not looking any further into the issue and making strawmen of the opposition. Cough. Cough cough.
Vienna Orange An issue would normaly be something problematic. If 70% of British population was living in extreme poverty because of the royal family than I could understand why people see this as a problem, but right now all I'm seeing is a bunch of people whining about something that is completely irrelevant and acting like it's the single biggest problem with the world. "The queen has more money than me, so I'll bitch about how horrible she is" that is essentially the entire argument. When having a queen becomes an actual problem (tyrannicalrule, extreme poverty, misuse of power etc.) then I'd be able to see your point, but right now, when the royal family has no real power and is making the country more money than it takes, the only real reason people are complaining is because they aren't in their position or because the mere mention of the word "queen" makes them angry for whatever reason, and they don't stop to think about the difference between them and countries like Bahrain.
GBD1000 Alright, 70 percent of Brits don't live in poverty, but according to the Poverty and Exclusion Project at the University of Bristol, *30% of households are living below the poverty line*. So certainly there is some injustice when your system of government requires you to keep a precious old white lady and her spoiled-rotten kids in comical opulence while a third of your country has substandard living arrangements, if not no household at all. Ironically, said 33% *pays the Crown* money. And that few coins CGP put in his illustration? That's just the Crown's private salary. That doesn't include a multitude of the other expenses of maintaining a monarch, like the 102 million dollars a year in security that follows the queen and all her relatives, the cost of royal visits, etc. For more information check this. republic.org.uk/sites/default/files/wortheverypenny.pdf The monarchy doesn't make the UK money, it robs it. And as far as that "tourism" claim goes: Nuh uh! Americans don't go to Britain to see a coat of arms! They go because Harry Potter happens here, or Doctor Who, or because of the White Cliffs of Dover and all the kinds of scenery you dont get in America, or because they want to eat in a chip shop and find out what a cheeky Nando's is. People like Britain for Britain, not it's system of government. Also, claiming the crown doesn't have any real power is a bit untruthyish. While I agree that the crown doesn't use much of the power that it COULD use, it still has LOTS of unofficial influence (if the queen walked into a pie shop you bet she could get all the pies for free) and it is commander in chief of the armed forces! Plus, it *really is the principle of the thing.* Feudalism should've ended with the signing of the Magna Carta. You can dress it up as a constitutional monarchy all you want, but in the end you still have a particular family that is put on a pedestal above the rest of the population, not because of merit but because of bloodline. It just isn't right, and it should change.
Vienna Orange All that money going for security or royal visits is not going to be divided among the people if the queen was to lose power. It would go for the president, or the Prime Minister, or whatever else comes instead of the queen. Do you seriously believe that just because the queen isn't there than everyone will magically get more money or something? Those poverty rates are pretty much just like the ones in my country, and we have no royal family. You can't possibly tell me that ABSOLUTLY NO ONE goes to the UK to see the royal family, the castles, the queen, etc. becaus a lot of people do and just because YOU don't think it's that interesting doesn't mean that no one on Easrth ever took an interest in anything but Harry Potter. The queen's "influance'' that you mention is really no different than pretty much any person with money or fame on Earth, and don't tell me that you're against other people having money because that is just ridiculous. And if it's really the principle of the thing that bothers you then, I'm sorry, but you're being pretty childish. Imagin a French person demanding that the Versailles Palace be renamed 'The Versailles Building" because palaces are a medival thing and calling it a palace is bad because of that. That's just a very silly thing to worry about.
GBD1000 Yeah, the money for security and whatever would be given back to the people. The UK already has a PM, and they obviously don't need a second security force, so that's an unnecessary >100m euros a year going back into the peoples pockets, and if you say thats not significant, imagine a 100m e education bill for underfunded schools, or soup kitchens or something. Boom. It's not people "magically getting more money", it's people getting real positive effects in their community for tossing out the old bag o' bones. And I'm not saying that throwing out the queen instantly solves every poverty problem. I'm saying *it's disgusting to have one while poverty exists.* Wanting to rename the Palace of Versailles would be silly, because it was, historically, a palace. But France doesn't have a king anymore, and their government officials do not live in the Palace of Versailles off the taxpayer's ~7 dimes annum after conversion.
I love how naked it is that the arguments going on in the comments section are between Wikipedia Warriors and teenagers who just read one or two anti-monarchist pieces.
Well I'm not a teenager, but I'm certainly not so anti-monarchist that I would want to see the British monarchy ousted French revolution style. I'm also not controlled by money in the way that it seems a lot of pro-monarchists are. Just because something gives you a profit doesn't mean that it is grounds for justification.
I just like the idea of preserving the culture and traditions, and the royal family is one of them. It just seems so cool to me about a monarch, and if one is a bad person, just replace him or her with another monarch.
Honestly when I went to England on vacation, I went there for the Beatles, the old buildings (some castles, some not), the accents and Harry Potter. I visited the royal sites too, but mostly because it just seemed like one of the main attractions that people visit.
The real cost is the message to all that some people are better just because of the nature of the birth and not from their accomplishments. and that some people are simply above others for no other reason than bloodline.
This begs the question, why should royals even own that land anyway? Tourists come to see palaces and stuff, not to have tea with the Queen. Like, do you understand the middle ages have ended? What person in their right mind would ever defend Monarchy i the third millenium?
It‘s always so sad when a privileged 99year old dies who is only famous because of an outdated system an on top of that had some really questionable views.
I like how the video is so old that there wasn't even a hunger system implemented in Minecraft yet
that just blew my mind
I was there, 3000 years ago...
Timestamp missing.
Here it is
3:23
Holy moly, that's one hell of an observation 👍
And look at the lava!
You're missing the amazing opportunity here. The Republic of Wales England Northern Ireland and Scotland, or the Republic of WENIS for short
Lol, there's no way we'd let Wales be first!
-_-
@Jamie Owns you can try, but they have a lot of fancy expensive stuff to trade with specialist mercenaries to stop you. good luck, cuz if you're coming for royal land, you are going to have trouble paying the army
I wouldn't worry about the royals. They're not worried.
If only a P fits.
I wish that insteand of Wales it would be Pales.
I love how you said "why do Americans not like French castles compared to English ones" and compared a French castle with a French castle
Exactly , le mont saint Michel, is a french castle , more specifically in Normandy
That confused me as well honestly
I think Grey got confused between Mont Saint-Michel and St. Michael's Mount. The former is in France, but the latter is in Cornwall, in England. He pictured the French one, but the English one isn't too different in appearance -- except the church on St. Michael's Mount isn't as pointy as the French one.
@@cyberherbalist Yeah, having been to both, st Michael's Mount is no where near as impressive, but still very nice
I was also very confused; I thought it was some kind of joke.
King George III, the guy who lost america and his mind.
But never fear, the rules are here.
And his bowels, apparently.
Lord north was the prime minister
Fliyo MB But never fear, the purple stools are here.
I mean technically parliament lost the colonies....
"And the UK's castles are so awesome"
djcfrompt Le Mont-Saint-Michel - a real beautiful place!
Small correction: It is an abbey and not a monastery.
Yes
It’s because there’s a twin monastery of the same name In Cornwall so he probs got the wrong one
Forgive him, Yank. Wouldn't know an ancient building if he crashed into one. 1900 is ancient there. If it looks like Cinderella's "castle "at Disney, it's a castle.
I suggest that the reason Britain's castles are more popular than Frances is because English is spoken in Britain.
Might also have something to do with that America is from there and its deeply tied to their countries history. Other countries don't go to Britain that much, and when we do it's not because of the royal family. Of course I can't speak for everyone, but a bunch of us have our own royal family and know how boring they are.
But they aren't. Unless you talk only about Americans, France gets way more tourists than the UK.
@@lavitorroja2632 but he's only talking bout American tourists, not worldwide ones :-)
(Though I didn't look the numbers up)
They aren't though. He just straight up lied.
Agree!
"UK's castles are so awesome" - shows pic of Mont St. Michel in France...
LB that’s the joke
@Kandy Kandy Chill.
I mean, to be fair.. it was founded under the Norman and Anglo-Norman kings
@@rafaelluna2529 I doubt you've ever listened to hello internet, but that kind of "joke" is very much not Grey's style. He accidentally put the wrong photo in, or misidentified it, he doesn't do misinfo as comedy, and he particularly dislikes people doing it in informative videos.
Really original comment, no one has commented this before in the 9 years this video has been out. I guess this video has been completely debunked...
bold of you to assume government would use excess profit to lower taxes
I would use the world dishonest
What's bold here is to assume that the royal family would just be able to claim back the profits of their land after being abolished, as if they currently have private ownership over it
But they do though
@@daniellittlefield11 they do
@@kms_scharnhorst they also rule over the country legally and still i am pro guillotine
why the royale family exist?
popular figurehead
+15 stability
Is this a hoi4 reference?
yes
Why other royal families don't exist:
King Carol ll's life style
Lol, it also look like stelaris reference as well
@@No.no_body king Carol is honestly why i despise playing Romania.
Even though you can get rid of the starting years are very important
I regret nothing
They'll be back
oh
They’ll remember they belong to me...
Sucker
You’ll remember that I served you well...
grey: the queen is a kitten
also grey: cats are mini tigers just waiting to kill you
What video does he say that in?
@@BogusmanTheSwagman The video on domestication of animals
Explains a lot
Phillip: **dies**
RUclips: let's recommend British monarchy videos.
i was already wathing those before phillip died
Queen *dies*
who the hell is phillip
@@modkip25 HRH the Duke of Edinburgh
Queen dies
2:54
"France's castles are so boring and stinky and UK's castles are so awesome"
*shows Mont-Saint Michel*
It's actually the toilets in France that stink....oh and most of the people....
*Laughs in Versailles*
@ Well, you cant die from stench, on the other hand It's not unlikely that you would regurgitate your organs if you ate British food.
That is like... the joke
@@heinrichmirgrautsvordir6613 bist du dir sicher, dass es dir nicht vor willy graut?
As a Spaniard I am wondering if the same thing applies to Spain... but I don't think we get any tourism because of the royal family, it's probably mostly our beaches and clubs that attract them
Marc Latorre Spain still has a royal family?
Lazy Spark yes, but it makes no profits for spain that I am aware of.
Marc Latorre It's probably because to Americans, Spain isn't as popular to them. American's came from the UK, and thus find a fascination with the Queen and the rest of the royal family. Americans are not actually taught much about Spain, even in AP World HIstory- most of any royal family they learn about is the UK's royal family. Hence, why if you mentioned that to most Americans, they would most likely act surprised- not even knowing Spain has one.
Nicole Shattuck Or it's because you barley or have never seen them on TV.
LAIthAMantis a The worlds tourist's like to come to us - we like to go to Spain.
Edward VIII: 1936-1936
Hoi4 players: hey I’ve seen this one
2:55 I'm 100% sure that it's in France. Saint-Michel Mt. By the way, it alone makes 2 million tourists and 80 million euros profit. France's tourism is in another dimension, rosbif.
Yes, it's Saint-Michel. France also makes about 200 billion euros in annual revenue from tourism, compared to the 120 billion euros Britain makes. But I'd still agree with his estimate of "british castles seem cooler than french ones because they're still in use". It's just a bit hard to compete with Paris, the city of love, you see. Also not a reason to pick such a dickish tone there, pal.
@@alduinfeetpic9250 I didn't want to offend anyone, that "rosbif" was based on a rival-friendship - if that's correct (sorry, English isn't my mother tongue as may already have guessed).
@@bobing1752 I've only seen "rosbif" used to refer to the British once up until now. It was graffiti on British war dead memorials in France, and perhaps you can imagine that not-so-nice things were written around that word. If you meant no offense then it's fine, but from my understanding this is pretty incendiary, or at least preferably used by people who mean to incend. You should perhaps not use it that way anymore.
Then again, maybe I don't know full context either. Maybe I was out of line, in which case I apologise. I'm glad you took a step back when you realised you may have crossed a line, and explained you meant no harm instead of doubling down or something. More people should do that, thanks.
@@alduinfeetpic9250 though it’s mostly subjective the numbers don’t lie when it comes to tourists. Bucking ham lags behind Versailles immensely and that makes sense. You can’t enter buckingham and see the queen’s bedroom, 99.9999999% of people who set foot in England will never get within 500 yards of the the royal family. The “novelty” that royals still live in the palace is not a selling point but the main reason why tourist aren’t allowed inside Buckingham palace at all.
Versailles on the other hand has its rooms open to tourist and draws in millions more each year.
I think out of the many arguments that are halftruths in the video that one there is just a blatant conjecture presented as if it’s fact.
@@druzo5198 Yeah this whole Video was so dishonest and just eucking up all the propaganda about the royals.
If anybody wants to know the real cost of the monarchs they should watch Shaun's Video.
U.R.E.S.W.N.I?
Or S.U.R.E.W.I.N?
Coincidence?
I think not!
or U.R.SW.I.N.E
that are 7 letters, two less than three times three! that surely is no coincidence! illuminati confirmed
Der eine Linus 2 points form a line and what has 3 lines?
lucas henrique OMG!!!! The solution why it is 9-2(!!!!!) !! didnt even thought about that! you are correct. now everything comes together. also, what has...3 corners!!!! double confirmed!
OK, I'm nitpicking but the awesome UK castle at 2m55s is actually Mont St-Michel, a monastery in France...
Vincent Poirier I think you are right.
Vincent Poirier you are correct and that bothers me too.
Was about to write the same thing. Claims to show how cool English castles after complaining about French castles but shows a picture of a 1) french 2) not castle.
CGP did it as a joke I think...
A convent actually, or so I have heard.
God save the queen
'Cause tourists are money
We love our Queen!
+realevilcorgi An American ending a YT video with god save the queen. The Founders must be turning in their graves.
That said, god save the queen. Republicanism hasn't worked out so well.
+realevilcorgi Fuck the queen.
+David Kelly Aren't the Brits our favorite allies now? Also, CGP Grey has an EU citizenship so he is an European anyway.
Joshua Chung As far as I know, Grey is still American. He went to Europe for work and never bothered to come home after changing careers.
ah yes..."the living, breathing queen"
Too soon
I'm British and I never realised coins made a shield
OMG
Nah
Tahia Towhidul yeah those ones do.
Tahia Towhidul British? Hah
Ye I never realised, and apparently no one else in my family knew either
It's called a coat of arms not a shield.
Lol Samw
I think the reason the yanks visit the castles in britain over the ones in france is because it is more convenient to be in a countries which speaks english too. With french and spanish i have found it to be that native speakers there have no incentive to learn english. Why would they? When they can also continue on with their lives using only their languages. And so when tourists from the anglospere come. Many people there dont speak english.
"We can't remove the royal family from this position of incredible power they inherited because they have this other position of incredible power they also inherited"
glad to know that if your parents ever got wealthy you would donate the inheritance you got from them to the poor, real inspiring of you
@@goranpersson7726 Assuming this is a comparable situation, which it isn't, because nobody here has tens of millions of pounds in annual income, wouldn't you also do that? Keep enough money to live comfortably and give the rest to whoever needs it more than you. Basic humanity.
Anyways this also doesn't address the actual argument, that the royals created their privileged position with no say from the citizen and are using it to justify their other privileged positions. The reasoning in this video hinges on "respecting royal property" which in its inception was actually state property, meaning belonging to the community and handled by the ruler. Changing the definition to mean "owned privately by the queen" does not make their owning justified. Moreso when large parts of "royal" land is national parks and public spaces, which under no circumstance should belong to a single person.
@@dankos2556 and noone ever creates a "privelaged" position by letting others decide if they should be in that position, doesn't mean they didn't earn it by successful getting there
@@goranpersson7726 Precisely my point. If my friends and I beat up a person and steal their money it doesn't mean that it's rightfully mine because I "successfully got there" and that you can't make me give it back. Legally, ethically and morally it should not belong to me or to any of my descendents.
No royal family derives its power from the consent and decisions of the citizens, they take a hold of it and retroactively justify it by maintaining and strengthening their power and supporters. It's a cycle, they have power (or lands or whatever they want) because they allow themselves to have it and they do that because they hold the power. It's a system that allows no change to itself and has no right to exist in a country that claims to be democratic.
@@dankos2556 fun little fact, the UK is not a democracy it's a constitutional monarchy.... And before that a feudal monarchy so that's a moot point, also how do you justify taxes? Because for the most part that was about the only thing a king could take from his own subjects because otherwise there would have been civil wars and uprising supported by vassals/people alike to overthrow them which happened. The taxes? Mostly went to keeping the kingdom running (fueling the army, upkeep of fortifications (those castles weren't just a swag place to live but also to protect and house just about everyone living in the local area incase of invasion) and upgrades to industry n the likes) sure a part of it went to the king's personal upkeep but that was usually not that large a part of it. They really weren't all that different from modern politicians.
Although I found the video very interesting I think there are a couple of factors that aren't taken in. Mainly those not being the real numbers/ possessions of the royal family. If you count all the possesions of the Queen of England worldwide it's benefits are ginormus if i remember correctly, mostly from the commonwealth, taking a share of oil production, etc. I think this would be a very interesting stuff to go in depth, and i would like to compare the European monarchies.
I think he’s just using figures from just the royal lands in the UK alone.
But even just using that figure, it’s still a 160 million pound profit for Parliament. 160 million pound is still no joke.
The monarchy is only leaching money from Commonwealth nations. Britain benefits at the cost of millions.
Actually mindless
Watch Shaun's rebuttal video to this. Most of the numbers were wrong in this video unfortunately. The royal family costs us a lot more than 40 million.
@@alexanderchristopher6237 Not true. If the monarchy were abolished, that land wouldn't go the former royals. The British Royal Family don't actually own the Crown Estate as private property! That land, and its revenue, belong to the State.
The yank picture was the most stereotypical thing iv'e ever seen, and also the most representative.
When speaking of taking things seriously ;)
AMERICA FUCK YAAA!
The person who put together the video must have recently walked through the neighborhood Walmart!
Han Nelson better watch it we got the biggest and most powerful army in world 🤠🤠🤠
hondo ohnaka productions I think Putin wants a word with you.
4:04 Hva fæn means "the fuck?" In norwegian
+Zoidberg Jesus "What the Hell" to Google Translate...
That isn't accurate to my knowledge
Google translate is barely ever accurate...
+William Bushe yeah I'm bilingual (French and English) and always found it utterly hilarious when English kids would use google translate for French presentations and go up to the front of the class and read that crap. They rarely had any idea how dumb they sounded ahaha
dulmater Sometimes they go up there and mutter "the fuck is this" under their breath... I always found that amusing.
Oh, it's really nice to see a French castle used to elevate the British monarchy at 2:55.
Cmon, use you own castles.
american made vid
Mary Christine And Mont Saint-Michel is a fortified monastery anyway, not a castle.
THERE'S ONE IN CORNWALL
@@494Farrell He lives in the us. I know I’m necroposting.
@@jiraffe9600 he lives in london
"DEATH TO NORWAY!!!!"
"HVA FAEN?!"
Cracked me up. xD
Noobs DeSroobs lol
What have we done to deserve that? XD
@@Helperbot-2000 sent a ugly x mas tree
@@eapelll2600 aaaahh!
0:14 mind = blown
Also, the picture of the awesome 'British' castle at 2:55 is actually Mont Saint-Michelle (located in France, not Britain)
Jossie Palmer I wanted to write exactly ... exactly the same ;)
It could be St. Michael's Mount, in Cornwall.
Joe Kennally It looks similar, but go and look at a picture of Mont Saint-Michelle, France; it's the exact same as the one in the video
I was about to say that...
It's definitely in France.
Joe Kennally you're and idiot ;)
Lolz, isn't the 'real shiny' castle actually Mont St Michel in France? :D
Yep, he made a google image search for Saint Michel Mount (in England) but got instead the way more famous and huge Mont Saint Michel in France).
That's a huge fail when attempting to proove that english castles are more attractive than french ones.
Or maybe he did that on purpose..
nope it was defiantly on purpose
He not only did it on purpose, he had a defiant attitude about it? So who was he defying?
Mont St Michel isn't even a castle.
I don't think that the anger towards the royal family stems from the fact that they earn 40 million from the government yearly, but more so with how they gained those lands through which the government earns 200 mil from.
Btw the Palace of Versailles garners more visitors per year than any other UK castle, all without a royal family. My point is that it is hard to discern how much tourism is garnered through the royal family, and certainly not the figure so nonchalantly.
The idea that the Queen has no political power sounds pretty damn ludicrous to me. She may not make any direct decisions but she still meets with the PM regularly and other politicians world wide and commands a lot of respect. What she says matters to some people and she certainly has the ability to influence people and possibly even their careers especially when you think about OBE's and the like. How much power does her selecting people to different ranks and structuring parts of British society have?
None at all mate my grandad got an MBE 20 years ago and he still lives the same way today as he did then. And in reference to influencing options, most celebrities world wide are more influential on political opinions by a large margin.
She doesn’t have any political power now
that "awesome castle" IS in France
thejoke.jpg
it does have some arthurian significance tho iirc
Thought I recognised the Mont Saint Michel
it's not even a 'castle'
But that’s the point- when you know a royal lives in the castle, it becomes more special, even if the first statement is actually false.
There is a twin version in Cornwall as well just like it
2:55 More like "Because real monarchs still speak English in them"
@@zilionis8003 I think he's talking about the willingness (of the mean US American visitor or the mean French citizen) to speak another language than English (or French) - or rather the lack thereof.
It's pars pro toto, the monarchs speak English because it's an English speaking country.
Yeah, the revenue of tourism in UK, a monarchy is *145.9 billion GBP* while France, a republic is *170.6 billion GBP.* So, yeah I guess the Theocratic Government doesn't have effect on tourism.
@@fathfez7991 I mean the UK is tiny compared to France, so I'm not sure that really applies?
@@aidanquiett668 Nope, does Russia has the most tourist revenue because it has the biggest area? No it doesn't. Though UK has ⅛ of French land, they have almost the same population count.
@@aidanquiett668 *37.9 mil tourists visited* UK, while *89.4 mil tourists visited* France. Monarchy have little to no effect on tourism.
Technically, that's only the royal family's land by inheritance. You don't have to let them keep it. Heck, the Swedish government once replaced their royal family wholecloth, it's not that much of a stretch just kicking them out and tell them to get a real job.
Or work a job promoting the country I guess, but it can't be that much fun.
Yeah sure, but the profits of those lands would go down anyway, because like he said, they attract tourists because they have royals using/living in them. If they were just big government owned mansions with nothing there it'd attract waaay less money for the government. Thereforce kicking them out turns out in a net loss which they don't want
@@captdarkstar3238 Thing is, he says this without evidence (and there is only evidence to the contrary out there from organisations like Visit England), and when if you look at somewhere like France, which gets *far* more tourists than we do, you'll see people go for the buildings, not the people. BTW, Buckingham Palace is often closed to the public *because* the queen is there. So you could easily argue the opposite - that the revenue would go *up* because they could open them all the time. He also assigned all £7bn in tourism to be because of the royal family for some reason, as if London is the only city that exists, and has nothing but the Mall and Buckingham Palace or something.
Well you do. When your parents die, you should inherit their estate. So why should the royals be stripped of theirs? If you believe in stripping the royals of their salary AND lands, you support theft. If you agree with that, then you might as well dissolve parliament and voting for your leaders.
@@azzameentv I mean, taxation is also theft, as is the very institution of private property. The question is what forms of theft are considered socially acceptable and in what kind of circumstances.
@@azzameentv You know, I've seen some logical leaps in my day, but "If you support stripping a single family of the land they gained over centuries of unjust rule and conquest, you support theft, and therefore are against democracy and also the concept of voting" is a unique level of bumbling, careless and inept logic that I don't even really know where to start with.
URESWNI could very easily be know as U.R.S.W.I.N.E internationally. Fabulous.
If we renamed Northern Ireland to Ireland North, but that doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
+Jack Johnson Ireland in the North?
ireland the north!
How about the Anglo-Celtic Union? ACU has a rather nice ring to it...
A rather nice ring yes but that's the name of a Texan university XD
Who actually watches the video Shaun is discussing?
Me after i finished Shaun's video.
Well, me I guess. I'm a bit disappointed in Grey tbh.
+1
y
Me!
3:46 Actually, the official name for the sovereign state is 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,' but most people are unaware of that.
the ukgbni
@@leol2254 If you want to be technical, yes...
They’d be forced to take back their profits? The issue so you assume the crown should keep its private property (a bigger issue in itself) but especially for a privileged class of people who just get to inherit it because at some point their family killed some people.
They can keep their private properties but the crown estates are not their private property. They belong to the crown which for all intents and purposes belongs to the government.
Ummmm no one goes to the stinky french castles? The palace of Versailles receives 8 times the number of visitors than Buckingham palace
Yes, and they they walk out and say "God that Palace was stinky"
and the other replies "that's not the Palace sir, that's France"
@@atokasa9776 France has something like 3x the tourism of England. Nearly every point made in this video has been disproven.
Atokasa um, no, that was disproven as well. France has one of the most well visited CASTLES in the world. Even MORE SO than England.
Atokasa Take two seconds and Google "most visited castles in the world".
Versailles is 2-3 times more than the Tower of London, which is the highest of ALL English tourist attractions.
Atokasa And it's a reputable source.
www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/worlds-most-visited-castles-180954081/
the picture of the castle that is not boring and stinky is a monastery.... in france
Ouaip c'est marrant, ça m'a *vachement* fait penser au Mont St Michel... ou le Saint Michael Moutain comme ils l'appelle là-bas (je suppose ;).
God save the queen, it's a frenchman! Get him out of this English comment section!
+The 7th
Hold your longbow, I come in peace !
And I learned recently there IS an actual castle/monastery in Cornwalls named Saint Michael's Mount that is almost a clone of OUR Mont St Michel... ... ...
...Seriously, -Britannia- Great Britain ? ^^
Normandy would be ours if you didn't cheat in the 100 years war!
+The 7th
Dear Perfidious Albion,
We will make an excuse when you'll bring us back Joan of Arc !
...
She's still fine, right ? RIGHT ?!
2:56...
thats Mont St. Michel, which is in France and isnt a castle
+Interceptor810 YES I FOUND YOU SIR
+Interceptor810 Yep
+Interceptor810 There is one in England as well...
+The_Almighty_DUCK Please do show your sources! I'd really like to see the English Mont St. Michel!
+Bastien Boutry Seriously? Just google it. It's in Cornwall with the same name.
TRUE COST OF ROYAL FAMILY 😂
That's completely accurate if by TRUE you mean FOCUS ON THIS ONE TRANSACTION
at 2:56 ITS A FRECH CASTLE (mont saint michel)
*French
@@nikonikos9734 It's not even a castle. Beautiful place though.
There's a twin castle in Cornwall though
I have never heard of the Frech.
when he says that Englands castles are awsome and france sucks he shows the french monastrey and castle le mont Saint Michelle Wich is The most popular visitation place in entire france with over 3 million visitors a year. that is What i call irony
lama banana that was the joke
That was steelmanning
How about the palace of Versailles?
So basically it would have been in France's best interest to keep Napoleon as emperor, so in 200 years France's tourism would generate an amazing profit.
WheresWallace4883 technically back then the french loved napoleon
Joe JJ I know, but let's be honest, as awesome as Napoleon was, at a certain point he was definitely acting *not* in France's best interests, by his constant expansionist attitude and his refusal to make any compromises.
WheresWallace4883 Ikr. France is the most visited country per year anyway
France did try to keep Napoléon as emperor. The coalition countries forced him into exile not once but twice
The coalition restored the bourbons to power after Napoleon got defeated. It was in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 when the French got sick and tired of Napoleon III and formed their republic
Dat thumbnail
2:05 ahhhhh I see what you did there “Victoria THE E P I C”
victorian times nibbas: ok this is epic
/i saw it, don't get it
now this is an e p i c moment
3:23 don't waste your diamond pick on gold ore. Use an iron one 👍🏻
Diamond pick has a lot of durability
Alex Wong yes, it does. But it's more worth using for obsidian and things that only diamonds can mine.
You only have to get 10 blocks of obsidian and that's it.
Spoods The Milkman true, unless you wanna build an obsidian house to keep creepers away
and 4 for enchantment table
U.R.S.W.I.N.E. - United Republic of Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Northern ireland and England now that is an acronym for a country :D
And if the SNP and Plaid Cymru get their way it'll be U.R.I.N.E.
Make dublin the capital city and make irish gaelic compulsory in schools.Convert everyone to catholicism..Ban Soccer,rugby league and cricket and replace them with the irish games of gaelic football and hurling.And of course the flag well that would have to be green white and orange.
Dylius01 That would actually be the funniest thing ever!
U r swine. Wow.
Alvin K To right?
That awesome castle at 2:55 is in France. :( So much for us Brits having the best castles.
Yeah! I saw that to Mt Saint Michelle!
***** To be brutally honest, our American stereotype is that of being overweight, dim-witted and overly patriotic to the point of being nearly indoctrinated. (Not that I'm at all saying that that's what you are like).
Sam Otten lol Britain is the same thing
Luca Bernabei I've been there! It's magnificent!
***** smelly
Well now we know she didn't randomly declare wars or dissolved parliament...
May she bring death to Norway from the great beyond 😭
she can but she is fully aware that it could start s chaos
@@someoneelse6900 she's dead.
Australia would like a word
Hearing a non british person say a 'tenner' makes me shudder :D
_Cringy_.....
yea, muricans pronounce the r too strongly. should be 'tennah'
Tenner is a common term in Boston.
EpicRexx its choida!
It's used here in Ireland, as well, full R-y goodness.
this video should have one of those fact checks warnings linking to the Shaun video.
Hah! If only. By the way, if anyone wants to have this video dissected into pieces, watch Shaun's video. The title is "Abolish the Monarchy! - A response to CGP Grey". He published it 7 years later after this video.
That super exciting glittery castle is french, Norman to be precise.
Nah, its st michael's mount in cornwall
Maciek Bos No, it's got a paved road going to it.
Maciek Bos, Well there's an exact replica of it in Normandy then...😒
oh yeah fair point didn't see that
Maciek Bos, No prob, man.
Clearly the queen is really just a corgi with a human mech suit I mean it makes so much sense
The tourist argument is utterly specious. Tourists don't MEET the royals. If the royals didn't exist all the attractions would still be there. There's no pharaohs in Egypt - doesn't hurt the tourist industry, though, does it?
***** You can't argue that a percentage of tourists are there because of the queen.
***** Sorry, I don't follow you. I'm not arguing that - the video is. I'm saying the tourists would come anyway if there was no Queen etc. because what the tourists actually visit would still be there, royals or not.
***** I'm saying although there are people that would visit the place anyway, the reason that some people visit in the first place is because of the queen.
***** No, but they go to visit her property and pay to do so. As such, she is (indirectly) responsible for the income tourists provide.
If the royal family -- or rather, The Crown - to vanish, her property would be privately sold, and it is highly unlikely that most of the people rich enough to buy them would maintain the "I'll let the government take the profit from this property" deal.
Damian Freeman That's not what happens and there's no reason to think it would in future. The idea that Buckingham Palace might be put up for auction so that a private person or company could own it is impossible and would never be allowed in the UK. The Crown properties would be held in trust by the nation (as is normal for historic properties of special importance, eg. by the National Trust or English Heritage), their character preserved so that the public could continue to enjoy them. It would make no economic sense to sell them - and even if it did there would be no public support to do so.
more people overall visit France than England
Because France is better doesn’t nullify that many people visit the uk because of the royal family
@@luisandrade2254 i was a tourist and I visited Buckingham Palace, but I didn't do to see the queen and she is never there anyway.
I did it for the history and the historic landmark. Those would not vanish if the royal family stopped holding political power or stopped being funded by the tax payer.
@@yavantii3615 Exactly
Update from 2023: The queen didn't declare war on Norway
I am a simple man. I see corgi, I click.
Exactly
Fu corgi
If I'm not mistaken at 2:55 the picture you are glorifying (implied) to be British is actually mont saint michel, a french town...
Or maybe they just go to england because Americans are famous for not being able to deal with foreign languages.
REAL AMERICAN no they visit europe
If it were just a question of speaking English, we'd just go to Ireland. They're closer, and we like the Irish more than we like the English. Stop popping out adorable royal babies and hosting fairytale royal weddings and you can kiss American tourist dollars cheerio.
@@jesseberg3271 Tourism to Versailles makes more money than tourism to the UK because of the Royal Family. Need I remind you of what the French did to their king?
@@duncanhw You are the most hateful person I've run into on the internet today. Congrats
@Duncan Whyte We Americans call our country “the land of the free” because our national anthem refers to the US as “the land of the free.” In case you didn’t know, that song was written in 1813, back when we were fighting against Europeans for our freedom. The more you know.
Queen: Death to Norway.
Norway: HVA FAEN!?
apropriate reaction.
tell me if i spelled that wrong. i'm Norwegian, not english.
“Appropriate” close. Good for you on most of it
What does it mean in Norse?
@@DanS044 what the fuck
I meant Norwegian
@@DanS044 still means what the fuck
"I take this opportunity to confirm my willingness and intention to continue the tradition of surrendering the hereditary revenues, including the crown estate, to my government for the benefit of all, in return for the sovereign grant, which supports my official duties as head of state and head of nation." - King Charles III, Declaration to the Accession Council, 10 September 2022
Yep
This guy knows exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.
Perhaps the left should be told "abolishing the monarchy would raise your taxes", so they stop saying abolish the monarchy
Exactly :)
@@manend2 What leftist do you know that likes to abolish the monarchy, but wants to leave them with their crown estates etc.??
But the UK is officially known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Wales, and Scotland in a neat little package) and Northern Ireland, with the full name rarely ever abbreviated anyway, because the "United Kingdom" is more preferred. More accurately a republican variant would simply supplant the "Kingdom" part of the name with "Republic", becoming the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or simply the United Republic, also known as the Uuuuurrr...
“DEATH TO NORWAY!! NO MORE PARLIAMENT FOR YOU!!”
man, that cracked me up.
Sad cold noises
@@markusnashorn1145 you ment revenge?
@@markusnashorn1145 were going to invade agin whith the hellp of the us if you try to take away our *FREDOMMMMM!!!*
If it changed from the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" to the "United Republic of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland", why would it be known as URESWNI?
The "United States of America" is usually known as just "America", but also just by its title, "United States"... Just like United Kingdom. Because there are no other places with those titles, at least not in their commonly used name, the titles are treated like the names.
So it would go from the "United Kingdom" to the "United Republic".
chiefHunzahua My suggestion would be the Commonwealth of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I don't believe the the UK would use the word Republic, nor do I think it should take a name similar to another nation (like your US suggestion).
Alternatively, it may just go with simply 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland', as with our neighbour Ireland. Or maybe the Union if Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Republic is a distinctly un-British word, and I would be greatly opposed to including it in our country's formal name.
(Though i'm a monarchist, so this point is fairly moot, i'm happy with UK)
(JOKE)
(your head)
denzal689 Actually I would prefer that the United Kingdom to be renamed as the Greater Britannic Empire with Elizabeth II as Empress
permaveg Vladimir Putin fanboy ;)
ProMonarchyGenius Are you? I thought you were a royal lickarse, I pity Russia having a despot like him as their leader, oh and fast 'thumbing' yourself up makes you look quite sad.
Update: King Charles III has just declared he will give up the same land profits to the government.
It's no surprise though, he is obligated to do so
"old man in power chooses not to change anything" man thats crazy never saw that coming
The whole argument of why the queen is profitable is because of the revenue of the royal family lands, forgeting that the reason they own this lands is BECAUSE they are the royal family. If there were no queen, that would be state land and the profit would go to the state anyway
The profits would likely be even higher because normal people do not have tax exemptions.
It is not royal family lands but personal lands owned by the queen.
I'm never in favor of the government taking someone's land for profit. in fact the government would make some profit if they take your land how about they take yours too.
HAHAHA! As a Norwegian, the "Hva faen?!" is one of the funniest things I've experienced all year! It was just such an absurdely surprising twist of events, and it gets even funnier when I think about the fact that we're one of the last remaining monarchies as well (albeit purely symbolic). I'm imagining the royal family chatting with the prime minister in a party, before watching the news, spitting out their drinks, and yelling "What the fuck?!". Would be even better with the prime minister at the time of upload, as he had a hilariously bad English... I'm just adding more and more to the scenario now, this is great!
2:58 that is a French castle though..
It's St Michael's Mount in Cornwall :)
Very similar!
2:58 is the Tower of London. If that's the one you mean, then it's true that its design is French. It was created by William I, the first king of 'modern' England who famously invaded England in and around 1066.
Bestiaccia was right, I got St Michael's Mount mixed up with the similar french castle
Cgp was mistaken, the picture in the video is of the French one. But beside having the same name they also look very similar and even a google image search gives pictures of both. So it's easy fore someone who doesn't know one of them to be mistaken.
You can tell the French one because the island is more anthropized and the architecture is more developeped (there's no free space left on the island).
it is indeed a picture of Mont Saint-Michel and not St Michael Mount. Though funnily enough they do look similar, have practically the same name and lie on opposite side of each other of the English Channel.
Yes, but its not their land and the UK attracts a fraction of the tourists who visit France. Moreover, there is some seriously shady accounting going into calculating how much the RF costs the community. The cost of their security is not included in the figures quoted and remains hidden from the public, for instance.
France actually gets more tourism than England.
Yeah for reasons mostly unrelated to castles and queens. Good weather and good food, nice mountains, lakes, and beaches, and it's easier to get to for most Europeans. Why make the extra effort and cost to come to the grey and dreary UK?
@@MarcoTheGreat2008 Because actual Queens, Princes and Princesses.
@@MarcoTheGreat2008 but the Palace of Versailles gets way more visitors than any castle in England. Most Americans don't to to the UK for their monarchs, we go there because they speak the same language as us.
@@TheNavid001 We don't speak the same language as you, you speak the same language as us!! ;)
Ever heard of the eiffel tower?
Monarchy acquires monopoly on land and military force and then sells it back to the ordinary person. WHAT A SWEET DEAL!!!
They are having anti monarchy rallies and demonstrations in Spain currently.
""Idocy" lol. You need to spell things correctly when you call someone else stupid. Go lick some boots.
Fuck off, teen.
You sound gay
Robot HandLove Remember what happened last time they kicked the Spanish Monarchy out?
Oh yeah.
I lol'd internally at "Hva faen?!"
Can you explain this "Hva faen?!" joke. All I could gather from google is its translation.
It translates to "What the fuck?!" I believe he laughed more at it being surprising, than actually funny. Still, that's a very common Norwegian phrase over the gazillion English ones ("What the fuck" "What the hell "What the heck" and so on) and can, indeed, be rather funny in the right circustanses, such as this - directly destroying my previous thought. Enjoy the ramble. :)
Damn you, you Scandinavian riddler, I am more curious now!
Coffeestain It was a pleasant surprise, yes. Didn't exactly see it comming.
Deniz Kara ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
the queen saying; NO PARLIMENT FOR YOU, as if it was your parents taking away your phone or tv privilages is so funny to me
Funny thing about dissolving parliament is that the crown needs permission to enter the floor in order to do it.
YourPalAL tell that to Charles I
"... to see castles that aren't made of plastic." LOL!
If you think about how most royal families came to "own" all that land (lots of murdering) it does lead you to question if we should respect the descendants claims to it.
Look at almost any country and you can say the same.
United States - we kicked the natives off
Britain - Really the Romans did the pillaging.
Not true, generally land became merged with Crown property when a family died out, or they were disposed as punishment for: raising an army against others in dispute.
The majority of English Crown territory. Continental Crown property is more complicated.
1:53 it's bold of you to assume that removing the royal family will not involve a more French revolution style removal.
James Baker duh, it’s the 21st century, it’s not “the head choppy days of yore”
@@lagcom fine we can line them up against a wall like in the Russian revolution
James Baker to that I would say that it’s not head shootty days of yore
@@lagcom my point is we don't need the royals but we do need the money from those lands so we should get rid of them by any means necessary
James Baker oh no, you forgot about tourism!
Except for big events, tourists dont go to the uk only to see the royals or anything associated with them. Thats ludicorus.
And by the way, france is still number one in the world when it comes to tourists, so their castles must not be too smelly.
You sound mad and french
yeah but castles and stuff like like that arent the reasons people visit france. people visit france because of its countryside, beaches, food and paris
stormageddon _ Are you really suggesting that people don't visit France for the old palaces. You're off your head!
err.. it was not the only reason I visited London, but I'd be lying if I said the notion of the royal family that is part of the history of thoses places (and things) being still there and reigning was not a major plus. So yeah. To many people, the fact that you still have the royal family is an important detail when choosing to visit.
seleniaactimel I will not deny that it is a very nice, and awfully pretty thing. But it is not in line with the British values of fairness and democracy. It is a relic of something that we as a modern people are striving to move beyond... that god awful class system where people are simply BORN better than others...
thank-you for saying seven thousand million
seven milliard
what, that word is a myth, it does not exist
"Milliard is British for "one million". One million is the UK is 1,000,000,000, I believe.
He was being funny, wasn't he, 7 thousand million = 7 billion.....just a funny, exaggerated way of saying it...that's what I thought. British English used to have a Billion equal a million million......but later they adopted the American meaning of a Billion which equals a thousand million.
+Jean Koller
Almost everywhere in the world uses the term "billion" to describe a million millions and not 1000 millions
I am not English so get rid of the royal family, don't, whatever. Doesn't matter to me, but to those that this does effect, I do want to bring up that while I originally thought these videos were educational based on the first few I watched, these are actually persuasive, not educational, so they are one sided, on all of them not just this one. So on this one, it doesn't affect me, so I stay neutral, really couldn't care, just don't want anyone's opinion completely shifted on a one sided video. Make sure to educate yourself fully on all of these videos, though they do provide a good starting point of learning ONE side of the story, find something that gives you the other side, and you have a really good start on being somewhat informed on the issue.
***** I am not going to get into an argument, but he doesn't give the side "republicans" would say. If you don't think there are two sides two every story, then....I am not going to argue with you. (Also its typically best to only give one side in short videos, since if you want to give both sides then they will be significantly longer...especially if you are going to give rebuttals to each side. I never said he didn't complete his objective....in fact I said the opposite).
:)
After this video though the other arguments are invalid
Dylan Sargesson That is the problem with politics today, people saying things like that. I hope you were kidding.
There's a ton of problems with this video, which is really unlike you, Grey. Can we ever expect a sort of update fixing these or a retraction? Some sort of official acknowledgement of the mistakes.
Even though I doubt he intended it as this, this video is blatang monarchist propaganda. He's better off unlisting this one and pretending it didnt happen
@@wadezabel5306 i would prefer an informative video correcting his mistakes to simply pretending it never happened. but yeah, this video is not up to snuff for Grey's usual diligence (not that he hasn't made other mistakes or videos i disagree with before). not to mention, economics aside, there are other serious problems with preserving the monarchy which this video completely sweeps under the rug.
@@wadezabel5306 I think it would be way more impactful if he actually acknowledged it considering what an impact it had and continues to have on debates about monarchism
Yeah, this vid is 10 years old
It’s a 10 year old video, I’m pretty sure he knows there’s errors. But he said it himself, updating and reviewing old videos would be a waste of time cause he would infinitely have to improve old videos. I’m pretty sure most of the facts in this video along with most old videos like his coffee has tunnel vision and acknowledging mistakes from a 10 year old video would improve his reputation. But it delays modern newer videos, which bring in income and views which isn’t worth his trade off.
Grey, you mentioned in the video that the Queen has no powers, but you didn't mention Royal Prerogative, which would give the Queen the power to dissolve Parliament and remove the Prime Minister from office and establish an absolute monarchy if she so pleases. Can you explain more about this? Maybe in a future video...please?
It would be a good topic. From what a few minutes googling found for me, it looks like the Royal Prerogative was trimmed back rather severely following the Glorious Revolution by the Bill of Rights of 1689. It made suspension or execution of laws without consent of parliament illegal, and established that parliament could limit remaining prerogatives. The Triennial Act of 1694 required the monarch to call and dissolve parliament only at certain times. There are still quite a few Royal Prerogatives left (enough to make an interesting video) but not it would seem enough to establish an absolute monarchy.
Ehm, isn't that Mont Saint-Michel you show at 2:55?
ironic, right? and he used that castle to say that 'british' castles are "awesome".
tristan perdoux Neither. It looks similar to a real English castle, st. Michael's mount in cornwall. Considering they both look similar and both have the same name, it's an easy mistake to make.
Thorntonian English and french castles were the same, after the french domination of more than 350 years on England, england was a vassal of France, so they used the same techniques than the french to build their castles.
tristan perdoux I didnt say otherwise. I just said that that's why it was an easy mistake to make.
Thorntonian St. Michael's mount has some resemblance to Mont St. Michel, but I'm pretty sure the castle in the picture shown is the latter. Not that it really matters for his monologue :)
Um then why is the Palace at Versailles the most visited castle in the world….
Did you account for American tourists? What about other castles?
Because of MONAR--- Oh wait never mind
"So stop all your moaning about the Royal family and how much they cost and how worthless they are." - subtitles, 1:32
"the UK's castles are awesome" *shows French castle*
that’s the point - switching the British and France castles shows how to most non-pedantic people (ie not you or me) there is no actual difference.
@@qwertyuoip1234 so, the point is that he's wrong?
2:55 but... This is the Mont Saint Michel, it's French ! You can't say this is British it is an outrage !
What do you mean they would still keep the land? What did you not understand from overthrowing?
Ok if you wanna dedicate time money and resources to overthrowing a figure head then go ahead
@@gamerskingdom4897 I'm not even british. The video was about the cost of keeping the royal family around. An obvious antithesis is not doing that.
what this fails to consider is that the U.K. could just, like, decide to seize all the royal's ill-gotten property.
absolutely
Except thats illegal lmao
@@TheVoltray
The French revolution was "illegal", it still happened.
@@Atilla_the_Fun yep
Tbh the name United Republic would be pretty cool
+Nick Lindsey
Eh better than the rest
+TheSamuel9464 United Republic of Britannia? Why not use the region name? That's what the US did.
+SquirrelOnToast
True
On the pro-royal-family side: a well made video, with good points, examples and reasonable, calm and collected arguments.
On the anti-royal-family side: "Fuk dis stoopid sheet fuk!!!"
For some reason I think I'll go with CGP on this one...
GBD1000 On the anti-royal-family side: Attention to historical progression of systems of government, an analysis of the problems with private ownership of land by a monarch, and a detailed insight into the vast wealth gap between average British citizens and the Queen.
On the pro-royal-family side: Not looking any further into the issue and making strawmen of the opposition.
Cough. Cough cough.
Vienna Orange An issue would normaly be something problematic. If 70% of British population was living in extreme poverty because of the royal family than I could understand why people see this as a problem, but right now all I'm seeing is a bunch of people whining about something that is completely irrelevant and acting like it's the single biggest problem with the world. "The queen has more money than me, so I'll bitch about how horrible she is" that is essentially the entire argument. When having a queen becomes an actual problem (tyrannicalrule, extreme poverty, misuse of power etc.) then I'd be able to see your point, but right now, when the royal family has no real power and is making the country more money than it takes, the only real reason people are complaining is because they aren't in their position or because the mere mention of the word "queen" makes them angry for whatever reason, and they don't stop to think about the difference between them and countries like Bahrain.
GBD1000 Alright, 70 percent of Brits don't live in poverty, but according to the Poverty and Exclusion Project at the University of Bristol, *30% of households are living below the poverty line*. So certainly there is some injustice when your system of government requires you to keep a precious old white lady and her spoiled-rotten kids in comical opulence while a third of your country has substandard living arrangements, if not no household at all. Ironically, said 33% *pays the Crown* money. And that few coins CGP put in his illustration? That's just the Crown's private salary. That doesn't include a multitude of the other expenses of maintaining a monarch, like the 102 million dollars a year in security that follows the queen and all her relatives, the cost of royal visits, etc. For more information check this. republic.org.uk/sites/default/files/wortheverypenny.pdf The monarchy doesn't make the UK money, it robs it. And as far as that "tourism" claim goes: Nuh uh! Americans don't go to Britain to see a coat of arms! They go because Harry Potter happens here, or Doctor Who, or because of the White Cliffs of Dover and all the kinds of scenery you dont get in America, or because they want to eat in a chip shop and find out what a cheeky Nando's is. People like Britain for Britain, not it's system of government.
Also, claiming the crown doesn't have any real power is a bit untruthyish. While I agree that the crown doesn't use much of the power that it COULD use, it still has LOTS of unofficial influence (if the queen walked into a pie shop you bet she could get all the pies for free) and it is commander in chief of the armed forces! Plus, it *really is the principle of the thing.* Feudalism should've ended with the signing of the Magna Carta. You can dress it up as a constitutional monarchy all you want, but in the end you still have a particular family that is put on a pedestal above the rest of the population, not because of merit but because of bloodline. It just isn't right, and it should change.
Vienna Orange
All that money going for security or royal visits is not going to be divided among the people if the queen was to lose power. It would go for the president, or the Prime Minister, or whatever else comes instead of the queen. Do you seriously believe that just because the queen isn't there than everyone will magically get more money or something? Those poverty rates are pretty much just like the ones in my country, and we have no royal family.
You can't possibly tell me that ABSOLUTLY NO ONE goes to the UK to see the royal family, the castles, the queen, etc. becaus a lot of people do and just because YOU don't think it's that interesting doesn't mean that no one on Easrth ever took an interest in anything but Harry Potter.
The queen's "influance'' that you mention is really no different than pretty much any person with money or fame on Earth, and don't tell me that you're against other people having money because that is just ridiculous.
And if it's really the principle of the thing that bothers you then, I'm sorry, but you're being pretty childish. Imagin a French person demanding that the Versailles Palace be renamed 'The Versailles Building" because palaces are a medival thing and calling it a palace is bad because of that. That's just a very silly thing to worry about.
GBD1000 Yeah, the money for security and whatever would be given back to the people. The UK already has a PM, and they obviously don't need a second security force, so that's an unnecessary >100m euros a year going back into the peoples pockets, and if you say thats not significant, imagine a 100m e education bill for underfunded schools, or soup kitchens or something. Boom. It's not people "magically getting more money", it's people getting real positive effects in their community for tossing out the old bag o' bones.
And I'm not saying that throwing out the queen instantly solves every poverty problem. I'm saying *it's disgusting to have one while poverty exists.* Wanting to rename the Palace of Versailles would be silly, because it was, historically, a palace. But France doesn't have a king anymore, and their government officials do not live in the Palace of Versailles off the taxpayer's ~7 dimes annum after conversion.
I love how naked it is that the arguments going on in the comments section are between Wikipedia Warriors and teenagers who just read one or two anti-monarchist pieces.
Some people just like to moan and bring dullness to videos.
Hey, are you implying that teens are anti-monarchists?!
Well I'm not a teenager, but I'm certainly not so anti-monarchist that I would want to see the British monarchy ousted French revolution style. I'm also not controlled by money in the way that it seems a lot of pro-monarchists are. Just because something gives you a profit doesn't mean that it is grounds for justification.
I just like the idea of preserving the culture and traditions, and the royal family is one of them. It just seems so cool to me about a monarch, and if one is a bad person, just replace him or her with another monarch.
But Wikipedia is the definition of true
Honestly when I went to England on vacation, I went there for the Beatles, the old buildings (some castles, some not), the accents and Harry Potter. I visited the royal sites too, but mostly because it just seemed like one of the main attractions that people visit.
The real cost is the message to all that some people are better just because of the nature of the birth and not from their accomplishments. and that some people are simply above others for no other reason than bloodline.
RIP Queen Elizabeth II, 1926 - 2022
This begs the question, why should royals even own that land anyway? Tourists come to see palaces and stuff, not to have tea with the Queen. Like, do you understand the middle ages have ended? What person in their right mind would ever defend Monarchy i the third millenium?
Because it's their property?
Why can I not bun your house down?
@@krzesaw7691 their property they inherited they didn't do anything for it
@@natvelo so what? We shall scrap the inheritance, because you are salty about monarchy? Inheritance is a legit way of acquiring property and wealth.
It’s their land even if they are not a monarch it’s still their land. Nothing will change that
This got recommended after prince Phillip died 😭😭
It‘s always so sad when a privileged 99year old dies who is only famous because of an outdated system an on top of that had some really questionable views.
2k people are pissed that americans block the tube.