You can't defend the monarchy here in Germany. It would put you on a watch list as we have people here who call themselves Reichsbürger, who deny the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany and have recently become quite hostile towards the government and police forces.
@@oguzomlet906People who want the German Reich back mix with Nazis because they also want old borders back and are often racist/anti-Semitic. "Reichsbürger" can be translated as "Citizen of the Empire".
This should be compulsory viewing in Canadian high schools, since so many Canadians are adamantly anti-monarchy (and also anti-American) when it is the main thing that separates Canadians from Americans.
Funnily enough a lot of Canadian politicians, including left wing ones, are pro-monarchy. Only the hard left and hard right politicians are republican (as opposed to the general population which is mostly republican)
As a Canadian, let me clarify why. We hate the crown because they have done nothing for us. They have aloud our government to push through laws, taxes and mass immigration acts that have harmed our country. They have shown little care for us or our corrupt government. If they did their job and stopped this mess, we would want to keep them.
God do i hate the "but monarchy old!" Argument, people do forget democracy has existed since ancient Greece, and that only a century and a bit ago, most of the world's countries were monarchies
@@You-zo3in never lasts for long though, a good administration is rare, and when it does happen it has to tread carefully and is limited on what it can do
@@You-zo3in essentially, most governments in republics will be corrupt, because without funding and lobbying from companies and elites, they won't have money to campaign and get into power, but say a government that doesn't suck up to the rich gets elected, they'll still have to be careful in how they act, and will likely not last longer than the first term TLDR: too little chance of an efficient Government for very little pay off
Imperial Germany had a weird mixture of democracy and monarchism, on one hand there is a monarch and aristocrats that dominated the military but there was a democratic parliament that controlled the financial budget, funds and taxes in which the state depends on for its functioning.
@@TheHabsification Yeah in Britain the monarchy is more ceremonial though and not involved in as much in political and military affairs. I read that parliaments existed since middle ages but there were mostly aristocratic and later became more bourgeoisie
Bulgaria had one of it's best decades when it was in Monarchy. The Communist regime and "Democracy" can't even come close to the times when we were ruled by a capable King.
I find that a problem with democratic leaders is that they only serve so much time in power, and once a new election comes along anything they had in progress would either be cancelled/up to the next person in their place. Another problem is that elections are extremely expensive, possible billions of U.S dollars, and if you're talking some countries like the United States these elections can take place every other year, meaning for a far more expensive system than what you could even hope to portray monarchies as.
Off topic but why is your pfp the guy who was hated so much that germany made a song asking for the kaiser willhelm back but the one with the long beard?
@@LucidityRemains Many. For example: Building a navy to help increase his nation's economy, which worked and was able to make Germany one of the most powerful economic nations in the world. Outside of his own country he helped rebuild Ålesund, a Norwegian town after it was destroyed by a fire.
I am an Australian. We are still a constitutional monarchy, and there are large parts of Australian society that are proactive in maintaining the monarchy (although for political reasons, republicans get more mention in academia and the media). But the best summary as to why so many Australians advocate monarchy - and why a clear majority voted to retain it in the last Republic Referendum - is this. Aussies hate politicians. So why vote a politician to a position presently filled with apolitical individuals? Our state governors and commonwealth governor general are appointed by the monarch based on proven capability and leadership...and a recorded apolitical past. These are usually leading scientists, KCs (prominent lawyers who serve on the Kings Council - which is a body of legal experts who advise the crown what actions are legal and what are not), former military leaders, former business leaders, etc. The qualifications required are all about proven loyalty, and the ability to lead in public while remaining separate from political action. And yet there are still elected political leaders - unlike autocracy, in constitutional monarchy the crown doesn't need to sully itself with political decision making, that is the role of politicians who are democratically elected. The monarchs role is to ensure the existence of the nation, defend its sovereignty (hence why monarchs hold leadership authority over armed forces rather than politicians, who advise and make policy), and maintain the rule of law (including upholding the constitution for nations that have a written constitution). They also appoint judges and justices, which ensures a degree of separation of influence between the political structure and the legal structure. Does that mean politicians can't do the wrong thing? No, but they can't hold power when they do so. And, every decision they make is guaranteed to be reviewed by an authority not aligned with their (or their opponents) political interests.
You are making the huge logic jump that as a Republic a politician will be Head of State . In the current proposal politicians can't be nominated and the law will remain that the office bearer must remain apolitical . Same system - different person as titular ' President ' .
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb Aye, but the appointment will then be political - intrinsically so. Besides which, the nominated Republican models have always maintained an elected head of state, aka a politician as head of state. With a monarch, the decision maker is intrinsically apolitical. And that is important - as seen with the dismissal of the Whitlam Government, the restraint placed upon the Victorian government during COVID (as bad as it was, without the apolitical governor heaving in the reigns, it would have been way worse), etc.
@@sa25-svredemption98 ' intrinsically ' ? no it will be according to and under the law .You are electing someone to a legally non political position . You cannot ' assume ' political power .
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb to be an elected official is to be a politician. The election of that individual means they will seek to undertake actions for political expediency, not legal obligation. Otherwise why not just have the PM? Because then politicians rule, and there is no check against that process. If we had pure democracy, democracy soon fails - it is the paradox of democracy that has been debated and discussed throughout history, from Plato to the modern age - as politics overrides the law. A constitutional monarchy is unique in that the law/state sovereignty is given a position equal to that of democratic will. It's why laws cannot be enacted without BOTH an approved bill passing our democratic legislature AND royal assent to say that it does not breach the law in it's enactment (such as state or commonwealth constitutions, for instance - which was the actual reason for the Whitlam dismissal, because his government was not meeting it's constitutional obligations). In this way, the paradox of democracy is largely circumvented, or at least the implications minimised. The classic example of the terrible consequences of this paradox is the Weimar Republic, but there are in fact many examples from both the distant and recent past of where this paradox can make things go very wrong very quickly. What I mean is, if we had a presidential office rather than a crown, we would have candidates from our political parties putting forward candidates for the office - and independents and such. And then they would be conducting themselves for re-election, or their party successors election. And like our legislative and executive government processes, these candidates and officials would therefore be intrinsically political in their efforts in office. The way it exists now, party politics and political expediency is not a consideration of administrators, governors or the governor-general. They are crown appointments who obtain their position on the basis of merit. Therefore politics is of no consequence to their position. What they do care about is the rule of law, the upholding of our constitutional system, and the overall preservation of the peace. They have an entire council of the top lawyers and judges in their jurisdiction to advise them on complex legal issues. This is in vast contrast to any form of presidential system. Indeed, vast is too small a term to describe the breadth of separation between the two forms of government. It is NOT a mere titular change as you claim - it is an entirely different system of government, removing the most essential checks and balances that keep our politicians in check and our democracy thriving.
@@sa25-svredemption98 A politician ? with no policies and no way of implementing any if they had some ? Plus MUST act on the Advice of ministers of Parliament - or be sacked for breach of contract ! The Constitution specifies and limits the ' powers ' including the reserve powers to ' protecting the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth ' .
Most people at the time didn’t even want a republic. People were overwhelmingly in favor of the monarchy so much so some people rebelled and called the king back to rule there section of Portugal for a few months.
@@fleetmastermichael fashie southerner. The Midwest is better because we love the economic system where the workers can actually control their own work. The workers can actually be informed about stuff. Anyway on the governmental argument I would like to say that democracy is better because if your leader chooses something bad then we can vote him out but in monarchy he can choose evil and do bad to civilians without them wanting him even in.
@Shnitzel_Affe yeah but we have to wait 4 or 5 years after everything he's done then we can vote him out but he still gets elected despite being a criminal and if there is still mostly idiots that support him
Nice to see someone defending monarchism here. I can relate to being a monarchist in a republican country and it's portrayal here. Even though anyone who studied history can tell you that the country went (even more) down hill after the implemantation of the republic, people still act the monarchy was a terrible and tyrannical regime and think the republic brought freedom to the people. Never mind that the instability of the republic led to a 50 year brutal dictatorship. Anyway I wish you all the best and a happy new year.
Ah yes... cuz historically, monarchies totally aren't essentially tyrannical or dictatorial, and republics definitely didn't eventually lead to freedom.
@@YokaiXthis but unironically. Well... Republics are pretty okay I guess. But we can still have that freedom in a monarchy, probably more if the shadow oligarchy is abolished.
Remember kids, you need protection from the people you directly elected, don’t worry though, let me, someone unelected and unaccountable, and whose only claim to legitimacy is the fact that my father wears a funny hat, protect you and your family from the dangerous politicians!
@@obama9535 Here's the thing though. You did not elect anyone, the majority did, or in another word, the masses. No matter how much thought and care you put into how you cast your vote, it will be lost in a sea of blind and deaf desires, and the ones who come out on top are those who are the best at manipulating them. By the time you get to choose between those smiling faces on the posters and their promises and slogans, you only have bad choices left. So why hold onto a sham of a choice, when the state's purpose should be to protect and take accountability for its people? Why not have the state be in the hands of a family whose whole purpose is to care for the country? Sure, any leader can be corrupt, Monarchs are not immune to this, but unlike our "elected leaders", they do not have to actively charm and bribe their way into power, they only have to care for their good standing and the prosperity of their realm, because that is directly tied to the longevity of their reign and that of their children. So yes, I'd very much like to have a glorified father figure to protect me from glorified buisnessmen. The funny hat is just a bonus. ;)
@@Of_infinite_Faith He goes on state visits and I’m p sure he signs (all though I’m p sure it’s symbolic signing) some government papers or shit I forgot exactly what it was.
@@Of_infinite_Faith His majesty also has a veto right, he can if he feels it is needed veto any descision by the elected government, it is very very rarely used but I believe the last time it was used was during the start of the Nazi invasion, the government wanted to surrender, he vetoed that. Aside from the veto the King also 'accepts' the elected government and has the power to depose them, although at this point this is purely symbolic. The last major power the King has is that he is the head of the military, on paper his commands to them go above the government, so potentially the King could order the military to forcibly depose any government which does not resign when commanded. Again though it is unknown to which extent the military would actually follow through. The military is famously very monarchist, but it is more a democratic monarchism, and I'd personally doubt they would support the King in any action which goes against the people. (And rightly so)
As a Brit, I see nothing wrong with monarchism. Also, the UK isn't the only monarchist nstion today: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Spain are all examples of modern day monsrchies. Plus the kings and queens don't run these countries anymore as they're constitutional monarchs, meaning they're just there as figureheads while the actual government does the running of the country
@@mappingshaman5280 he'd only have claims on Palawan and maybe parts of Mindanao I doubt most catholic Filipinos (especially the church) would want a Muslim ruler most likely a Catholic ruler descent from one of the southern Luzon rulers (datus , rajas) would be chosen if it's at all a local ruler
Yeah and people in Brazil believe it ? The nation that was one of the best places of South America and got the British to cave in to their demands I mean the nation literally went to shit after Pedro the second gave up and that man was raised as a monarch supporting the people
I wouldn’t say Nicholas II was even negligent, the concept that he spent his time partying and didn’t care about his subjects mostly comes from the communists. He was actually a very caring leader.
@@goese868 He wasn't the greatest ruler to ever live but he still cared about his subjects and he was a lot more competent than people give him credit for
The Romanovs didn't deserve the fate that was dealt to them. Nicholas II, whilst being a somewhat incompetent as a ruler because of his father's untimely death, was a very pious and good man.
@@Britishdarnlib Russia (and kind of always has been) was very backward, lagging behind much of Europe, and it's not like the Soviets treated their people any better.
As a monarchist I wholeheartedly agree that I am anti-progressive and stuck in the Middle Ages, which is very based. Edit: Also an important fact is that participation of the estates was key in Western monarchies. Feudalism for example worked pretty well as a check for bad monarchs, as the story of the Magna Charta shows.
benefits of feudalism of the middle ages - cool hierarchy (knights and stuff) - only working seasonally when the crops are ready (less days of work than modern day + gains due to farming) - drinking ale cause it was cleaner than water - a leader chosen by god (based) - cool architecture - stronger familial ties - guaranteed marriage
I am strictly Republican for America. A king can't properly stand for the tradition of a nation where the tradition of the nation is Republican. However, European countries restoring their monarchies would be fire.
As a British monarchist myself, it's a great source of frustration to me that so many activists spout the misinformation that the public fund the Royals. Anyone who's done any reading into the Crown Estate's finances and compared it to the Sovereign Grant wouldn't say that idiotic line again with a straight face. It goes to show that opposition to monarchy on the grounds of money is not done honestly. Even if we did have to fund the Royals, I think it's advantageous to have a Head of State who's required by constitution to be politically neutral and not beholden to any particular movement or party. Someone whose duty is to keep those politicians from ruining the country because of the fraudulent policies and promises they push to a gullible electorate every 4-5 years. With this in mind, I firmly believe that a constitutional monarchy is the best form of government humans have invented, so far. Sure, it's not perfect, but I much prefer it to a presidential republic or a purely parliamentary democracy. God Save the King.
What is even more hilarious is that Parliament is more expensive than the Crown so if it was about money the UK would save more if they abolished Parliament and became an absolute Monarchy.
The monarchy is a glaring symbol of the past and illogical religions. It needs destruction in order to bring the world into a new era of the future. But I’m not a republican, to note. Neither monarchist nor republican.
As a Kuwaiti living in a monarchy I can say first hand that our country is one of the least corrupt and 2nd richest in the Middle East by gdp pc, I have also had absolutely no issues with the sheikh or his family alhamdullilah.
@@trueordrue well we’re in the transition state rn. Like We’re implementing socialist policies like our land reforms and farming policies. The current government is kinda getting too liberal and is mostly focusing on foreign relations
This is a great video, the system of government which we support has received far too much slander, people ridiculing the idea and its supporters without proper understanding. While those who are set in their ways will not bother to listen, those who have an open mind and ear will find great value in this video, and if even one of them is convinced to support monarchism because of it then that is a win for us.
In Poland, monarchism is very marginal - around 0.4% people vote for the most popular monarchist politicians, which are in the same party as market liberals, conservatives and nationalists. The fact that Poland has basically no dynastial tradition isn't helping. We need a national monarchy for the sake of our freedom and independence!
In order to form a great nation you must be smart on your spending decisions and not spend it all the time on yourself instead of spending it on the nation.
As A greek Monarchist I have my own view on this sitiuation: Greece has been a Monarchy ever since 1832 and there were several kings like George I , Constantine I, Paul I and Constantine II . 1. King George I: In addition to his economic development efforts, King George I worked to improve public health in Greece. He established a network of hospitals and clinics throughout the country, and also supported the development of medical education. 2. King Constantine II: King Constantine II showed a commitment to democracy during his reign, and resisted attempts to establish a military dictatorship. He also worked to improve relations with neighboring countries, including Turkey. 3. King Paul and Queen Frederica: King Paul and his wife Queen Frederica were known for their philanthropy and support of charitable causes. They established the Anna Maria Foundation, which provided assistance to disadvantaged children in Greece. 4. King George II: King George II was a strong supporter of Greek culture, and worked to preserve and promote the country's artistic and historic heritage. He established the National Gallery of Greece and the National Archaeological Museum, which remain important cultural institutions today. Unfortunately, The U.S.A and The Colonels Had Exploited Greece, the worst thing for greece in my opinion was the greek referendum in 1974 where the Downfall Of Greece Begun. "Ζήτω Ο Βάσιλευς Ο Πάυλος ! "
Brazil was the only monarchy on the American continent for several years, we had a great monarch who led us for more than 50 years of pure prosperity and sovereignty, now for Brazilian republicans, if the monarchy was so undemocratic and backward, then why even After having copied the North American model, haven't we prospered like them? Our first president said on his deathbed that he was deeply sorry for what he did, we were never the shadow of the powerful empire that, even with several defects, guaranteed us stability and true prosperity
I’m from the US and it’s so shocking how miseducated we are. I am not from Brazil, nor portugal, and am not related. But I would jump for joy if you did restore your Monarchy. Dom Pedro I was genuinely an extremely caring & good person who always seemed to put his whole heart into everything Brazil. I hate thinking about him sometimes, how it ended makes me quite sad. Love to you from one American to another!
I'm also an American, also not related to Brazil or Portugal in any way (though I am considering learning your language if finances allow on top of the French I've studied for years). I deeply love my nation, and despise what has become of the government that rules over us today. I've warmed up to the idea of monarchism after learning more about your history, actually, about the success and strength of the Empire. This is a few months late, but there are a couple of quotes that come from the time of the Founding Fathers that could answer your question. In 1787, Ben Franklin was asked what kind of government was formed for the United States. He answered, "a republic, if you can keep it." In 1798, John Adams, second US president said this, "Our Constitution was made for only a moral and righteous people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." I did a little digging to make sure my facts are correct, and I found a quote from James Madison, fourth US president, "I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks - no form of government can render us secure." I got these quotes from (nps.gov) and (ourrepubliconline.com). What happened to both our nations, is that it's likely that corrupt individuals got into our governments and did irreparable damage that we still feel to this day. The Founding Fathers themselves understood that republics take a lot of effort to maintain. From what we see, republics seem to take more effort to maintain than monarchies. We seem to have this system of governance, but as nations, we've forgotten what made it work in the first place. Then we wonder why it doesn't work when we try to set up republics elsewhere in the world, while the monarchies that were set up outperform the republics every time. I hope this helps, and God bless America and Brazil! I'll leave you with a fun DBZ reference: "You may have invaded my government and my media...but there's one thing a patriot always keeps...! His PRIIIIIDE!!"
Nosotros también tuvimos los mismos reyes hace mucho tiempo y por culpa de criollos sedientos de poder, nos dividieron a ambos. ¡Viva España! ¡Viva el Rey!
I would like to add to 8:35, I always loathed the argument that being born into power is stupid, because it wholly ignores the fact that nobles are individuals born into families that have ruled for generations, surround themselves and socialise with other families that have ruled for generations, go through the best education the UK has to offer, harbour a grand sense of duty and - due to family ties and the nature of titles -naturally inclines them to WANT to learn about their history and in turn the history of their country and the world. Moreover, being surrounded by the finest things your whole life has a profound effect on one's psyche (ignoring the fact that you can't buy someone who has everything). All of that without pointing out the nature of nobles which, by definition, are individuals with preferable characteristics so embedded in the subconscious that they become second nature, such as: Being polite, courteous, mindful, well-mannered, reserved, neutral (and emotionally so) etc. Compare that to professional salesmen coming into power on the whim of people that practically NEVER research into their candidates (which is one major flaw with democracy) and there seems to be quite the debate to be had as to which system of government is better. The leader of the most powerful country doesn't know what day of the week it is. And he got elected.
@@Sanon001no, it's m○r○nic... The notion that "monarchs totally aren't corrupt, emotionally fragile, egotistical narcissists lacking empathy and care for (what they consider inferior) human life", is a laughably absurd delusion; of course monarchists and their royalists would want people to believe monarchs are, "perfect and superior humans", to legitimize the unjust hierarchy of their rule and oppression.
"Moreover, being surrounded by the finest things your whole life has a profound effect on one's psyche" One of them being that it hampers your perspective towards the people who are less fortunate, thus restricting your ability to empathize with them, hence the negligent nobles like Louis 16th, and who knows how many others. "Being polite, courteous, mindful, well-mannered, reserved, neutral (and emotionally so) " What good are all those virtues if the noblse end up being negligent like Louis 16th?
@@YokaiX " to legitimize the unjust hierarchy of their rule and oppression." I agree with the rest of your text, but to describe constitutional monarchies as "oppressive" is a little out of proportion.
As a guy from Saudi, we really love and support our royal family. A Washington Post (which is a journal with very anti-Saudi sentiment, so them saying something positive about Saudi holds a lot of weight), that the approval rating for the royal family is around 90%.
If you indoctrinate a population and cause all the problems to be outside the country like bombing Yemen, being western cucks, and supporting Islamic terrorists more than any other country, then you will get high ratings
As a proud englishman I am a supporter of the royals and think democracy is simply a way for "gypsy" politicians to enrich themselves at the expense of the public through policies such as contracting businesses to do government work which they are majority stakeholders in. Even if they lose the election they go back into a corporation or lobbying firm retaining their power and wealth. Monarchy on the other hand forces a man to be the country, his position of power is reliant on the country doing well. He cannot sell out his own country without disenfranchising himself which is clearly a greater form of accountability, which is what these republicans keep ranting about when it comes to monarchs.
Wow, racism *and* a misunderstanding about the democratic understanding of accountability, all while using one of the most imperfect implementations of democracy as an example.
The best type of monarchy for me is a Semi-constitutional, male primogeniture type of monarchy. A monarchy in which the monarch would not have absolute powers but will have strong powers. Not a ceremonial monarchy because that doesn’t work that well. The kings of European countries right now don’t have any sort of power at all. Meanwhile prime ministers and parliamentarians have enacted laws that permit the invasion of their countries by people that will not asimílate to Europe. Europe needs stronger monarchs in order for them to veto laws that are really detrimental to the European society. Just take a look at the UK. It has been invaded.
On corruption this is my favourite quote by Joseph Hilaire Pierre René Belloc: "Monarchy is the sole effective protection, in a large state, of the common citizen against the mastery of wealth. Napoleon summarised that truth in lapidary fashion. Monarchy, he said, is the one device discovered by man for the curbing of the money-power. Age after age has proved this truth not only by reason but by experiment. Seeing what wealth can do, nothing can check its control of society save the presence of a master too rich to be bribed and too strong to be beaten down."-Monarchy A Study of Louis XIV (1938)
I'm no monarchist, but nobility in the 19th century built huge museums, magnificent buildings for the public, held charities and events, so on so fourth. Our benevolent politicans wouldn't toss a cent your way out of their own pockets.
Those last few lines you said made me think of the greek song about the fall of Constantinople, You'll come as lightning is a song that brings me to tears every time I listen and read its lyrics. May Constantinople live forever in our hearts
Me too. I am romanian, and I think we should teach the truth, rather than lie about an alternative. What significance does the current system have if it has to hide the truth?
I live in the UK and while I wouldn’t consider myself a ‘monarchist’ I do support the monarchy here as a political system. It’s important to have a separated head of state and head of government and here the monarch is trained from birth and takes the duties and separation of powers seriously. We have a system where the head of state understands they are reliant on the people for their position and respect their place in the democratic system. It adds value to our country and after civil wars we’ve had they are acutely aware of the limits on their privilege
I think the problem with this video is it seems to be mixing constitutional monarchy and absolute monarchy at different points in the video and the speaker doesn't seem to know (or is at least unclear about) which one he is arguing for. Like he talks about how the British system isn't very expensive and this is mainly because it is a constitutional monarchy where the government can act to check and balance the monarch's salary. But then talks about how kings setting taxes and spending money is a good thing as they have to deal with the consequences, but places like Britain haven't had kings doing these things in centuries, it's the government doing this.
Brazil is the perfect example of a country brought to ruin by republicanism, compare any period in the republic to the imperial times and see for yourself, no wonder they have strong support for a monarchy there
@@Becca04927That is good, because I've not really heard much of Italian Monarchists, and as a non Italian, I honestly actually think they did Injustice to the Monarchy by abolishing it just after they saved the country; I hope to see the House of Savoy on the throne again, as much as I would like to see such in my own country, I love Italy and am fascinated by it, and I think the Italian people deserve more!
@@jasoncheerful7163 A thousand thanks! You are perfectly right, in fact I can assure you that here in Italy many are aware of the fact that there were probably irregularities in the institutional referendum that established the republic in 1946, but despite this many are fine with it today because I believe the monarchy favored fascism by totally ignoring how things really happened. We monarchists are really busy trying to dismantle the various fake news that have arisen over the years about the monarchy and the House of Savoy, led by His Majesty Aimone of Savoy-Aosta. I also hope that sooner or later your country can become a monarchy again, and since we're talking about it, what country do you come from?
@@Becca04927 I am one of your ancient Enemies, lol; but seriously, I hail from Iran, our Monarchy was violently overthrown by the violent thugs who creat the Islamic Republic today; sadly our Monarchies throughout history have had some controversies, but currently the Pahlavi Dynasty has it's own supporters among the opposition, sadly from my personal opinion the previous dynasties (Pahlavi, Qajar, etc.) Either don't have a lot of Heirs, or aren't really in a good position, but Reza Pahlavi is currently the best option for now, I hope to see them restored one day!
I am 3 minutes in but feel compelled to say that I almost exclusively go down a monarchist path everytime I play HOI4 or at the very least go for the non-aligned government path if the country I'm playing doesn't have a legit monarchy path. Germany, restore the Kaiser, Britain, empower the king's party, France, bring forth Napoleon the 4th, and so on.
“With a [democratic] government anyone in principle can become a member of the ruling class or even the supreme power. The distinction between the rulers and the ruled as well as the class consciousness of the ruled become blurred. The illusion even arises that the distinction no longer exists: that with a public government no one is ruled by anyone, but everyone instead rules himself. Accordingly, public resistance against government power is systematically weakened. While exploitation and expropriation before might have appeared plainly oppressive and evil to the public, they seem much less so, mankind being what it is, once anyone may freely enter the ranks of those who are at the receiving end. Consequently, [exploitation will increase], whether openly in the form of higher taxes or discretely as increased governmental money “creation” (inflation) or legislative regulation.” ― Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed
I've heard about this argument from people in England that their tax money is used to fund Royals lifestyle. This is usually odd for me because it incorrectly assumes that a president or prime minister will not need money to fund
Very interesting video, and I have always had similar sentiments. Also, take a look at the list of least corrupt countries and there you will see many modern day monarchs as well.
I consider myself a monarchist, and would like to see my country becoming a constitutional monarchy, especially since our current system has a president who has mostly only a ceremonial role and despite being just that, the presidential elections gather the most people to vote for a candidate, instead of the really important elections where their votes would have actual importance: the local and parliamentary elections. Presidential elections are thus a waste of money, and the money we use on them and the president's yearly cut of the budget could very well be used for a Royal Household's yearly budget.
These videos are indeed rare to find, however I'm glad i came across your channel. You've given a great rebuttal to the stigma of monarchies. Also you exposed the extreme weaknesses of republics and democracies. However, it appears most political commentators are oblivious to the susceptibility of corruption in democracies, and the financial negligence of the democratic leaders. This is why America will collapse very soon, due to the negligence and corruption spanning over several decades. Thank you for posting. I'm going to come out with videos soon to support your ideas of monarchism in efforts of reaching out to this political minority.
Great video, but there is one point that I wished you touched a bit more up on. In the beginning you ask the question “why do we need a king today?”, which, I think, is a very important question to discuss. To make myself clear, I’m not talking about current monarchies, but rather about countries that are currently republics. You mentioned that you’re a monarchist living in a country without a monarchy, does that mean you wish to see your country (re)establish a monarchy? How would you go about justifying this to others? If someone asks you “why?” when you mention that you’d like your country to be a monarchy, how would you respond? I want to make it clear that I live in a constitutional monarchy and I fully support monarchism, and while I don’t have any problems justifying and debating why a country should remain a monarchy, I find it a bit more complicated to justify why a republic should "regress" back to a monarchy. What are your thoughts?
for some things it is better to have someone in power long term. this is why the policies that are actually needed in countries are never done because all the elected leaders have a very short term mindset and spend money like crazy and the worst thing is that you cannot judge them for their long term effects, because they arent as long there. when a king fuks up you know exactly who screwed up but prime Ministers and presidents have a great way to blame someone else and perfectly deflect criticsm
Yeah the hardest question isn't really Why, but who would become the Monarch. Electing them would kind of defeat the purpose but we really have no outstanding individuals worthy of it as it stands (in America).
I would prefer a constitutional monarchy with a more functional monarch rather than a strict figurehead. I would also say that the link to God being replaced by the social contract is part of the problem in modern society.(edit: spelling)
as a romanian monarchist its kinda true . we are seen as backwards goofy and enspecialy me ( i studied politics but ppl assume idk anyithing just cause im 13 ) thats when i ask em name 5 political ideologies and go blank then they change the subject or just leave . monarchism while not perfect it is atleast on par with the rest of the ideologies
No you are literally 13. Too young to have an opinion on how society should operate. Not trying to be rude, just being honest. I say this as someone who is monarchy sympathetic.
I'm from the US. I love the republic ideals, but I also understand why monarchy is the better system for running the government, to make everyone happy, make it a semi constitutional/ constitutional monarchy.
I find these arguments very well organised and relatable, but I can't help wondering if you could make a similar video explaining why (in your opinion) a lot of monarchies have ceased their existance in the last two centuries. I am also curious about your take on the romanian monarchy, because I think monarchism suffers differently in the circumstances of a post-communism state. I remember when I was I kid how I first saw a news article mentioning king Michael's declining health and was dissatisfied to find out my parents knew very little about the monarchy. The present school education in Romania explores very little the "why" and forces us to deal with just the "what".
What a great video! Completely agree with every point. I wish you had taken a look at german, especially prussian monarchs, tho. But that might have doubled the length of the video easily. I will add one quote fron one of the best kings the world had ever seen, tho, because you ended it with a quote on your own: "The King is the first servant of the state." - Frederick The Great.
I don’t think I agree that just because monarchs are born into wealth and power they have no incentive to act corruptly (by which I believe you mean using their official powers for personal gain or private interests). Certain people have an endless appetite for wealth or power that won’t just be satisfied by even a prince’s inheritance, and glory and prestige are also incredibly important motivators for sovereigns. The Middle Ages are filled with endless military adventures by glory seeking monarchs and nobles hoping to leave their mark on history no matter how many cities they burned to do it.
While I disagree with your point about democracy, as I am an absolute monarchist who hates democracy, I love this video! Great job debunking these monarchist myths.
the main claims of corruption in Monarchies get throw at the Monarch, but the general reality is that it isn't their fault, but the fault of the Aristocracy around the Monarch. Through their actions, or sometimes lack there of, they can hurt the Monarch's standing significantly, and alot of times, they themselves are the corrupt ones. But whenever asked, they never point to themselves. They got someone else they can blame. The Monarch thus gets all the blame, when the vast majority of the cases regard those who work for or with them
@@NothingToSeeHere_69 when you have an Aristocracy that isn't insular it's a very effective system. or even better, and Aristocracy that owes it's existence to an enlightened Sovereign, and not fake enlightenment
I'm an American who wants a monarchy, and I agree with this man. Washington is full of corruption, we need a strong person who can put our wrongs right.
I don't believe there should be any democratic institutions within the monarchy except for a constitution limiting his power (he has to follow laws) btw murican as well
I am an orthodox jew. And I just wanted to know that any religious Jew praise three times a day for the restoration of the davidic monarchy. Most jews, even the Orthodox ones, don't understand what this means. But I have actually used some of your talking points to explain it to my fellows
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb Benito Mussolini was not a monarch though Italy itself was a Constitutional Monarchy and had been from the 1860s. Benito ruled as a dictator under the office of the President of the Council of Ministers, which was the Prime Ministership of the Kingdom of Italy. It was Emmanuel III who was the king and who would later have Mussolini deposed.
Unfortunately the regime is too liberal and leftist nowadays. If the regime continues beign so leftist, the currerently existing constitutional monarcies would be abolished sooner or later. But the regime won’t last for long anymore. It is going to collapse and replaced with conservative and right wing regime. At that time the monarchies will be restored or created again. Lets hope that time becomes as soon as possible.
Asia's or Africa's monarchies would most likely last longer than europe's, oceania's or america's considering that a lot of asians are either mild conservatives or ultraconservatives.
Honestly the radical liberalism I already see dying off day by day, as we saw with Europe in 2022 leftist governments are slowly losing their grip on control reason being from what I see is dissatisfaction with the current establishment and the slow fall of American hegemony over the world, with America being the main culprit of spreading liberalism as a way of thought all over the world, it's decreasing influence isn't helping either
I am an Italian distributist who thinks that system would work well inside a monarchy. What is your opinion? A centralised power that has also loyal local powers similar to chieftains and the like...dunno, it's an idea, maybe I am just wrong, but I think it could be achieved with a virtuous people and within a monarchy.
I don't believe liberal democracy to be a good thing and I see monarchism as an alternative. I would prefer a conservative democracy, where parties were banned and officials were elected from their own local area by those locals to a parliament, which function would be to vote on the laws the monarch wanted to pass and see if those laws would damage local interests. The monarch would have power, the people would have a say and God and Fatherland would be the foundations for governing the country.
the party system in political is the cause of so much violence and banning them wont be doing anything anyways, people of similar goals and ideology would just create unofficial parties
It's very idealistic to think that a human can defend against "evil", whatever that means. How as a common citizen would a monarch be better than a representative of their community?
@EmperorofChinaItwillgrowlarger lol, no they don't. They represent a class of people that have historically used the lower classes as cannon fodder to secure resources or die over petty squabbles
The line of succession is determined by Parliament, which is elected by taxpayers (and more). An MP can propose an amendment to the line of succession, Parliament can agree to it, the Crown signs off on it (de-facto ceremonial), and the line of succession is changed. Parliament can also decide to replace the monarch with someone else, or remove the office of Crown entirely and become a de-jure republic - just like we tried to do for 20 years and we were turned into a military dictatorship that inherited all powers of the Crown and was given more, and where parliament was often absorbed at his will.
@@FaithfulFumoFan23 I’m an American and I think we desperately need a monarch. Because our population is so massive and so undereducated. So now a major world power is heavily swayed by the beliefs of people who realistically have no merit to be involved in such an important decision, myself included. Either we concede that voting and by extension; ruling, is very important, thus the average American isn’t qualified. Or that voting isn’t that important so there’s no need to audit voters. And currently we’re doing the latter which is bs to me.
I wouldn't care as much about paying taxes if it went to a King. I can't stand it in a democracy. Govt spending is completely reckless and is mostly used to buy votes especially by the Democrats.
Thank for summarising and articulating the main issue with elected politicians vs non-elected monarchs.... The voting in and out of politicians causes these very politicians to think only of winning the next election - anything which is a long term plan for the nation or needs forward thinking, long terms building always ends up being secondary to the short-term goal of winning the next election. And that's not even a criticism of politicians themselves - this is the same we, the people, assume is the best option. No politician dares to spend money on building defences, sorting out environmental damage, dealing with long term societal problems, because it will often be unpopular in the short-term for the public to accept( my taxes might go up, I won't have money to spend, my right to go wherever and whenever i want will be infringed, etc, etc). As pointed out, no system is perfect, but a balanced constitutional monarchy is about the closest we can have... the monarchy helps for long-term stability and plans for the country - the elected politicians help to highlight the views of the people.
You are right about a lot of things about monarchism and I very sympathize with you. On the other hand monarchism has a big problem in case of establishing a new monarchy. How to find someone that will be a good monarch? How to be sure he wouldnt just shift to the cruel dictator? Have you some example of someone that can be a good monarch?
I think the concept of inheretance of power is my main concern with monarchy. Sure, the son or daugther of a ruler would likely be a better leader than an elected president, but there are better methods. One way i suggest is to tie it to an educational aristocracy. Education would be given free to every child. Basic level education would be given to all. Those who are not academically gifted cannot be considered to be part of a higher class such as the artists, intellectuals or rulers. Instead they would be given working class education, such as trade or social work. Those who do better could join the intellectual, specialist or artist class, taking a specialized education in fx art, history, engineering, medicine etc. Those that were extraordinary would join the ruling class, being expected to learn morality, philosophy and perform very highly in all manners of affairs, especially within their field of expertise, which they would become leaders of. Those who were experts in state politics and political philosophy would become those who could become councellors to the monarch. On death of the monarch, a new monarch would be chosen from these experts on state affairs, but for the child of the monarch to earn such a title, they would have to prove themselves in the educational system. Of course this requires a much better educational system that accounts of physical strength, creative thought, ability of deeper conversational ability, artistic ability etc, not just to remember terms and formulas.
I sympathize very much with your position, I think the problem with the hereditary component of monarchy (it's necessary to discuss wether or not it's an inherent part of it) is that vocation is not necessarily inherited from the fathers, (although it's somehow expected and very likely that some child will be imbued with his parent's vocation), hence it's possible that someone who's not from the king's outspring could be a better ruler. On the other hand, I think that a radical separation between the working class and the ruling class could lead to a serious social and political catastrophe, the ruling class has to put its hand in the dirt sometimes and be capable of profoundly sympathizing with the workers and serve them with a sincere love, the working class has to be encouraged to seek knowledge and wisdom, have manners, read the classics, etc...
@@peccatorjustificatus777 I can understand your concern with the separation of classes, but i must disagree. What can be evident when studying psychology is the inherent difference between people and their best suited role within society. Some people are going to move towards a life of simplicity, shying away from the burdens of responsibility (The common man), while others will strive to take on as much responsibility as they can (The ruling class). I'm not advocating that the common man should be treated unfairly for his simple difference in preference, but to expect both to do the work of the other? Well, that is a bit far, and i doubt they would even want that. A king who has to manage a large country has no time or energy to spare to sit in the factories with the commoners. While i do expect some level of intellectual upbringing in the common man, as you suggest, the simple fact is that when you ask the common man to do intellectual work, he will see it as meaningless. Which is the exact reason why art, history and philosophy are ignored in a democratic society, ruled by the popular vote. A ruler can, through extensive moral education and reflection, come to the simple conclusion that he must treat his workers fairly.
@@Tiogar60 That's very true. What I meant is that at some point in his educational process the ruler should learn some things about the workers' life in order to legislate for the benefit of them in the future, he should see himself as a servant of the nation and avoid arrogance and indifference to the workers' struggles. On the other hand, I don't think it's impossible to teach the lower classes how to value art and culture, in fact they always end up creating a huge part of the nation's culture and tradition, (which I would argue is very different from what we call "pop culture" today). But of course the differences between classes and their respective vocations will naturally and inevitably maintain.
Better answer for "Monarchy is unfair!": Yet you still believe that president got to power in fair way. Bro he just said what people want to hear and got elected only because of popularity. Also president doesn't have to fulfill electional promises. Also, there are pros on monarchy like... (starts talking about how monarch is a non-political arbiter)
Yes, even Biden can't fucking say sensical shit about guns, he literally mutters while saying "when you add a stock to a pistol and and a bigger caliber a bigger caliber gun a bigger caliber bullet comes out of that pistol you get a gun" 💀
I’m an American so I have to say that while I support my republic, some days I yearn for our executive to be a well learned, well spoken gentleman or lady. Trump was an embarrassment who ruined relations we had with other governments we had to rebuild. I’m not actually a monarchist, but I respect how monarchs tend to be well educated and well mannered faces
5:15 does not explore every possibility. Confiscate the estate and DONT privatise it. Profit maximized. Also it is in question whether their ownership of the estate is well deserved. Each of the other arguments are faulty as well, but I dont want to write an essay nobody will read. But if you think about the varying levels of power asserted to a monarch during the arguments you can cover most of them.
I dont have a problem with monarchy, but I have a huge problem with a monarchy ruled by someone other than myself. Thats where the system falls apart for me
@@hofnarrtheclown That’s an unreasonably strict definition of monarchy. It had heretical dynasties in which the Emperor would promote his own family as either descendants of the gods or gods directly. That’s essentially a monarchy.
@@hofnarrtheclown You don’t need to be Christian to be a Monarch. All Chinese emperors were also monarchs and none of them were Christians. And there were lots of Emperors before Christianity was the official religion of the Empire. That wasn’t a thing until after Constantine.
Thank you for this video - you make some great points (however I believe that democracy is bad for the people and state, so I'd argue for a absolute monarchy)
As a Shahist this is just beautiful to hear, monarchism is just so misunderstood
I am Royalist French
Shah was a despicable crony. A puppet installed directly by America.
@@strasbourgeois1 Bro wants another revolution
@@sugondee920VIVA LA REVOLUTION… AGAINST THE REVOLUTION!
@@lordbonney9779 counter revolution
You can't defend the monarchy here in Germany.
It would put you on a watch list as we have people here who call themselves Reichsbürger, who deny the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany and have recently become quite hostile towards the government and police forces.
“muh democracy guyss!!!!” NOW YOU WILL EAT ZE BUGS
Nazis misuse monarchist symbols, that's the problem. Take back the symbols of monarchy from racists
Reichs burger??????
@@oguzomlet906People who want the German Reich back mix with Nazis because they also want old borders back and are often racist/anti-Semitic. "Reichsbürger" can be translated as "Citizen of the Empire".
@@oguzomlet906 “Imperial citizens” in German. They have decided to consider Germany no longer a Reich.
This should be compulsory viewing in Canadian high schools, since so many Canadians are adamantly anti-monarchy (and also anti-American) when it is the main thing that separates Canadians from Americans.
True
Funnily enough a lot of Canadian politicians, including left wing ones, are pro-monarchy. Only the hard left and hard right politicians are republican (as opposed to the general population which is mostly republican)
so glad im not anglo
@@Lexus_Baxicas🤓👆
As a Canadian, let me clarify why. We hate the crown because they have done nothing for us. They have aloud our government to push through laws, taxes and mass immigration acts that have harmed our country. They have shown little care for us or our corrupt government. If they did their job and stopped this mess, we would want to keep them.
God do i hate the "but monarchy old!" Argument, people do forget democracy has existed since ancient Greece, and that only a century and a bit ago, most of the world's countries were monarchies
I mean sometimes republics are actually good depends on what the government you have
@@You-zo3in never lasts for long though, a good administration is rare, and when it does happen it has to tread carefully and is limited on what it can do
@@Exiledschizo Can you simplify what you’re trying to say
@@You-zo3in essentially, most governments in republics will be corrupt, because without funding and lobbying from companies and elites, they won't have money to campaign and get into power, but say a government that doesn't suck up to the rich gets elected, they'll still have to be careful in how they act, and will likely not last longer than the first term
TLDR: too little chance of an efficient Government for very little pay off
@@Exiledschizo I completely agree with you
Imperial Germany had a weird mixture of democracy and monarchism, on one hand there is a monarch and aristocrats that dominated the military but there was a democratic parliament that controlled the financial budget, funds and taxes in which the state depends on for its functioning.
It would have been interesting to see how their system worked in the long term if it wasn’t destroyed.
cool
Britain more or less has that. However there are some differences.
@@TheHabsification Yeah in Britain the monarchy is more ceremonial though and not involved in as much in political and military affairs. I read that parliaments existed since middle ages but there were mostly aristocratic and later became more bourgeoisie
You mean those aristocratic traitors that were 90% responsible of Germany lost of the war?
Bulgaria had one of it's best decades when it was in Monarchy. The Communist regime and "Democracy" can't even come close to the times when we were ruled by a capable King.
This is incredibly true. Us Bulgarian are often overlooked, but we had one of the most capable monarchies in the world
Bulgaria begin based, nothing new
Цар не крал не се излагай
@Shtil Wesson agreed
and the king is even the prime minister when bulgaria is a republic
I find that a problem with democratic leaders is that they only serve so much time in power, and once a new election comes along anything they had in progress would either be cancelled/up to the next person in their place. Another problem is that elections are extremely expensive, possible billions of U.S dollars, and if you're talking some countries like the United States these elections can take place every other year, meaning for a far more expensive system than what you could even hope to portray monarchies as.
Would you eat what comes out off the butt of royals
Off topic but why is your pfp the guy who was hated so much that germany made a song asking for the kaiser willhelm back but the one with the long beard?
@@LucidityRemains He was controversial, but you should look more into Wilhelm II's actual history. It's not as dark as it may seem.
@@liammatthew9881 what good decisions has willhelm II made?
@@LucidityRemains Many. For example: Building a navy to help increase his nation's economy, which worked and was able to make Germany one of the most powerful economic nations in the world. Outside of his own country he helped rebuild Ålesund, a Norwegian town after it was destroyed by a fire.
I am an Australian. We are still a constitutional monarchy, and there are large parts of Australian society that are proactive in maintaining the monarchy (although for political reasons, republicans get more mention in academia and the media). But the best summary as to why so many Australians advocate monarchy - and why a clear majority voted to retain it in the last Republic Referendum - is this. Aussies hate politicians. So why vote a politician to a position presently filled with apolitical individuals? Our state governors and commonwealth governor general are appointed by the monarch based on proven capability and leadership...and a recorded apolitical past. These are usually leading scientists, KCs (prominent lawyers who serve on the Kings Council - which is a body of legal experts who advise the crown what actions are legal and what are not), former military leaders, former business leaders, etc. The qualifications required are all about proven loyalty, and the ability to lead in public while remaining separate from political action. And yet there are still elected political leaders - unlike autocracy, in constitutional monarchy the crown doesn't need to sully itself with political decision making, that is the role of politicians who are democratically elected. The monarchs role is to ensure the existence of the nation, defend its sovereignty (hence why monarchs hold leadership authority over armed forces rather than politicians, who advise and make policy), and maintain the rule of law (including upholding the constitution for nations that have a written constitution). They also appoint judges and justices, which ensures a degree of separation of influence between the political structure and the legal structure. Does that mean politicians can't do the wrong thing? No, but they can't hold power when they do so. And, every decision they make is guaranteed to be reviewed by an authority not aligned with their (or their opponents) political interests.
You are making the huge logic jump that as a Republic a politician will be Head of State . In the current proposal politicians can't be nominated and the law will remain that the office bearer must remain apolitical . Same system - different person as titular ' President ' .
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb Aye, but the appointment will then be political - intrinsically so. Besides which, the nominated Republican models have always maintained an elected head of state, aka a politician as head of state. With a monarch, the decision maker is intrinsically apolitical. And that is important - as seen with the dismissal of the Whitlam Government, the restraint placed upon the Victorian government during COVID (as bad as it was, without the apolitical governor heaving in the reigns, it would have been way worse), etc.
@@sa25-svredemption98 ' intrinsically ' ? no it will be according to and under the law .You are electing someone to a legally non political position . You cannot ' assume ' political power .
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb to be an elected official is to be a politician. The election of that individual means they will seek to undertake actions for political expediency, not legal obligation. Otherwise why not just have the PM? Because then politicians rule, and there is no check against that process. If we had pure democracy, democracy soon fails - it is the paradox of democracy that has been debated and discussed throughout history, from Plato to the modern age - as politics overrides the law. A constitutional monarchy is unique in that the law/state sovereignty is given a position equal to that of democratic will. It's why laws cannot be enacted without BOTH an approved bill passing our democratic legislature AND royal assent to say that it does not breach the law in it's enactment (such as state or commonwealth constitutions, for instance - which was the actual reason for the Whitlam dismissal, because his government was not meeting it's constitutional obligations). In this way, the paradox of democracy is largely circumvented, or at least the implications minimised. The classic example of the terrible consequences of this paradox is the Weimar Republic, but there are in fact many examples from both the distant and recent past of where this paradox can make things go very wrong very quickly.
What I mean is, if we had a presidential office rather than a crown, we would have candidates from our political parties putting forward candidates for the office - and independents and such. And then they would be conducting themselves for re-election, or their party successors election. And like our legislative and executive government processes, these candidates and officials would therefore be intrinsically political in their efforts in office. The way it exists now, party politics and political expediency is not a consideration of administrators, governors or the governor-general. They are crown appointments who obtain their position on the basis of merit. Therefore politics is of no consequence to their position. What they do care about is the rule of law, the upholding of our constitutional system, and the overall preservation of the peace. They have an entire council of the top lawyers and judges in their jurisdiction to advise them on complex legal issues. This is in vast contrast to any form of presidential system. Indeed, vast is too small a term to describe the breadth of separation between the two forms of government. It is NOT a mere titular change as you claim - it is an entirely different system of government, removing the most essential checks and balances that keep our politicians in check and our democracy thriving.
@@sa25-svredemption98 A politician ? with no policies and no way of implementing any if they had some ? Plus MUST act on the Advice of ministers of Parliament - or be sacked for breach of contract ! The Constitution specifies and limits the ' powers ' including the reserve powers to ' protecting the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth ' .
Portugal was a beautiful and prosperous nation before it became a republic. Now there’s so much degeneracy and instability that plagues the nation
True.
The main problem rn are the damn commies
Most people at the time didn’t even want a republic. People were overwhelmingly in favor of the monarchy so much so some people rebelled and called the king back to rule there section of Portugal for a few months.
@@PiklesMr The problem were the damn republicans, traitors of the nation.
Uhhh? It was pretty poor and backwards. I prefer living in modern Portugal thank you very much
@@whyismyricewet1986 It was rich and prosperous. The modern government is backwards
I love monarchism.
why - they are useless .
As a Texas I approve the comment.
Long live monarchism
@@fleetmastermichael fashie southerner. The Midwest is better because we love the economic system where the workers can actually control their own work. The workers can actually be informed about stuff.
Anyway on the governmental argument I would like to say that democracy is better because if your leader chooses something bad then we can vote him out but in monarchy he can choose evil and do bad to civilians without them wanting him even in.
@Shnitzel_Affe yeah but we have to wait 4 or 5 years after everything he's done then we can vote him out but he still gets elected despite being a criminal and if there is still mostly idiots that support him
@@InolikestatusquoThat’s a big load of hoopla you just posted, straight up. 🥱
Nice to see someone defending monarchism here. I can relate to being a monarchist in a republican country and it's portrayal here. Even though anyone who studied history can tell you that the country went (even more) down hill after the implemantation of the republic, people still act the monarchy was a terrible and tyrannical regime and think the republic brought freedom to the people. Never mind that the instability of the republic led to a 50 year brutal dictatorship. Anyway I wish you all the best and a happy new year.
Brazil?
Ah, yes. Russia was much better under feudalism and monarchy than under an (Albion) authoritarian democracy.
Ah yes... cuz historically, monarchies totally aren't essentially tyrannical or dictatorial, and republics definitely didn't eventually lead to freedom.
@@YokaiXthis but unironically. Well... Republics are pretty okay I guess. But we can still have that freedom in a monarchy, probably more if the shadow oligarchy is abolished.
@@mr.mystery9338 they can, modern democracies are all oligariechs, outsied swizerland
'' I am king in order to protect my people from politicians ''
Remember kids, you need protection from the people you directly elected, don’t worry though, let me, someone unelected and unaccountable, and whose only claim to legitimacy is the fact that my father wears a funny hat, protect you and your family from the dangerous politicians!
@@obama9535 obunga
@@obama9535 Here's the thing though. You did not elect anyone, the majority did, or in another word, the masses. No matter how much thought and care you put into how you cast your vote, it will be lost in a sea of blind and deaf desires, and the ones who come out on top are those who are the best at manipulating them. By the time you get to choose between those smiling faces on the posters and their promises and slogans, you only have bad choices left.
So why hold onto a sham of a choice, when the state's purpose should be to protect and take accountability for its people? Why not have the state be in the hands of a family whose whole purpose is to care for the country? Sure, any leader can be corrupt, Monarchs are not immune to this, but unlike our "elected leaders", they do not have to actively charm and bribe their way into power, they only have to care for their good standing and the prosperity of their realm, because that is directly tied to the longevity of their reign and that of their children.
So yes, I'd very much like to have a glorified father figure to protect me from glorified buisnessmen. The funny hat is just a bonus. ;)
@@obama9535Most presidents are not voted in directly by the people though. But through electoral college.
@@obama9535Better than what we have now.
I Hope That more power is brought to the monarch in my country of Norway.
Long Live Kong Harald!🇳🇴🇳🇴🇳🇴🇳🇴
Question, how involved is your king in your affairs? Because to an outsider like me it looks like western monarchies are mostly decoration these days.
@@Of_infinite_Faith He goes on state visits and I’m p sure he signs (all though I’m p sure it’s symbolic signing) some government papers or shit I forgot exactly what it was.
@@Of_infinite_Faith His majesty also has a veto right, he can if he feels it is needed veto any descision by the elected government, it is very very rarely used but I believe the last time it was used was during the start of the Nazi invasion, the government wanted to surrender, he vetoed that.
Aside from the veto the King also 'accepts' the elected government and has the power to depose them, although at this point this is purely symbolic.
The last major power the King has is that he is the head of the military, on paper his commands to them go above the government, so potentially the King could order the military to forcibly depose any government which does not resign when commanded. Again though it is unknown to which extent the military would actually follow through. The military is famously very monarchist, but it is more a democratic monarchism, and I'd personally doubt they would support the King in any action which goes against the people. (And rightly so)
As a Brit, I see nothing wrong with monarchism. Also, the UK isn't the only monarchist nstion today: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Spain are all examples of modern day monsrchies. Plus the kings and queens don't run these countries anymore as they're constitutional monarchs, meaning they're just there as figureheads while the actual government does the running of the country
Lavader's a Traditional Monarchist Btw not a Constitutional Monarchist.
@@hofnarrtheclown I support constitutional monarchies like the UK (I'm British). I'm also left-wing whereas Lavader is right-wing
@@oliversherman2414Welp, Left-Wing Monarchists Generally almost Always have Advocacies for Constitutional Monarchy so I'm not Surprised.
As a monarchist from the Philippines, I approve of your video. It's quite awesome.
Who would be our king here in the Philippines? The bourbons(Spanish) ? The duke of parma(carlist) ? The Habsburgs? Or like some local family?
@@chickenusgoddus464 I'd go Habsburg because the Carlists are too busy bickering.
@@chickenusgoddus464the first or the last option
@@mappingshaman5280 he'd only have claims on Palawan and maybe parts of Mindanao I doubt most catholic Filipinos (especially the church) would want a Muslim ruler most likely a Catholic ruler descent from one of the southern Luzon rulers (datus , rajas) would be chosen if it's at all a local ruler
So glad I'm not the only Filipino monarchist as well!
Thank you for this video. I'm a Brazilian monarchist, and it's sad how these misconceptions are extremely common in today's society.
Vdd mano.
Yeah and people in Brazil believe it ? The nation that was one of the best places of South America and got the British to cave in to their demands
I mean the nation literally went to shit after Pedro the second gave up and that man was raised as a monarch supporting the people
Ave Império do Brasil!!!
Ave Império!
I wouldn’t say Nicholas II was even negligent, the concept that he spent his time partying and didn’t care about his subjects mostly comes from the communists. He was actually a very caring leader.
@@goese868 He wasn't the greatest ruler to ever live but he still cared about his subjects and he was a lot more competent than people give him credit for
@@ianmckenzie6715 oh so is that why he did nothing for the poor?
The Romanovs didn't deserve the fate that was dealt to them. Nicholas II, whilst being a somewhat incompetent as a ruler because of his father's untimely death, was a very pious and good man.
@@sponge5196and that only talking about the tsar, his son and daughters were completly inocent
@@Britishdarnlib Russia (and kind of always has been) was very backward, lagging behind much of Europe, and it's not like the Soviets treated their people any better.
As a monarchist I wholeheartedly agree that I am anti-progressive and stuck in the Middle Ages, which is very based.
Edit: Also an important fact is that participation of the estates was key in Western monarchies. Feudalism for example worked pretty well as a check for bad monarchs, as the story of the Magna Charta shows.
benefits of feudalism of the middle ages
- cool hierarchy (knights and stuff)
- only working seasonally when the crops are ready (less days of work than modern day + gains due to farming)
- drinking ale cause it was cleaner than water
- a leader chosen by god (based)
- cool architecture
- stronger familial ties
- guaranteed marriage
- fight for God
- explore the world
- no national borders (free travel)
- beautiful nature
Nah man thats just idiotic
Republican from Australia here and I'd be very interested in discussing some of these points a little more in-depth with you if you're interested.
I am strictly Republican for America. A king can't properly stand for the tradition of a nation where the tradition of the nation is Republican. However, European countries restoring their monarchies would be fire.
As a British monarchist myself, it's a great source of frustration to me that so many activists spout the misinformation that the public fund the Royals. Anyone who's done any reading into the Crown Estate's finances and compared it to the Sovereign Grant wouldn't say that idiotic line again with a straight face. It goes to show that opposition to monarchy on the grounds of money is not done honestly.
Even if we did have to fund the Royals, I think it's advantageous to have a Head of State who's required by constitution to be politically neutral and not beholden to any particular movement or party. Someone whose duty is to keep those politicians from ruining the country because of the fraudulent policies and promises they push to a gullible electorate every 4-5 years. With this in mind, I firmly believe that a constitutional monarchy is the best form of government humans have invented, so far. Sure, it's not perfect, but I much prefer it to a presidential republic or a purely parliamentary democracy.
God Save the King.
I prefer a kind of feudal system with more autocratic monarchs but those are some very good points.
Hi from russian monarchist)
What is even more hilarious is that Parliament is more expensive than the Crown so if it was about money the UK would save more if they abolished Parliament and became an absolute Monarchy.
The monarchy is a glaring symbol of the past and illogical religions. It needs destruction in order to bring the world into a new era of the future. But I’m not a republican, to note. Neither monarchist nor republican.
My main counter argument towards English republicans is showing them the political side of America.
I am a Mongolian monarchies hope fully my country will turn to a kingdom
I wish that will happen
All hail to Chingest Khan
China does not approve 😂
@@nidatantan8000nah its big chungus khan
Bro who is going to be khan tho there is 200 million people that is eligible
@@burakasik3937😂
As a Kuwaiti living in a monarchy I can say first hand that our country is one of the least corrupt and 2nd richest in the Middle East by gdp pc, I have also had absolutely no issues with the sheikh or his family alhamdullilah.
I'm from communist vietnam. We're under soviet style democracy. I do sometime look back on our dynasties. which is pretty good
But Vietnam is not communist right now
@@trueordrue well we’re in the transition state rn. Like We’re implementing socialist policies like our land reforms and farming policies. The current government is kinda getting too liberal and is mostly focusing on foreign relations
The issue is just people are easy to manipulate. And democracies trick people into thinking their opinion matters.
This is a great video, the system of government which we support has received far too much slander, people ridiculing the idea and its supporters without proper understanding.
While those who are set in their ways will not bother to listen, those who have an open mind and ear will find great value in this video, and if even one of them is convinced to support monarchism because of it then that is a win for us.
Of course you would support monarchism Lord Nox
In Poland, monarchism is very marginal - around 0.4% people vote for the most popular monarchist politicians, which are in the same party as market liberals, conservatives and nationalists. The fact that Poland has basically no dynastial tradition isn't helping.
We need a national monarchy for the sake of our freedom and independence!
In order to form a great nation you must be smart on your spending decisions and not spend it all the time on yourself instead of spending it on the nation.
Assuming you’re defending anti-monarchism, I must note that even democratically elected leaders have lived and live outside of government
As A greek Monarchist I have my own view on this sitiuation: Greece has been a Monarchy ever since 1832 and there were several kings like George I , Constantine I, Paul I and Constantine II .
1. King George I: In addition to his economic development efforts, King George I worked to improve public health in Greece. He established a network of hospitals and clinics throughout the country, and also supported the development of medical education.
2. King Constantine II: King Constantine II showed a commitment to democracy during his reign, and resisted attempts to establish a military dictatorship. He also worked to improve relations with neighboring countries, including Turkey.
3. King Paul and Queen Frederica: King Paul and his wife Queen Frederica were known for their philanthropy and support of charitable causes. They established the Anna Maria Foundation, which provided assistance to disadvantaged children in Greece.
4. King George II: King George II was a strong supporter of Greek culture, and worked to preserve and promote the country's artistic and historic heritage. He established the National Gallery of Greece and the National Archaeological Museum, which remain important cultural institutions today.
Unfortunately, The U.S.A and The Colonels Had Exploited Greece, the worst thing for greece in my opinion was the greek referendum in 1974 where the Downfall Of Greece Begun.
"Ζήτω Ο Βάσιλευς Ο Πάυλος ! "
Hello from a Turkish monarchist
@@e.a9751 Oooh Nice House Of Osman ?
Im A Semi-Constitutional Monarchist
Sounds good. 👍
Same here
Absolutist here
I am a semi nigga ballstitutional monarchist
Hello brother. I am A fellow monarchist as well; How are your day ?
Brazil was the only monarchy on the American continent for several years, we had a great monarch who led us for more than 50 years of pure prosperity and sovereignty, now for Brazilian republicans, if the monarchy was so undemocratic and backward, then why even After having copied the North American model, haven't we prospered like them? Our first president said on his deathbed that he was deeply sorry for what he did, we were never the shadow of the powerful empire that, even with several defects, guaranteed us stability and true prosperity
I’m from the US and it’s so shocking how miseducated we are. I am not from Brazil, nor portugal, and am not related. But I would jump for joy if you did restore your Monarchy.
Dom Pedro I was genuinely an extremely caring & good person who always seemed to put his whole heart into everything Brazil. I hate thinking about him sometimes, how it ended makes me quite sad. Love to you from one American to another!
@@Zadir09Dom Pedro II is probably who you are talking about
I'm also an American, also not related to Brazil or Portugal in any way (though I am considering learning your language if finances allow on top of the French I've studied for years). I deeply love my nation, and despise what has become of the government that rules over us today. I've warmed up to the idea of monarchism after learning more about your history, actually, about the success and strength of the Empire. This is a few months late, but there are a couple of quotes that come from the time of the Founding Fathers that could answer your question.
In 1787, Ben Franklin was asked what kind of government was formed for the United States. He answered, "a republic, if you can keep it." In 1798, John Adams, second US president said this, "Our Constitution was made for only a moral and righteous people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." I did a little digging to make sure my facts are correct, and I found a quote from James Madison, fourth US president, "I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks - no form of government can render us secure." I got these quotes from (nps.gov) and (ourrepubliconline.com).
What happened to both our nations, is that it's likely that corrupt individuals got into our governments and did irreparable damage that we still feel to this day. The Founding Fathers themselves understood that republics take a lot of effort to maintain. From what we see, republics seem to take more effort to maintain than monarchies. We seem to have this system of governance, but as nations, we've forgotten what made it work in the first place. Then we wonder why it doesn't work when we try to set up republics elsewhere in the world, while the monarchies that were set up outperform the republics every time.
I hope this helps, and God bless America and Brazil! I'll leave you with a fun DBZ reference: "You may have invaded my government and my media...but there's one thing a patriot always keeps...! His PRIIIIIDE!!"
Emperor of Mexico Maximilian was gr8
I'm spanish and I am proud of our monarchy. Viva España y viva el rey! 👑🇪🇦
Nosotros también tuvimos los mismos reyes hace mucho tiempo y por culpa de criollos sedientos de poder, nos dividieron a ambos. ¡Viva España! ¡Viva el Rey!
Lastima que es un Borbón, y no un Habsburgo como tal era antaño
Greetings from another monarchy in the Netherlands, viva todos los Reyes 🤝
@joshchong4625 yes ,that's why I think Juan Carlos was a good king
@@roblerow4589Juan Carlos was one of the worst kings that we ever had, he is a traitor to the Spanish
I would like to add to 8:35, I always loathed the argument that being born into power is stupid, because it wholly ignores the fact that nobles are individuals born into families that have ruled for generations, surround themselves and socialise with other families that have ruled for generations, go through the best education the UK has to offer, harbour a grand sense of duty and - due to family ties and the nature of titles -naturally inclines them to WANT to learn about their history and in turn the history of their country and the world.
Moreover, being surrounded by the finest things your whole life has a profound effect on one's psyche (ignoring the fact that you can't buy someone who has everything).
All of that without pointing out the nature of nobles which, by definition, are individuals with preferable characteristics so embedded in the subconscious that they become second nature, such as: Being polite, courteous, mindful, well-mannered, reserved, neutral (and emotionally so) etc.
Compare that to professional salesmen coming into power on the whim of people that practically NEVER research into their candidates (which is one major flaw with democracy) and there seems to be quite the debate to be had as to which system of government is better.
The leader of the most powerful country doesn't know what day of the week it is. And he got elected.
You know what I didnt think of it that way thats very smart
@@Sanon001no, it's m○r○nic... The notion that "monarchs totally aren't corrupt, emotionally fragile, egotistical narcissists lacking empathy and care for (what they consider inferior) human life", is a laughably absurd delusion; of course monarchists and their royalists would want people to believe monarchs are, "perfect and superior humans", to legitimize the unjust hierarchy of their rule and oppression.
"Moreover, being surrounded by the finest things your whole life has a profound effect on one's psyche"
One of them being that it hampers your perspective towards the people who are less fortunate, thus restricting your ability to empathize with them, hence the negligent nobles like Louis 16th, and who knows how many others.
"Being polite, courteous, mindful, well-mannered, reserved, neutral (and emotionally so) "
What good are all those virtues if the noblse end up being negligent like Louis 16th?
@@YokaiX " to legitimize the unjust hierarchy of their rule and oppression."
I agree with the rest of your text, but to describe constitutional monarchies as "oppressive" is a little out of proportion.
@@YokaiX Why monarchs would be corrupt give me a reason. In fact you spout such a bullshit in your delusion that I don't even know how to comment
As a guy from Saudi, we really love and support our royal family. A Washington Post (which is a journal with very anti-Saudi sentiment, so them saying something positive about Saudi holds a lot of weight), that the approval rating for the royal family is around 90%.
Saudi Arabia is doing great things for sports, especially boxing. Best wishes for the United Kingdom.
If you indoctrinate a population and cause all the problems to be outside the country like bombing Yemen, being western cucks, and supporting Islamic terrorists more than any other country, then you will get high ratings
0:19 song name?
Found it, it's called Ergo Phizmiz - Open your head
I don't understand modern people, I LOVE outdated and old things, how can anyone love modernism?
As a proud englishman I am a supporter of the royals and think democracy is simply a way for "gypsy" politicians to enrich themselves at the expense of the public through policies such as contracting businesses to do government work which they are majority stakeholders in. Even if they lose the election they go back into a corporation or lobbying firm retaining their power and wealth.
Monarchy on the other hand forces a man to be the country, his position of power is reliant on the country doing well. He cannot sell out his own country without disenfranchising himself which is clearly a greater form of accountability, which is what these republicans keep ranting about when it comes to monarchs.
As an American, I believe democracy is a softer version of oligarchy, but less competent.
@@goese868 he probably didn't read it like most RUclipsrs
Wow, racism *and* a misunderstanding about the democratic understanding of accountability, all while using one of the most imperfect implementations of democracy as an example.
@@huntre111🤓🤓🤓
@@huntre111 The only people who like gypsies are those who've never had to deal with them before.
Bravo! I've never heard a good argument against monarchy, but this video presents a lot of the pros.
It's also noteworthy that prime ministers serve much better under a monarch
The best type of monarchy for me is a Semi-constitutional, male primogeniture type of monarchy. A monarchy in which the monarch would not have absolute powers but will have strong powers. Not a ceremonial monarchy because that doesn’t work that well. The kings of European countries right now don’t have any sort of power at all. Meanwhile prime ministers and parliamentarians have enacted laws that permit the invasion of their countries by people that will not asimílate to Europe. Europe needs stronger monarchs in order for them to veto laws that are really detrimental to the European society. Just take a look at the UK. It has been invaded.
On corruption this is my favourite quote by Joseph Hilaire Pierre René Belloc: "Monarchy is the sole effective protection,
in a large state, of the common citizen against the mastery of wealth. Napoleon summarised that truth in lapidary fashion. Monarchy, he said, is the one device discovered by man for the curbing of the money-power.
Age after age has proved this truth not only by reason but by experiment. Seeing what wealth can do, nothing can check its control of society save the presence of a master too rich to be bribed and too strong to be beaten down."-Monarchy A Study of Louis XIV (1938)
I'm no monarchist, but nobility in the 19th century built huge museums, magnificent buildings for the public, held charities and events, so on so fourth.
Our benevolent politicans wouldn't toss a cent your way out of their own pockets.
Those last few lines you said made me think of the greek song about the fall of Constantinople, You'll come as lightning is a song that brings me to tears every time I listen and read its lyrics. May Constantinople live forever in our hearts
As a Hungarian monarchist, I approve of this video.
As a Romanian monarchist, I approve your approval.
As a italian monarchist i approve yout approve
Me too. I am romanian, and I think we should teach the truth, rather than lie about an alternative. What significance does the current system have if it has to hide the truth?
As Bangladesh monarchist i approved your opinion
Don't worry, the trajectory of the current hungarian political climate will inevitably lead to Órban crowning himself on the danube
I live in the UK and while I wouldn’t consider myself a ‘monarchist’ I do support the monarchy here as a political system. It’s important to have a separated head of state and head of government and here the monarch is trained from birth and takes the duties and separation of powers seriously. We have a system where the head of state understands they are reliant on the people for their position and respect their place in the democratic system. It adds value to our country and after civil wars we’ve had they are acutely aware of the limits on their privilege
Only 5 minutes in, but keep up the good work!
I think the problem with this video is it seems to be mixing constitutional monarchy and absolute monarchy at different points in the video and the speaker doesn't seem to know (or is at least unclear about) which one he is arguing for. Like he talks about how the British system isn't very expensive and this is mainly because it is a constitutional monarchy where the government can act to check and balance the monarch's salary. But then talks about how kings setting taxes and spending money is a good thing as they have to deal with the consequences, but places like Britain haven't had kings doing these things in centuries, it's the government doing this.
Monarchs need more power so they can protect their people
You should make a video about empire of Brazil
Brazil is the perfect example of a country brought to ruin by republicanism, compare any period in the republic to the imperial times and see for yourself, no wonder they have strong support for a monarchy there
I enjoyed this essay big time. But whats the song sounding behind? I hear Bartók!
as an Italian monarchist, I thank you for this video! 🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹
Wait, so you guys exist?? Yaaaay!🥳🇮🇹
@@jasoncheerful7163 Yes, we absolutely exist and we are very proud of our being monarchists! 🇮🇹👑🇮🇹
VIVA IL RE!
VIVA L'ITALIA!
@@Becca04927That is good, because I've not really heard much of Italian Monarchists, and as a non Italian, I honestly actually think they did Injustice to the Monarchy by abolishing it just after they saved the country; I hope to see the House of Savoy on the throne again, as much as I would like to see such in my own country, I love Italy and am fascinated by it, and I think the Italian people deserve more!
@@jasoncheerful7163 A thousand thanks! You are perfectly right, in fact I can assure you that here in Italy many are aware of the fact that there were probably irregularities in the institutional referendum that established the republic in 1946, but despite this many are fine with it today because I believe the monarchy favored fascism by totally ignoring how things really happened. We monarchists are really busy trying to dismantle the various fake news that have arisen over the years about the monarchy and the House of Savoy, led by His Majesty Aimone of Savoy-Aosta. I also hope that sooner or later your country can become a monarchy again, and since we're talking about it, what country do you come from?
@@Becca04927 I am one of your ancient Enemies, lol; but seriously, I hail from Iran, our Monarchy was violently overthrown by the violent thugs who creat the Islamic Republic today; sadly our Monarchies throughout history have had some controversies, but currently the Pahlavi Dynasty has it's own supporters among the opposition, sadly from my personal opinion the previous dynasties (Pahlavi, Qajar, etc.) Either don't have a lot of Heirs, or aren't really in a good position, but Reza Pahlavi is currently the best option for now, I hope to see them restored one day!
I am 3 minutes in but feel compelled to say that I almost exclusively go down a monarchist path everytime I play HOI4 or at the very least go for the non-aligned government path if the country I'm playing doesn't have a legit monarchy path. Germany, restore the Kaiser, Britain, empower the king's party, France, bring forth Napoleon the 4th, and so on.
RESTORE ZA KAISEREICH
Some kings are tyrants, some tyrants are kings. Not all kings are tyrants, but all dictators are tyrants.
"You cannot rig whoever becomes the next monarch the same way one can rig an election"-Jakob Fugger left the chat
“With a [democratic] government anyone in principle can become a member of the ruling class or even the supreme power. The distinction between the rulers and the ruled as well as the class consciousness of the ruled become blurred. The illusion even arises that the distinction no longer exists: that with a public government no one is ruled by anyone, but everyone instead rules himself. Accordingly, public resistance against government power is systematically weakened. While exploitation and expropriation before might have appeared plainly oppressive and evil to the public, they seem much less so, mankind being what it is, once anyone may freely enter the ranks of those who are at the receiving end. Consequently, [exploitation will increase], whether openly in the form of higher taxes or discretely as increased governmental money “creation” (inflation) or legislative regulation.”
― Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed
I've heard about this argument from people in England that their tax money is used to fund Royals lifestyle.
This is usually odd for me because it incorrectly assumes that a president or prime minister will not need money to fund
As a British Man The Royal Family has No Power and it Big Sad :(
They criminalised Catholicism for 200 years
Very interesting video, and I have always had similar sentiments. Also, take a look at the list of least corrupt countries and there you will see many modern day monarchs as well.
Hallo from the Netherlands! One of the most democratic and prosperous countries in the world with a monarchy.
❤✝️👑
This is such a underrated channel ngl honestly this deserves at least 40k subs
I consider myself a monarchist, and would like to see my country becoming a constitutional monarchy, especially since our current system has a president who has mostly only a ceremonial role and despite being just that, the presidential elections gather the most people to vote for a candidate, instead of the really important elections where their votes would have actual importance: the local and parliamentary elections. Presidential elections are thus a waste of money, and the money we use on them and the president's yearly cut of the budget could very well be used for a Royal Household's yearly budget.
These videos are indeed rare to find, however I'm glad i came across your channel. You've given a great rebuttal to the stigma of monarchies. Also you exposed the extreme weaknesses of republics and democracies. However, it appears most political commentators are oblivious to the susceptibility of corruption in democracies, and the financial negligence of the democratic leaders. This is why America will collapse very soon, due to the negligence and corruption spanning over several decades.
Thank you for posting. I'm going to come out with videos soon to support your ideas of monarchism in efforts of reaching out to this political minority.
Great video, but there is one point that I wished you touched a bit more up on. In the beginning you ask the question “why do we need a king today?”, which, I think, is a very important question to discuss. To make myself clear, I’m not talking about current monarchies, but rather about countries that are currently republics. You mentioned that you’re a monarchist living in a country without a monarchy, does that mean you wish to see your country (re)establish a monarchy? How would you go about justifying this to others? If someone asks you “why?” when you mention that you’d like your country to be a monarchy, how would you respond?
I want to make it clear that I live in a constitutional monarchy and I fully support monarchism, and while I don’t have any problems justifying and debating why a country should remain a monarchy, I find it a bit more complicated to justify why a republic should "regress" back to a monarchy. What are your thoughts?
In short, republics are dysfunctional and corrupt, politicians are not to be trusted, monarchy is just a better way of governance than full democracy
for some things it is better to have someone in power long term. this is why the policies that are actually needed in countries are never done because all the elected leaders have a very short term mindset and spend money like crazy and the worst thing is that you cannot judge them for their long term effects, because they arent as long there. when a king fuks up you know exactly who screwed up but prime Ministers and presidents have a great way to blame someone else and perfectly deflect criticsm
Better question is who and why. Who’s so special that there bloodline is endowed with divinity to always rule over the rest of the divine-less.
Yeah the hardest question isn't really Why, but who would become the Monarch. Electing them would kind of defeat the purpose but we really have no outstanding individuals worthy of it as it stands (in America).
I would prefer a constitutional monarchy with a more functional monarch rather than a strict figurehead. I would also say that the link to God being replaced by the social contract is part of the problem in modern society.(edit: spelling)
So you Want thier Title as "Monarch of the People" not "Monarch of the Nation"? Even tho Those Titles don't Inherently Guarantee that at All.
as a romanian monarchist its kinda true . we are seen as backwards goofy and enspecialy me ( i studied politics but ppl assume idk anyithing just cause im 13 ) thats when i ask em name 5 political ideologies and go blank then they change the subject or just leave . monarchism while not perfect it is atleast on par with the rest of the ideologies
No you are literally 13. Too young to have an opinion on how society should operate. Not trying to be rude, just being honest. I say this as someone who is monarchy sympathetic.
I'm from the US. I love the republic ideals, but I also understand why monarchy is the better system for running the government, to make everyone happy, make it a semi constitutional/ constitutional monarchy.
God I pray for the restoration of a based holy monarchy. 🙏
I find these arguments very well organised and relatable, but I can't help wondering if you could make a similar video explaining why (in your opinion) a lot of monarchies have ceased their existance in the last two centuries.
I am also curious about your take on the romanian monarchy, because I think monarchism suffers differently in the circumstances of a post-communism state. I remember when I was I kid how I first saw a news article mentioning king Michael's declining health and was dissatisfied to find out my parents knew very little about the monarchy. The present school education in Romania explores very little the "why" and forces us to deal with just the "what".
What a great video! Completely agree with every point. I wish you had taken a look at german, especially prussian monarchs, tho. But that might have doubled the length of the video easily. I will add one quote fron one of the best kings the world had ever seen, tho, because you ended it with a quote on your own: "The King is the first servant of the state." - Frederick The Great.
@@thotslayer9914 my own commission
I don’t think I agree that just because monarchs are born into wealth and power they have no incentive to act corruptly (by which I believe you mean using their official powers for personal gain or private interests). Certain people have an endless appetite for wealth or power that won’t just be satisfied by even a prince’s inheritance, and glory and prestige are also incredibly important motivators for sovereigns. The Middle Ages are filled with endless military adventures by glory seeking monarchs and nobles hoping to leave their mark on history no matter how many cities they burned to do it.
While I disagree with your point about democracy, as I am an absolute monarchist who hates democracy, I love this video! Great job debunking these monarchist myths.
the main claims of corruption in Monarchies get throw at the Monarch, but the general reality is that it isn't their fault, but the fault of the Aristocracy around the Monarch. Through their actions, or sometimes lack there of, they can hurt the Monarch's standing significantly, and alot of times, they themselves are the corrupt ones. But whenever asked, they never point to themselves. They got someone else they can blame. The Monarch thus gets all the blame, when the vast majority of the cases regard those who work for or with them
so... When u have a monarch but no aristocrazy its just a perfect system?
@@NothingToSeeHere_69 when you have an Aristocracy that isn't insular it's a very effective system. or even better, and Aristocracy that owes it's existence to an enlightened Sovereign, and not fake enlightenment
@@NothingToSeeHere_69no system is perfect, some are simply better than others.
I completily support the Prussian form of monarchy, as well as absolutist monarchy where appropriate.
You Support the Monarchs to Have Absolute Power or at Least Full-Executive Power?
That’s why we should have semi-democratic monarchy’s! The people get enough power, but the main power rests in the king who is responsible.
Giving the People Power who's Majority are Full of Uneducated Masses could Radicalize the Hole Society's a Bad Choice
Hohohoho, long live our emperor!
Sono un momarchico italiano e ti ringrazio per sto video
W THE KING W THE KINGDOM OF ITALY W THE ITALIAN POPULATION
I'm an American who wants a monarchy, and I agree with this man. Washington is full of corruption, we need a strong person who can put our wrongs right.
@@thotslayer9914 authoritarian democrat
@@thotslayer9914 Not really, it's a constitutional monarchy. Look it up. Head of state is authoritarian, head of government is democratic.
@@thotslayer9914 That's ok for you to be against it, I'm not politically agreeing with you either, but I would like to get a beer with you some day.
I don't believe there should be any democratic institutions within the monarchy except for a constitution limiting his power (he has to follow laws) btw murican as well
Well the Roman Empire discovered the dictatorship for crisis as being very effective.
I am an orthodox jew. And I just wanted to know that any religious Jew praise three times a day for the restoration of the davidic monarchy.
Most jews, even the Orthodox ones, don't understand what this means. But I have actually used some of your talking points to explain it to my fellows
As an American, the older I get, the more I realize we need a strong monarchist government
The Older you Get doesn't Mean more Knowledge but Let's not Argu About It and Accept this Fact.
If you think this, you need to be put in a care home
We need a small monarchist government
By the sound of it you are advocating for a return to an Absolute Monarchy . A Mussolini ?
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb Benito Mussolini was not a monarch though Italy itself was a Constitutional Monarchy and had been from the 1860s. Benito ruled as a dictator under the office of the President of the Council of Ministers, which was the Prime Ministership of the Kingdom of Italy. It was Emmanuel III who was the king and who would later have Mussolini deposed.
Unfortunately the regime is too liberal and leftist nowadays. If the regime continues beign so leftist, the currerently existing constitutional monarcies would be abolished sooner or later. But the regime won’t last for long anymore. It is going to collapse and replaced with conservative and right wing regime. At that time the monarchies will be restored or created again. Lets hope that time becomes as soon as possible.
@@avus-kw2f213 Well basically all of them
Asia's or Africa's monarchies would most likely last longer than europe's, oceania's or america's considering that a lot of asians are either mild conservatives or ultraconservatives.
@@Oktheok True
Honestly the radical liberalism I already see dying off day by day, as we saw with Europe in 2022 leftist governments are slowly losing their grip on control
reason being from what I see is dissatisfaction with the current establishment and the slow fall of American hegemony over the world, with America being the main culprit of spreading liberalism as a way of thought all over the world, it's decreasing influence isn't helping either
I am an Italian distributist who thinks that system would work well inside a monarchy. What is your opinion? A centralised power that has also loyal local powers similar to chieftains and the like...dunno, it's an idea, maybe I am just wrong, but I think it could be achieved with a virtuous people and within a monarchy.
Most monarchies has baronies and lieges for that very reason. They basically already had a distrubutists system
I don't believe liberal democracy to be a good thing and I see monarchism as an alternative.
I would prefer a conservative democracy, where parties were banned and officials were elected from their own local area by those locals to a parliament, which function would be to vote on the laws the monarch wanted to pass and see if those laws would damage local interests.
The monarch would have power, the people would have a say and God and Fatherland would be the foundations for governing the country.
Cuck
the party system in political is the cause of so much violence and banning them wont be doing anything anyways, people of similar goals and ideology would just create unofficial parties
nice music choice 👍
what is it?
It's very idealistic to think that a human can defend against "evil", whatever that means. How as a common citizen would a monarch be better than a representative of their community?
@EmperorofChinaItwillgrowlarger lol, no they don't. They represent a class of people that have historically used the lower classes as cannon fodder to secure resources or die over petty squabbles
Democracy is the God that failed.
Hoppe is based.
The line of succession is determined by Parliament, which is elected by taxpayers (and more). An MP can propose an amendment to the line of succession, Parliament can agree to it, the Crown signs off on it (de-facto ceremonial), and the line of succession is changed.
Parliament can also decide to replace the monarch with someone else, or remove the office of Crown entirely and become a de-jure republic - just like we tried to do for 20 years and we were turned into a military dictatorship that inherited all powers of the Crown and was given more, and where parliament was often absorbed at his will.
Even as an American, I’m a constitutional monarchist, though I realize that it would never happen in my country.
I don't think America needs a monarchy but Americans are inundated with stories about corrupt kings and emperors without anything to balance it out.
@@FaithfulFumoFan23
I’m an American and I think we desperately need a monarch. Because our population is so massive and so undereducated. So now a major world power is heavily swayed by the beliefs of people who realistically have no merit to be involved in such an important decision, myself included.
Either we concede that voting and by extension; ruling, is very important, thus the average American isn’t qualified. Or that voting isn’t that important so there’s no need to audit voters.
And currently we’re doing the latter which is bs to me.
@@sethgaston8347 Monarchy is the antidote to a lot of the issues we face.
Monarchy = unity even among a multicultural group of people = unity and stability. Much less political infighting, more efficiency, less corruption.
I wouldn't care as much about paying taxes if it went to a King. I can't stand it in a democracy. Govt spending is completely reckless and is mostly used to buy votes especially by the Democrats.
The fact that the royal family only needs $6 a year from every person is enough for me. The department of defense alone needs $2500.
I could tell you got some outside inspiration for your script.
Thank for summarising and articulating the main issue with elected politicians vs non-elected monarchs.... The voting in and out of politicians causes these very politicians to think only of winning the next election - anything which is a long term plan for the nation or needs forward thinking, long terms building always ends up being secondary to the short-term goal of winning the next election. And that's not even a criticism of politicians themselves - this is the same we, the people, assume is the best option. No politician dares to spend money on building defences, sorting out environmental damage, dealing with long term societal problems, because it will often be unpopular in the short-term for the public to accept( my taxes might go up, I won't have money to spend, my right to go wherever and whenever i want will be infringed, etc, etc). As pointed out, no system is perfect, but a balanced constitutional monarchy is about the closest we can have... the monarchy helps for long-term stability and plans for the country - the elected politicians help to highlight the views of the people.
As it is in heaven, so shall it be on earth.
You are right about a lot of things about monarchism and I very sympathize with you.
On the other hand monarchism has a big problem in case of establishing a new monarchy. How to find someone that will be a good monarch? How to be sure he wouldnt just shift to the cruel dictator?
Have you some example of someone that can be a good monarch?
Use the existing nobility like Russia is doing with their monarchal schools.
God bless the king 🔥
God save the King and Queen too. Deus vult
I think the concept of inheretance of power is my main concern with monarchy. Sure, the son or daugther of a ruler would likely be a better leader than an elected president, but there are better methods. One way i suggest is to tie it to an educational aristocracy.
Education would be given free to every child. Basic level education would be given to all. Those who are not academically gifted cannot be considered to be part of a higher class such as the artists, intellectuals or rulers. Instead they would be given working class education, such as trade or social work. Those who do better could join the intellectual, specialist or artist class, taking a specialized education in fx art, history, engineering, medicine etc.
Those that were extraordinary would join the ruling class, being expected to learn morality, philosophy and perform very highly in all manners of affairs, especially within their field of expertise, which they would become leaders of. Those who were experts in state politics and political philosophy would become those who could become councellors to the monarch. On death of the monarch, a new monarch would be chosen from these experts on state affairs, but for the child of the monarch to earn such a title, they would have to prove themselves in the educational system.
Of course this requires a much better educational system that accounts of physical strength, creative thought, ability of deeper conversational ability, artistic ability etc, not just to remember terms and formulas.
I sympathize very much with your position, I think the problem with the hereditary component of monarchy (it's necessary to discuss wether or not it's an inherent part of it) is that vocation is not necessarily inherited from the fathers, (although it's somehow expected and very likely that some child will be imbued with his parent's vocation), hence it's possible that someone who's not from the king's outspring could be a better ruler.
On the other hand, I think that a radical separation between the working class and the ruling class could lead to a serious social and political catastrophe, the ruling class has to put its hand in the dirt sometimes and be capable of profoundly sympathizing with the workers and serve them with a sincere love, the working class has to be encouraged to seek knowledge and wisdom, have manners, read the classics, etc...
@@peccatorjustificatus777 I can understand your concern with the separation of classes, but i must disagree.
What can be evident when studying psychology is the inherent difference between people and their best suited role within society.
Some people are going to move towards a life of simplicity, shying away from the burdens of responsibility (The common man), while others will strive to take on as much responsibility as they can (The ruling class).
I'm not advocating that the common man should be treated unfairly for his simple difference in preference, but to expect both to do the work of the other? Well, that is a bit far, and i doubt they would even want that.
A king who has to manage a large country has no time or energy to spare to sit in the factories with the commoners.
While i do expect some level of intellectual upbringing in the common man, as you suggest, the simple fact is that when you ask the common man to do intellectual work, he will see it as meaningless. Which is the exact reason why art, history and philosophy are ignored in a democratic society, ruled by the popular vote.
A ruler can, through extensive moral education and reflection, come to the simple conclusion that he must treat his workers fairly.
@@Tiogar60 That's very true. What I meant is that at some point in his educational process the ruler should learn some things about the workers' life in order to legislate for the benefit of them in the future, he should see himself as a servant of the nation and avoid arrogance and indifference to the workers' struggles. On the other hand, I don't think it's impossible to teach the lower classes how to value art and culture, in fact they always end up creating a huge part of the nation's culture and tradition, (which I would argue is very different from what we call "pop culture" today). But of course the differences between classes and their respective vocations will naturally and inevitably maintain.
Plato's republic. Warning socialism
Better answer for "Monarchy is unfair!": Yet you still believe that president got to power in fair way. Bro he just said what people want to hear and got elected only because of popularity. Also president doesn't have to fulfill electional promises. Also, there are pros on monarchy like... (starts talking about how monarch is a non-political arbiter)
Yes, even Biden can't fucking say sensical shit about guns, he literally mutters while saying "when you add a stock to a pistol and and a bigger caliber a bigger caliber gun a bigger caliber bullet comes out of that pistol you get a gun" 💀
I’m an American so I have to say that while I support my republic, some days I yearn for our executive to be a well learned, well spoken gentleman or lady. Trump was an embarrassment who ruined relations we had with other governments we had to rebuild. I’m not actually a monarchist, but I respect how monarchs tend to be well educated and well mannered faces
I dont think America needs monarch instead they should have less powerful government
Which is better, a monarchy or fascism
@@ProfessorDreamer yea, you already said that...
@@ProfessorDreamer who said it required that?
@@wyattwilbourne530 wow a open nationalist. props for that.
@@goese868 how so?
fascism is an Evolution from republics
5:15 does not explore every possibility. Confiscate the estate and DONT privatise it. Profit maximized.
Also it is in question whether their ownership of the estate is well deserved.
Each of the other arguments are faulty as well, but I dont want to write an essay nobody will read.
But if you think about the varying levels of power asserted to a monarch during the arguments you can cover most of them.
I dont have a problem with monarchy, but I have a huge problem with a monarchy ruled by someone other than myself. Thats where the system falls apart for me
That’s that Roman Monarchy lol
@@sethgaston8347Rome was Never a Monarchy
@@hofnarrtheclown
That’s an unreasonably strict definition of monarchy. It had heretical dynasties in which the Emperor would promote his own family as either descendants of the gods or gods directly. That’s essentially a monarchy.
@@sethgaston8347 the Title of Emperor was Basically just a Justification for Supreme Rule and Didn't Focus Much on Christianity.
@@hofnarrtheclown
You don’t need to be Christian to be a Monarch. All Chinese emperors were also monarchs and none of them were Christians. And there were lots of Emperors before Christianity was the official religion of the Empire. That wasn’t a thing until after Constantine.
Thank you for this video - you make some great points (however I believe that democracy is bad for the people and state, so I'd argue for a absolute monarchy)