"Queen of what" is a very good question. A coin issued before 1947 bears the inscription "D:G:BR:OMN:REX F:D:IND:IMP" "by the Grace of God King of all the Britons, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India" Liz's first coinage bore the less prestigious inscription "DEI GRA:BRITT:OMN:REGINA F:D:", "by the Grace of God Queen of all the Britons, Defender of the Faith". Just one year later even "of all the Britons" was removed, leaving just "Defender of the Faith", and then they imposed decimalisation to get all of the old coins out of circulation. We've been left with almost nothing from our historical legacy.
Thinking of the hundreds of thousands of men who gave their blood to defend this institution over the 1000 yrs of its life, no matter the cost. And it dies with a whimper. Such is the way of things ...
Just think of the hundreds of thousands of men more hundreds of thousands of men who gave their blood to defend the USSR, Nazi Germany, to take Alsace Lorraine, to build the Roman Empire, ect. You can say that about allot of things good and bad, it doesn't mean it was worth doing.
@@davegnidaer572 Benefited from the preservation of the USSR? You missed my point, lots of people have died for lots of different causes, some good some bad, saying a bunch of people died doesn't mean they died doing something worthwhile. You can honor people for dying for something they believed in, but that fact alone doesn't mean what they died for was a good thing. Now or then. Note: I'm not commenting on whether the deaths Jagcharan is talking about were worthwhile, just that the deaths alone mean nothing.
@@JohnSmith-zl1tr he “missed” your point bc it was basic b whataboutism. He’s talking about blood spilt for OUR benefit. The benefits that our leaders and monarch are happy to squander away. No one cares about Soviet Revolutionaries lol
@@bronxcartel6193 No I pointed out that his logic wasn't sound. Whataboutism is when something is bad and you try to defend it by pointing out something else is bad. I'm not trying to defend either, I'm pointing out his logic is flawed because it also leads to conclusions he would disagree with. Also, why did you ignore the French that died in WWI to retake Alsace Lorraine or the Roman soldiers that died defending and building the Roman Empire. Further why are you under the impression that the USSR lost no soldiers in WWII? Literally millions died defending it in WWII and given part of the Halocaust was the deaths of millions of soviet citizens and POWs they accomplished something worthwhile(sort of) and I'd definitely say we benefited from Nazi Germany being defeated, doesn't mean the USSR was worth preserving.
As someone from the Republic of Ireland, I've got no emotional attachment to the Monarchy good or bad. However, as a distant observer it's apparent that Queen Elizabeth wasn't as involved in the affairs of the British nation as maybe she should have been.
I think that she's likely far more involved than she pretends to be and the reason for that is that they want to hide from the criticism they might invoke were it to be publicly known.
It comes from 'tradere' (to hand on or over, the word 'trade' is related to it). To teach is 'docere' (hence 'doctor') and to betray is 'prodere', but 'tradere' can be and is often used.
My condolences from America. She might have not been the monarch many in these circles wanted her to be, but it is mournful what happened as someone looking from across the pond.
H M is known as Elizabeth The Useless for a reason.Very interesting, if slightly depressing but much needed stream. Thanks to both of you for all your hard work. Don't know of any one else who discusses the intricacies of modern politics and Monarchy. This is where we are though: We don't know who or what we are as a nation anymore.
Great stream, just found this channel. As a Canadian I struggle with the monarchy. On one hand it ties Canada to a fundamentally European and christian culture, yet at the same time increasingly has seemed to be a force for poz. I dont know, I struggle with this thought. Perhaps Canada has a harder time with the monarchy as it is one thing culturally and politically differentiates us from the United states. It will be an interesting couple years once Her Majesty passes away here.
I make a distinction between a monarchist and a royalist. The former looks at the values and institution. The latter only looks at the current people and personalities. For example, many Brits admire and respect (albeit, wrongly) members of the Royal Family, however they do not think of themselves as monarchists in any meaningful way but are simply liberals/egalitarians. I think we should separate ourselves from the rest using this tactic. It would also allow us to impress the word monarchist with our own ideas and vision. Great stream, love your work.
Thanks. Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, I would argue that the terms here have been inverted and I would simply switch them around. The appellation of monarchist, which is contemporary and common (at least from what I've encountered) has become meaningless through the association with the inanimate institution. To be a monarchist in the Commonwealth is a negative position which really says I'm not a republican. Royalist however in the English context refers to something historically and ideologically tangible - namely the Cavaliers in the Civil War (the supporters of Charles I). In the European context, I draw from the tradition of de Maistre and the Comte d'Artois - the Ultras (ultra royalists) - from which we receive the pertinent aphorism that we all should adopt: "Plus Royaliste que le Roi".
@@ApostolicMajesty I am persuaded by what you said. That aphorism has a dark twin: “democracy is the worst form of Government… except for all those other forms that have been tried” - Churchill I look forward to your next stream on the subject AM. 🤝
@@ApostolicMajesty You single handily have made me stop calling myself a monarchist and I am now going to start calling myself a royalist because what you have just explained make so much more sense than just being a monarchist. I used to use the words interchangeably but now I will make this clear distinction.
Fun fact. Ian Smith remains the only African national leader ever to have actually served in the field with a Communist guerilla movement (which he did when he was shot down in Italy). Rhodesia was the canary in the coal mine. The excuse was at the time that somehow Rhodesia was especially wicked but what the Cathedral did to Rhodesia they are now doing to Britain and the US. The BLM movement in particular is a direct extension of ZANU-PF ideology.
@@davegnidaer572 The only thing more cringe than Neo-Nazism is unironic Jacobitism in 21st century Britain. Their cause died on the banks of the Boyne, and its shambling corpse was finished off at Culloden Moor.
Given how Jacobitism on an intellectual level is one of the few alternatives to the status quo left to us, and that modern political Jacobitism is so niche and inoffensive, I find this hostility baffling.
@@ApostolicMajesty How is simping for the Catholic Church, divine right of kings, and one of the most disastrous dynasties in British history, at all, an alternative to our current woes? Are you a Louis XIV shill or something?
I would love for you, AM, to do a stream or series of stream on Japan 🗾. You seem to know a lot about Japan, I would love for you to share with your listeners.
Reviewing in light of the Jubilee. I’m at a Denny’s in Calgary, just before midnight, and the televisions are set to the CBC broadcasting footage of her majesty’s coronation and early years in anticipation of tomorrow’s jubilee.
This really was a superb presentation; thank you, both. One of the most disheartening moments of the past several years for me was when Québec made the Oath of Allegiance optional for members of its legislature in December of 2022. To see Lieutenant-General J. Michel Doyon sign what amounted to an act of sedition against his sovereign into law, really drove home the defeatism of this dynasty & its officers. I pray for a rejuvenation and restoration.
It always amazed me how an Englishmen could scold an other person of phenomena not only without using obscene lexicon, but only using textbook definitions of the subject.
Thank you very much for this, and all of your work. I appreciate your viewpoint and lectures, as it often puts into words something that I can sort of feel but can never quite manage to articulate.
Excellent video. Love your channel and your content. For me, the growth of an American Catholic tradition based in republicanism as opposed to monarchism is a topic deserving more conversation. I would be very interested to hear your views on the subject given your area of expertise.
Traditional Catholics should support monarchism and hierarchy no matter how compromised the national political context is. America is a propositional liberal nation, as Christians it is our duty to fight such a demonic proposition and all it engenders.
Fantastic stream! Pertinax said: "We came to Australia as part of the Commonwealth and this is a nation that adheres to a monarchy and we have no right to subvert it. Us being republicans is essentially an act of subversion and we don't have the right to do that." I absolutely agree as someone who has immigrant roots. The struggle is when you ask yourself what does it mean for me to be "Plus royaliste que le Roi?" My sense is that we owe a duty to respect traditions - especially those which have been subverted and continue to be degraded with the assistance of immigrants who show no respect for what came before. The problem is that I am not well enough educated to know those traditions and to be able to discern where it would be somewhat impertinent to side with the forces of change or where the forces of change might actually be reversing a relatively recent progressive agenda (an unlikely occurrence). Take the issue of Brexit. Due to a lack of proper education, even an immigrant with a sense of respect whose family arrived in 1998 might have no idea if it would be more subversive to vote for Brexit or against it. Or take the Scottish independence referendum. Would it be more subversive for an immigrant to vote for or against the Union? I have a view on both these matters but should I simply refrain from voting (setting aside the issue of where we should withdraw from democratic participation in general)? The problem then becomes that most immigrants don't have this sense of respect and aversion to subversion - so to abstain from certain issues is to empower the democratic forces of subversion. The dark shadow of this is when I talk to people with immigrant backgrounds and they express disgust at someone like Priti Patel for even giving lip service to reduced immigration. These immigrants say that people like Priti Patel benefited from immigration and now she wants to remove the opportunity from others. Yes! Why shouldn't she? The people who say this clearly think it is acceptable to have an allegiance to "immigrants" and to subvert the native people. They are disgusted by someone like Priti Patel whereas, if she lived up to her word on immigration, I would consider her attitude to be about the best you can hope for in an immigrant. It seems the more common view is the subversive one. It's despicable. So many problem have been created by immigration and it disgusts me that most immigrants or descendants of immigrants don't have the basic decency to even think about such things let alone respect the people of the nations to which they immigrated.
I wonder now that Queen Elizabeth has passed on, will our new King Charles be more active in his duties and restore the monarchy, or destroy it further ? Charles is due to have his Coronation in May, and a letter has been sent to the Duke of Norfolk who arranges the Coronation to remind him of the Kings duties to protect his subjects from Governmental extremes. I hope Charles takes notice and truly obeys his solemn oath by fulfilling his obligations in full to his subjects.
AA is off his rocker on Twitter. He's not thinking right. He's allowing the emotion of the moment (all promoted by the MSM) to cloud his judgment. Elizabeth II was not a friend of our side, she was a hostile elite.
Little thing about japans way of governing. I was reading a Book called The Enigma of Japanese Power. In effect because of Japans isolation on the periphery of Asia to an extent far greater then Britain. The Japanese state has never really needed to centralized as much as the realms on the isles have. Which in turn allowed for more decentralized ways of doing things. You also had the concept of these emperors and monarchs being these Holy emissaries which delegated power to councilors or the Shoguns which ruled in their stead. There were other bits such as the influence of the shinto faith. Or rather the more subdued manner the faith acts. Even during the times of the Meiji where they started the process of building the empire you still have these ideas within the culture showing up in how the empire was never a centralized state like the French or the German ones around these times. Constant clashes of government institutions off all kinds not just the military in the lead up to ww2. And even after once the US came in they actually made the situation slide further in that direction because now the major need for a more centralized state ie War. was gone with the US as its guardian. Essentially. Japan kind of has and still does act well in line with Mr.Agents idea of the network as a whole country. I apologize if this comes across as a mess. Its a very short summarization of dozens of pages of information all to fit in a youtube post..
Excellent book on Japan, probably the best single read on the subject. Van Wolefren took notes as his girlfriend told me which end was up and ended up with the best journalistic account to date. Caused quite a bit of a splash in Japan itself, which is unusual, and he was a celebrity for a time here. Hard to know where to go after that, I'd recommend James McMullen's The Worship of Confucius in Japan, published last year as Harvard East Asian Monograph, as it details the rivalry between the court (or the crown) and the hereditary military junta, the bakufu. The power dynamics there are often misrepresented in popular accounts or primers. Yes, I too am often struck by the similarities to AA's nostalgic nostrums reifying monarchy that Japan seems to present. Of course, when you dig beneath the surface, the glossy surface soon yields to a hideous reality which makes evident the quality these clear and simple solutions often obscure (that they are wrong).
Elizabeth the Worst. Truly the most devastating monarch for Britain and the Native British. Makes King John look like a paragon of competency and statecraft
King John was far worse, Elizabeth has been a good monarch for our modern times. People don’t want an all powerful monarch. This guy criticises the monarchy but the reason it is weak is because that’s what the people want.
@@Valencetheshireman927 Absolutely incorrect on all points. At least Magna Carta came out of John's reign, we just have Magna Negro in every city in this country and the systematic extermination of it's native population. You're an absolute fool, have you asked anyone in the street if they want a "weak monarch"? They don't even know what they want for lunch
King John lost Normandy and King Edward VII laid groundwork for WW1 and strengthened parliament as well as being personally revolting. Elizabeth was a typical Windsor, a soldier queen, acting to duty rather than her obligations, becoming a mascot rather than a monarch. King Charles III is likely to be worse though we may pray for it not to be.
@@vorynrosethorn903 "A soldier queen"? She lost the entire Empire and oversaw the invasion of her own country. She has been a curse on my nation and poured poison on my people. I agree though about Charles, if Elizabeth cut England off at the legs, Charles may put the sword through England's neck.
Very interesting thank you. I have begun thinking about such things as I watched Charles ascend the throne with his former mistress by his side, whose husband is still living, after Elizabeth has denied Margaret such a privilege, and David was run out of town over similar issues. Is an irrelevant monarchy better than no monarchy?
Seriously though, if we are to become a republics then we can do a lot worse than model ourselves on the conservative rebellious republics of Rhodesia and Fiji. This breaks my heart as someone who has sworn allegience to QEII three seperate times (including the Army) But if Smithy and Colonel Rabuka were forced by duty to act or see their countries destroyed then so must we.
Only 13 minutes in and Marcus brings up that the Windsors are the final residue of Traditional regality. I’ve recently been reading Lord of the Rings and watching the movies, Aragorn is finally coronated and takes up his role as King of Gondor earning the right to do so through the story. He is himself a residue of a line of men with elven blood. On top of the coronation is the marriage to Arwen of which we know they will have a son, and so the physical line of the King is reinvigorated with elven blood. The white tree of Gondor, the tree of life blossoms. The analogy speaks strongly to the weakness that our monarchy now faces, with the next in line Charles wanting to become Defender of faiths... one can only hope that William, aware of the rot ensures that George is educated in the Traditional way. But I do not hold out hope as William has himself been rather vocal lately on the issues... they must surely see that the fate of their family will be akin to the Romanovs?
What is the point? Ceremonial figure rather than a political one. I’d recommend watching the crown to see what the queen actually does. She helps advice the prime minister, behaves as a unifying figurehead and cultural ambassador for the nation.
I just don't think it's going to work if it doesn't maintain the homogeneity of the people as we're seeing the West right now, ethnic nationalism might be the cure.
I think we’ll probably get an updated stream after the coronation. AM probably wants to wait and see what the coronation will be like in order to make a proper and fair assessment of what this new reign might be like.
This well presented vid could not be anything but a wake . How does an Englishman relate to a distant stepmum ? Indeed , as you say , depressively sad + bad , the situation .
I’m only 43 minutes in and am beginning to wonder if the Queen has been blackmailed at best or criminally-incompetent or actually criminal at worst. Is there one instance wherein she actually discharged her duties in a bold manner?
@@rotergeist9509 @Roter Geist has the right of it. Her entire family is anti-Native British and has varying degrees of involvement with predatory pedophilia. Truly a vile collection of nation wreckers
@no name Puts us in an unenviable position though. I now find myself actually coming around to the notion that these office holders are indeed Traitors.
Re: Cameroon being part of the British Commonwealth -- that's because part of present-day Cameroon was previously part of British West Africa (until 1961).
Interesting, just reading about it now. I still find it odd that one could justify Commonwealth membership based on the tiny land percentage that Southern British Cameroons constitutes out of the entire country - The same logic would apply if China wanted to join the Commonwealth due to our former concessions.
@@ApostolicMajesty The region represents about 3 million out of 30 million persons, apparently. Also, I remember a conversation I had with a couple of Cameroonian guys some years ago, in which they volunteered, "We wish our country had been under British rule." If that attitude is common in the country, that could be another factor.
Have you ever heard the prank call made to the Queen by someone pretending to be Jean Chretien during the Quebec referendum? She's asked to intervene and make a statement in support of Canadian unity. She immediately puts down the phone and asks someone advising her "Oh... what should I say to him?", and she then asks him to fax her a text of what he wants her to say, saying she'd "be happy to help in any way that I can".
well, we need the repealing of statute of Westminster. I don't think Blair could have abolished the Monarchy. He was too unpopular, even then. We need to repeal anything he did
It´s not just theatre. Modern monarchs represent the sphere between real politics and God, the honour and the glory-that´s all good-so, then normal politicians can focus on their job and how to serve the people in that sense of power and they can relax about the fancy outfits
Which sources could one turn to to gain a greater understanding of the history and function of the British constitution and the role of monarchy in it; And of how that legacy has been, and continues to be, trampled upon?
section 61 of Australian constitution " Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor General " 1901 constitution that can only change with referendum. That was the section Sir John Kerr used to decommission Whitlam and the matter settled by referendum. Kerr really couldn't move, as the tories held the money bills in the senate, and the country couldn't move, so constitutionally, the GG is the trigger Whitlam " have you informed Her Majesty " Sir John " I don't have to " Kerr's constitutional duty was clear
Maybe you will cover this, but one has to wonder what is the remedy in law to address a violation of the coronation oath? Who would even have the power? I guess only the archbish’ of the CoE?
Ironically the ancient institutions of the land, the church, and even opposition in the royal family would be the remedy if we had a functioning monarchy. My point is that all said institutions have long abandoned the notion that the monarchy is a serious institution beholden to any principles (let alone Christian ones). The Queen rather than fight that tide as opted for capitulation. Our Queen is a progressive ally, duping moronic biscuit tin conservatives.
I'm a totally clueless about royal ways so I'm wondering if anyone can answer this here. If:)/When the queen dies is that the end of the Windsor/saxe-coburg gotha dynasty and the start of the Mountbatten line and name?
Cosmetically the Royal house will remain the House of Windsor after Elizabeth's death. From a real dynastic perspective, Elizabeth II will be the last Queen of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Charles will be the first of the British Branch of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (Phillip adopted the name Mountbatten).
They will remain under the Windsor name. They had a big discussion and it was contested in the start of her reign and they said the dynasty would remain Windsor. So if we want to see a new dynasty name that could be if in some future the oldest child of George is a daughter. And after that potential daughter then the dynasty will have name of the potential husband's family, and anyway all of us here would likely be dead by then. As far as I understand it.
At 2:06:50 you start talking about Grenada and the US invasion of 1983, and how this is another failing of the Queen and proves there is no benefit in having her as head of state. God if you don’t have any idea about a situation, please don’t speak about it. I am myself half Grenadian, my father lived through the revolution and invasion, and my uncle was a minister in the revolutionary government. Throughout the 1979-1983 revolutionary period, the only continuous institution in the country remained the monarchy and the Governor-General, Sir Paul Scoon. Sir Paul was the man who, as the queen’s representative, requested and invited the US to invade the country in 1983, after the socialist government of Maurice Bishop was overthrown in a coup by Leninist army officers. After the invasion, it was the Governor-General who, after personal consultations with the Queen, appointed according to his own judgement, an interim government ahead of parliamentary elections the next year. The monarchy was key to both legalising and legitimising the invasion and the removal of an insane, murderous military junta, and was also key to the establishment of a legal and stable government after the invasion which lead the transition back to democracy.
I'll be the first one to admit that I'm very ambitious with the scope of my subject matter and due to that increased scope I am far more susceptible to error. My understanding was that despite having the Queen as head of State, Grenada fell to a Leninist coup which precipitated a US invasion contingent on US interests without consulting the Queen prior - and my point was predicated on that understanding. I'm more than happy to be corrected when I delve into areas in which I am by no means an authority - but that doesn't mean I'll stop exploring for fear of making a mistake.
@@ApostolicMajesty Her Majesty personally was not consulted before the invasion, due to the rapidly changing situation, and in fairness American arrogance. However, the invasion was conducted with the full blessing and invitation of the Governor-General who is, constitutionally, vested with all powers and prerogatives of the crown and as such is empowered to fully act on behalf of the monarch
She lost me when she allowed the priesting of women in the CofE. A betrayal of the faith. Unfortunately a precedent had been set wherein queens could be Defenders of the Faith. That should have been reserved for the highest-ranking royal male.
I think the problem is that if she did anything political that would be taken by the media and used to damage her reputation either among Conservatives or socialists so she is unable painful as it is to step out of line for fear of offending the elite/people she disagrees with.
The Queen is also the 'Duke' of Lancaster, and Charles earns a substantial revenue through the Duchy of Cornwall - Our gripes were with the attack on Sovereign immunity through egalitarian tokenism.
@@ApostolicMajesty I understood your point about paying tax and receiving the Civil List fund being rather circular. But compared to those private revenues the Civil List isn't much money.
I don’t think we need to go to that extreme but I think the way we’re going somethings going to give, we need to reform the system and remove the fools from it.
Just to counter the lies told about Charles III at the end, I just watched the interview a couple days ago. In it Charles makes a Catholic argument against Henry the 8th and the creation of the Church of England, he then goes on to say 'I want to be a defender of faith', not faiths. Then he goes onto say he is a seeker in his life and he finds value in many different religions, and he says faith is lacking in the modern world. Stop all this media Americanist based Farageisms about the King of England, support his right to the throne and stop complaining about him having views and opinions of his own like an adult human, unlike the useless idiots we have gaining with the Germans on the throne. God Save The King!! And Nigel Farage is nothing but a money changing foreign middle spiv, who refuses to take power when it is within his grasp. He has no right to tell the King to shut up.
@@daqt6079 Well I doubt it will be long before we find out. Let's hope he proves us wrong, or at least tries. I sense he will have a mighty struggle if he doesn't want to be the compliant 'hip' Monarch. His Coronation oath could be a revelation.
@@daqt6079 He is the King of England, he is part of the elite, he is a globalism. OMG what a shock, who knew, wow what are new take you have. There are dozens of Aristocratic families who aren't globalist, aren't part of the elite, yet do any of us support them or their power within England? Or do we just whine about how we are under the elite, if we are, we need to give power to people who would do battle on our behalf against the other elites. I agree about his mother.
If you enjoyed this video, please like and leave a comment. It helps the channel a lot. Many thanks.
Aussie got the Ashes now.
"Queen of what" is a very good question.
A coin issued before 1947 bears the inscription "D:G:BR:OMN:REX F:D:IND:IMP"
"by the Grace of God King of all the Britons, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India"
Liz's first coinage bore the less prestigious inscription "DEI GRA:BRITT:OMN:REGINA F:D:", "by the Grace of God Queen of all the Britons, Defender of the Faith". Just one year later even "of all the Britons" was removed, leaving just "Defender of the Faith", and then they imposed decimalisation to get all of the old coins out of circulation.
We've been left with almost nothing from our historical legacy.
And Charles III didn't even put his name in Latin on his own coinage.
Thinking of the hundreds of thousands of men who gave their blood to defend this institution over the 1000 yrs of its life, no matter the cost. And it dies with a whimper. Such is the way of things ...
Just think of the hundreds of thousands of men more hundreds of thousands of men who gave their blood to defend the USSR, Nazi Germany, to take Alsace Lorraine, to build the Roman Empire, ect.
You can say that about allot of things good and bad, it doesn't mean it was worth doing.
@@JohnSmith-zl1tr no but it means there's loyalty owed to the dead, by the living who have benefitted.
@@davegnidaer572 Benefited from the preservation of the USSR? You missed my point, lots of people have died for lots of different causes, some good some bad, saying a bunch of people died doesn't mean they died doing something worthwhile. You can honor people for dying for something they believed in, but that fact alone doesn't mean what they died for was a good thing. Now or then.
Note: I'm not commenting on whether the deaths Jagcharan is talking about were worthwhile, just that the deaths alone mean nothing.
@@JohnSmith-zl1tr he “missed” your point bc it was basic b whataboutism. He’s talking about blood spilt for OUR benefit. The benefits that our leaders and monarch are happy to squander away. No one cares about Soviet Revolutionaries lol
@@bronxcartel6193 No I pointed out that his logic wasn't sound. Whataboutism is when something is bad and you try to defend it by pointing out something else is bad. I'm not trying to defend either, I'm pointing out his logic is flawed because it also leads to conclusions he would disagree with. Also, why did you ignore the French that died in WWI to retake Alsace Lorraine or the Roman soldiers that died defending and building the Roman Empire. Further why are you under the impression that the USSR lost no soldiers in WWII? Literally millions died defending it in WWII and given part of the Halocaust was the deaths of millions of soviet citizens and POWs they accomplished something worthwhile(sort of) and I'd definitely say we benefited from Nazi Germany being defeated, doesn't mean the USSR was worth preserving.
As someone from the Republic of Ireland, I've got no emotional attachment to the Monarchy good or bad. However, as a distant observer it's apparent that Queen Elizabeth wasn't as involved in the affairs of the British nation as maybe she should have been.
I think that she's likely far more involved than she pretends to be and the reason for that is that they want to hide from the criticism they might invoke were it to be publicly known.
The great irony of tradition is that it comes from the Latin verb "to teach", yet it is a cognate with the verb "to betray".
It comes from 'tradere' (to hand on or over, the word 'trade' is related to it). To teach is 'docere' (hence 'doctor') and to betray is 'prodere', but 'tradere' can be and is often used.
My condolences from America. She might have not been the monarch many in these circles wanted her to be, but it is mournful what happened as someone looking from across the pond.
Gonna need a follow up stream now, lol.
It's a odd sort of Eulogy, but this is where I returned after learning of her death.
Me too! Glad I am not alone in turning to this stream upon hearing the news.
Same here.
H M is known as Elizabeth The Useless for a reason.Very interesting, if slightly depressing but much needed stream. Thanks to both of you for all your hard work. Don't know of any one else who discusses the intricacies of modern politics and Monarchy. This is where we are though: We don't know who or what we are as a nation anymore.
I have never heard her been called that before. No one knows her as that or calls her that
@@nazberg445 I've not heard it either, but it's quite accurate...maybe add dangerous.. dangerously useless..
I believe the 'useless' was expressed by Sean Gabb.@@nazberg445
Great stream, just found this channel.
As a Canadian I struggle with the monarchy. On one hand it ties Canada to a fundamentally European and christian culture, yet at the same time increasingly has seemed to be a force for poz. I dont know, I struggle with this thought. Perhaps Canada has a harder time with the monarchy as it is one thing culturally and politically differentiates us from the United states.
It will be an interesting couple years once Her Majesty passes away here.
It's a good time to rewatch this episode
Interesting how the British Empire is book ended with two Elizabeths.
Sorta how the Spanish Empire started with Isabella I(which is Spanish for Elisabeth) and ended with Isabella II.
Echoes and rhymes.
"It's like poetry, it rhymes"
- George Lucas
My favourite one is romulaus the first king and last emporer of rome
Wyrd
I make a distinction between a monarchist and a royalist.
The former looks at the values and institution. The latter only looks at the current people and personalities.
For example, many Brits admire and respect (albeit, wrongly) members of the Royal Family, however they do not think of themselves as monarchists in any meaningful way but are simply liberals/egalitarians.
I think we should separate ourselves from the rest using this tactic. It would also allow us to impress the word monarchist with our own ideas and vision.
Great stream, love your work.
Thanks. Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, I would argue that the terms here have been inverted and I would simply switch them around. The appellation of monarchist, which is contemporary and common (at least from what I've encountered) has become meaningless through the association with the inanimate institution. To be a monarchist in the Commonwealth is a negative position which really says I'm not a republican. Royalist however in the English context refers to something historically and ideologically tangible - namely the Cavaliers in the Civil War (the supporters of Charles I). In the European context, I draw from the tradition of de Maistre and the Comte d'Artois - the Ultras (ultra royalists) - from which we receive the pertinent aphorism that we all should adopt: "Plus Royaliste que le Roi".
@@ApostolicMajesty I am persuaded by what you said.
That aphorism has a dark twin: “democracy is the worst form of Government… except for all those other forms that have been tried” - Churchill
I look forward to your next stream on the subject AM. 🤝
@@ApostolicMajesty You single handily have made me stop calling myself a monarchist and I am now going to start calling myself a royalist because what you have just explained make so much more sense than just being a monarchist. I used to use the words interchangeably but now I will make this clear distinction.
I am a proud monarchist but when I look at the state of our modern monarchy and our country as a whole, I can only mourn.
Fun fact. Ian Smith remains the only African national leader ever to have actually served in the field with a Communist guerilla movement (which he did when he was shot down in Italy). Rhodesia was the canary in the coal mine. The excuse was at the time that somehow Rhodesia was especially wicked but what the Cathedral did to Rhodesia they are now doing to Britain and the US. The BLM movement in particular is a direct extension of ZANU-PF ideology.
Such is the fate of usurpers and liars.. Stuart restoration needed ASAP.
Thanks for the stream, gentlemen. Cheers!
Na. Richard III was the last true King of the English.
Stuarts?! They were awful!
@@davegnidaer572
The only thing more cringe than Neo-Nazism is unironic Jacobitism in 21st century Britain. Their cause died on the banks of the Boyne, and its shambling corpse was finished off at Culloden Moor.
Given how Jacobitism on an intellectual level is one of the few alternatives to the status quo left to us, and that modern political Jacobitism is so niche and inoffensive, I find this hostility baffling.
@@ApostolicMajesty
How is simping for the Catholic Church, divine right of kings, and one of the most disastrous dynasties in British history, at all, an alternative to our current woes? Are you a Louis XIV shill or something?
I would love for you, AM, to do a stream or series of stream on Japan 🗾. You seem to know a lot about Japan, I would love for you to share with your listeners.
This was instantly a top stream.
Only half an hour in and I'm so depressed. Excellent work AM & Furius; this angle of analysis can't be found elsewhere!
Thanks for such a great stream. Constitutional history gets me in every time.
Very informative. You've given me a banquet of much needed meat, to bolster my arguments, which were vague at best. Subscribed.
I grew up admiring her, it's so sad.
Reviewing in light of the Jubilee. I’m at a Denny’s in Calgary, just before midnight, and the televisions are set to the CBC broadcasting footage of her majesty’s coronation and early years in anticipation of tomorrow’s jubilee.
1997 - reign of Anthony I
Brilliant stream, I thank you.
This really was a superb presentation; thank you, both. One of the most disheartening moments of the past several years for me was when Québec made the Oath of Allegiance optional for members of its legislature in December of 2022. To see Lieutenant-General J. Michel Doyon sign what amounted to an act of sedition against his sovereign into law, really drove home the defeatism of this dynasty & its officers. I pray for a rejuvenation and restoration.
Makes you wonder what would have happened if Edward got in
Oh Rhodesia poor poor Rhodesia
It always amazed me how an Englishmen could scold an other person of phenomena not only without using obscene lexicon, but only using textbook definitions of the subject.
Really excellent work, thanks
HEAR! HEAR! Finally some top-tier Alpha 10 deep takes. Thank you, Sirs 🙏
Seconded, good sir!
Thank you very much for this, and all of your work. I appreciate your viewpoint and lectures, as it often puts into words something that I can sort of feel but can never quite manage to articulate.
I think this video should be required viewing for the CANZUK advocates.
How do you mean?
Canzuk is a good idea so what do you mean?
@@Valencetheshireman927I an absurd ideal but judging by your other comments it doesn't surprise me at all you would think thatv
@@tommyhill7645 I don’t think closer economic ties with countries that are culturally similar to us is a bad thing but ok you do you
The irony is that Charles is probably just as likely to have a Shinto investiture as a CofE one…
Thank YOU for all of this amazing material‼️
Excellent video. Love your channel and your content. For me, the growth of an American Catholic tradition based in republicanism as opposed to monarchism is a topic deserving more conversation. I would be very interested to hear your views on the subject given your area of expertise.
Republicanism isn't capable of truly being traditional because it in and of itself is a rebuking of the monarchical, Godly order
Traditional Catholics should support monarchism and hierarchy no matter how compromised the national political context is. America is a propositional liberal nation, as Christians it is our duty to fight such a demonic proposition and all it engenders.
Fantastic stream! Pertinax said: "We came to Australia as part of the Commonwealth and this is a nation that adheres to a monarchy and we have no right to subvert it. Us being republicans is essentially an act of subversion and we don't have the right to do that." I absolutely agree as someone who has immigrant roots.
The struggle is when you ask yourself what does it mean for me to be "Plus royaliste que le Roi?" My sense is that we owe a duty to respect traditions - especially those which have been subverted and continue to be degraded with the assistance of immigrants who show no respect for what came before. The problem is that I am not well enough educated to know those traditions and to be able to discern where it would be somewhat impertinent to side with the forces of change or where the forces of change might actually be reversing a relatively recent progressive agenda (an unlikely occurrence).
Take the issue of Brexit. Due to a lack of proper education, even an immigrant with a sense of respect whose family arrived in 1998 might have no idea if it would be more subversive to vote for Brexit or against it. Or take the Scottish independence referendum. Would it be more subversive for an immigrant to vote for or against the Union? I have a view on both these matters but should I simply refrain from voting (setting aside the issue of where we should withdraw from democratic participation in general)? The problem then becomes that most immigrants don't have this sense of respect and aversion to subversion - so to abstain from certain issues is to empower the democratic forces of subversion.
The dark shadow of this is when I talk to people with immigrant backgrounds and they express disgust at someone like Priti Patel for even giving lip service to reduced immigration. These immigrants say that people like Priti Patel benefited from immigration and now she wants to remove the opportunity from others. Yes! Why shouldn't she? The people who say this clearly think it is acceptable to have an allegiance to "immigrants" and to subvert the native people. They are disgusted by someone like Priti Patel whereas, if she lived up to her word on immigration, I would consider her attitude to be about the best you can hope for in an immigrant. It seems the more common view is the subversive one. It's despicable.
So many problem have been created by immigration and it disgusts me that most immigrants or descendants of immigrants don't have the basic decency to even think about such things let alone respect the people of the nations to which they immigrated.
The Queen who kept 'er gob shut.
I wonder now that Queen Elizabeth has passed on, will our new King Charles be more active in his duties and restore the monarchy, or destroy it further ? Charles is due to have his Coronation in May, and a letter has been sent to the Duke of Norfolk who arranges the Coronation to remind him of the Kings duties to protect his subjects from Governmental extremes. I hope Charles takes notice and truly obeys his solemn oath by fulfilling his obligations in full to his subjects.
If he follows his mommy's lead, he will preside over a kingdom of foreigners and ash.
Don't let AA see this lol
AA is off his rocker on Twitter. He's not thinking right. He's allowing the emotion of the moment (all promoted by the MSM) to cloud his judgment.
Elizabeth II was not a friend of our side, she was a hostile elite.
Little thing about japans way of governing. I was reading a Book called The Enigma of Japanese Power.
In effect because of Japans isolation on the periphery of Asia to an extent far greater then Britain. The Japanese state has never really needed to centralized as much as the realms on the isles have. Which in turn allowed for more decentralized ways of doing things. You also had the concept of these emperors and monarchs being these Holy emissaries which delegated power to councilors or the Shoguns which ruled in their stead.
There were other bits such as the influence of the shinto faith. Or rather the more subdued manner the faith acts. Even during the times of the Meiji where they started the process of building the empire you still have these ideas within the culture showing up in how the empire was never a centralized state like the French or the German ones around these times. Constant clashes of government institutions off all kinds not just the military in the lead up to ww2. And even after once the US came in they actually made the situation slide further in that direction because now the major need for a more centralized state ie War. was gone with the US as its guardian.
Essentially. Japan kind of has and still does act well in line with Mr.Agents idea of the network as a whole country.
I apologize if this comes across as a mess. Its a very short summarization of dozens of pages of information all to fit in a youtube post..
Isolation allows for decentralization - applies to early America too
Excellent book on Japan, probably the best single read on the subject. Van Wolefren took notes as his girlfriend told me which end was up and ended up with the best journalistic account to date. Caused quite a bit of a splash in Japan itself, which is unusual, and he was a celebrity for a time here. Hard to know where to go after that, I'd recommend James McMullen's The Worship of Confucius in Japan, published last year as Harvard East Asian Monograph, as it details the rivalry between the court (or the crown) and the hereditary military junta, the bakufu. The power dynamics there are often misrepresented in popular accounts or primers.
Yes, I too am often struck by the similarities to AA's nostalgic nostrums reifying monarchy that Japan seems to present. Of course, when you dig beneath the surface, the glossy surface soon yields to a hideous reality which makes evident the quality these clear and simple solutions often obscure (that they are wrong).
Great stream cheers guys.
Elizabeth the Worst. Truly the most devastating monarch for Britain and the Native British. Makes King John look like a paragon of competency and statecraft
King John was far worse, Elizabeth has been a good monarch for our modern times. People don’t want an all powerful monarch. This guy criticises the monarchy but the reason it is weak is because that’s what the people want.
@@Valencetheshireman927 Absolutely incorrect on all points. At least Magna Carta came out of John's reign, we just have Magna Negro in every city in this country and the systematic extermination of it's native population. You're an absolute fool, have you asked anyone in the street if they want a "weak monarch"? They don't even know what they want for lunch
@@Valencetheshireman927 the people are retarded. Their opinion counts for little
King John lost Normandy and King Edward VII laid groundwork for WW1 and strengthened parliament as well as being personally revolting. Elizabeth was a typical Windsor, a soldier queen, acting to duty rather than her obligations, becoming a mascot rather than a monarch. King Charles III is likely to be worse though we may pray for it not to be.
@@vorynrosethorn903 "A soldier queen"? She lost the entire Empire and oversaw the invasion of her own country. She has been a curse on my nation and poured poison on my people. I agree though about Charles, if Elizabeth cut England off at the legs, Charles may put the sword through England's neck.
I really enjoyed this one guys !!!
Very interesting thank you. I have begun thinking about such things as I watched Charles ascend the throne with his former mistress by his side, whose husband is still living, after Elizabeth has denied Margaret such a privilege, and David was run out of town over similar issues. Is an irrelevant monarchy better than no monarchy?
Seriously though, if we are to become a republics then we can do a lot worse than model ourselves on the conservative rebellious republics of Rhodesia and Fiji. This breaks my heart as someone who has sworn allegience to QEII three seperate times (including the Army) But if Smithy and Colonel Rabuka were forced by duty to act or see their countries destroyed then so must we.
excellent stream
Only 13 minutes in and Marcus brings up that the Windsors are the final residue of Traditional regality.
I’ve recently been reading Lord of the Rings and watching the movies, Aragorn is finally coronated and takes up his role as King of Gondor earning the right to do so through the story. He is himself a residue of a line of men with elven blood. On top of the coronation is the marriage to Arwen of which we know they will have a son, and so the physical line of the King is reinvigorated with elven blood. The white tree of Gondor, the tree of life blossoms.
The analogy speaks strongly to the weakness that our monarchy now faces, with the next in line Charles wanting to become Defender of faiths... one can only hope that William, aware of the rot ensures that George is educated in the Traditional way. But I do not hold out hope as William has himself been rather vocal lately on the issues... they must surely see that the fate of their family will be akin to the Romanovs?
The current British Monarchy is not the residue of anything except sewage water.
@@Laotzu.Goldbug There’s always hope, even if it’s a fools hope.
William is on record as vomiting out anti-White trash propaganda, he is as bad as Harry. CLEAR THEM OUT
What is the point of a powerless monarchy. Just utterly bizarre.
What is the point? Ceremonial figure rather than a political one.
I’d recommend watching the crown to see what the queen actually does. She helps advice the prime minister, behaves as a unifying figurehead and cultural ambassador for the nation.
Moldbug makes a good case for restoring the Stuarts, but I think it may have been a rhetorical device. Good stream, gents.
I just don't think it's going to work if it doesn't maintain the homogeneity of the people as we're seeing the West right now, ethnic nationalism might be the cure.
where Blair is concerned "War criminals need hanging not a public platform"
I think we’ll probably get an updated stream after the coronation. AM probably wants to wait and see what the coronation will be like in order to make a proper and fair assessment of what this new reign might be like.
This well presented vid could not be anything but a wake .
How does an Englishman relate to a distant stepmum ?
Indeed , as you say , depressively sad + bad , the situation .
If a Stuart is put on the throne again someday. Can you please liberate Dixie from this Progressive/Puritan empire we are living under? lol
As we see when the Heroic is cut out of society, we're left with the mundane, grasping dregs.
Even one year ago the Queen herself had not been subject to my suspicion.
I’m only 43 minutes in and am beginning to wonder if the Queen has been blackmailed at best or criminally-incompetent or actually criminal at worst. Is there one instance wherein she actually discharged her duties in a bold manner?
You seem to think that this woman isn’t doing exactly what she wants to do..., replacing her subjects with those more useful for her agenda
@@rotergeist9509 @Roter Geist has the right of it. Her entire family is anti-Native British and has varying degrees of involvement with predatory pedophilia. Truly a vile collection of nation wreckers
@no name
Puts us in an unenviable position though.
I now find myself actually coming around to the notion that these office holders are indeed Traitors.
@@rotergeist9509 That was a consideration as well.
@@NoName-lo9ym Indeed.
Re: Cameroon being part of the British Commonwealth -- that's because part of present-day Cameroon was previously part of British West Africa (until 1961).
Interesting, just reading about it now. I still find it odd that one could justify Commonwealth membership based on the tiny land percentage that Southern British Cameroons constitutes out of the entire country - The same logic would apply if China wanted to join the Commonwealth due to our former concessions.
@@ApostolicMajesty The region represents about 3 million out of 30 million persons, apparently. Also, I remember a conversation I had with a couple of Cameroonian guys some years ago, in which they volunteered, "We wish our country had been under British rule." If that attitude is common in the country, that could be another factor.
Return to Monarchy.
a great show
Amazing stream…. Rip the crown.
AM Do you have a vide on the British Empire and its relationship to the Church/Theology?
7:56 great sum up..
And sorry for being a fan boy , but , your presentations are very good .. thank you.
Great stream
Have you ever heard the prank call made to the Queen by someone pretending to be Jean Chretien during the Quebec referendum? She's asked to intervene and make a statement in support of Canadian unity. She immediately puts down the phone and asks someone advising her "Oh... what should I say to him?", and she then asks him to fax her a text of what he wants her to say, saying she'd "be happy to help in any way that I can".
well, we need the repealing of statute of Westminster. I don't think Blair could have abolished the Monarchy. He was too unpopular, even then. We need to repeal anything he did
Bravo.
God save this Stream.
And it's based regime.
It´s not just theatre. Modern monarchs represent the sphere between real politics and God, the honour and the glory-that´s all good-so, then normal politicians can focus on their job and how to serve the people in that sense of power and they can relax about the fancy outfits
The end of an age...
I’ve been catching up on AM’s content and I’ve really changed my opinion on the house of Windsor. Stewards of inevitable egalitarianism
Which sources could one turn to to gain a greater understanding of the history and function of the British constitution and the role of monarchy in it; And of how that legacy has been, and continues to be, trampled upon?
section 61 of Australian constitution " Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor General " 1901 constitution that can only change with referendum. That was the section Sir John Kerr used to decommission Whitlam and the matter settled by referendum. Kerr really couldn't move, as the tories held the money bills in the senate, and the country couldn't move, so constitutionally, the GG is the trigger
Whitlam " have you informed Her Majesty " Sir John " I don't have to " Kerr's constitutional duty was clear
Are these streams available in a podcast or mp3 format?
You can download youtube videos as MP3s. There are numerous sites that will do this for free. Just google "youtube to mp3" or something like that.
Maybe you will cover this, but one has to wonder what is the remedy in law to address a violation of the coronation oath? Who would even have the power? I guess only the archbish’ of the CoE?
Ironically the ancient institutions of the land, the church, and even opposition in the royal family would be the remedy if we had a functioning monarchy. My point is that all said institutions have long abandoned the notion that the monarchy is a serious institution beholden to any principles (let alone Christian ones). The Queen rather than fight that tide as opted for capitulation. Our Queen is a progressive ally, duping moronic biscuit tin conservatives.
Oh, she's a conduit alright.
A government under a monarchy under God is the best and natural law for humanity, a key to world peace for all sovereign ethnic groups ❤️🙏
I'm a totally clueless about royal ways so I'm wondering if anyone can answer this here. If:)/When the queen dies is that the end of the Windsor/saxe-coburg gotha dynasty and the start of the Mountbatten line and name?
Cosmetically the Royal house will remain the House of Windsor after Elizabeth's death. From a real dynastic perspective, Elizabeth II will be the last Queen of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Charles will be the first of the British Branch of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (Phillip adopted the name Mountbatten).
They will remain under the Windsor name. They had a big discussion and it was contested in the start of her reign and they said the dynasty would remain Windsor. So if we want to see a new dynasty name that could be if in some future the oldest child of George is a daughter. And after that potential daughter then the dynasty will have name of the potential husband's family, and anyway all of us here would likely be dead by then.
As far as I understand it.
The Modern Monarchist
At 2:06:50 you start talking about Grenada and the US invasion of 1983, and how this is another failing of the Queen and proves there is no benefit in having her as head of state. God if you don’t have any idea about a situation, please don’t speak about it. I am myself half Grenadian, my father lived through the revolution and invasion, and my uncle was a minister in the revolutionary government. Throughout the 1979-1983 revolutionary period, the only continuous institution in the country remained the monarchy and the Governor-General, Sir Paul Scoon. Sir Paul was the man who, as the queen’s representative, requested and invited the US to invade the country in 1983, after the socialist government of Maurice Bishop was overthrown in a coup by Leninist army officers. After the invasion, it was the Governor-General who, after personal consultations with the Queen, appointed according to his own judgement, an interim government ahead of parliamentary elections the next year. The monarchy was key to both legalising and legitimising the invasion and the removal of an insane, murderous military junta, and was also key to the establishment of a legal and stable government after the invasion which lead the transition back to democracy.
I'll be the first one to admit that I'm very ambitious with the scope of my subject matter and due to that increased scope I am far more susceptible to error. My understanding was that despite having the Queen as head of State, Grenada fell to a Leninist coup which precipitated a US invasion contingent on US interests without consulting the Queen prior - and my point was predicated on that understanding. I'm more than happy to be corrected when I delve into areas in which I am by no means an authority - but that doesn't mean I'll stop exploring for fear of making a mistake.
@@ApostolicMajesty Her Majesty personally was not consulted before the invasion, due to the rapidly changing situation, and in fairness American arrogance. However, the invasion was conducted with the full blessing and invitation of the Governor-General who is, constitutionally, vested with all powers and prerogatives of the crown and as such is empowered to fully act on behalf of the monarch
She lost me when she allowed the priesting of women in the CofE. A betrayal of the faith. Unfortunately a precedent had been set wherein queens could be Defenders of the Faith. That should have been reserved for the highest-ranking royal male.
I think the problem is that if she did anything political that would be taken by the media and used to damage her reputation either among Conservatives or socialists so she is unable painful as it is to step out of line for fear of offending the elite/people she disagrees with.
Why
Does the Royal Family get the most of its income from the Civil List? I am not sure you are right on that.
Indeed, it's not true.
The Queen is also the 'Duke' of Lancaster, and Charles earns a substantial revenue through the Duchy of Cornwall - Our gripes were with the attack on Sovereign immunity through egalitarian tokenism.
@@ApostolicMajesty I understood your point about paying tax and receiving the Civil List fund being rather circular. But compared to those private revenues the Civil List isn't much money.
@@clangerbasher I agree
Not anymore, since decades ago
Trask Mcmonigol Pierce the 1 and 2
All our institutions have failed we need fascism
I don’t think we need to go to that extreme but I think the way we’re going somethings going to give, we need to reform the system and remove the fools from it.
❎. Samuel 8: 1-22
Is true.
🤺💐
4:15
Everything after Charles II has been a terrible mistake
I blame Cromwell
*harold godwinson
Rothschilds used her like a puppet
An insecure woman, thrust into power, ashamed of that power, doing her utter best to destroy that institution from within.
Just to counter the lies told about Charles III at the end, I just watched the interview a couple days ago. In it Charles makes a Catholic argument against Henry the 8th and the creation of the Church of England, he then goes on to say 'I want to be a defender of faith', not faiths. Then he goes onto say he is a seeker in his life and he finds value in many different religions, and he says faith is lacking in the modern world.
Stop all this media Americanist based Farageisms about the King of England, support his right to the throne and stop complaining about him having views and opinions of his own like an adult human, unlike the useless idiots we have gaining with the Germans on the throne. God Save The King!! And Nigel Farage is nothing but a money changing foreign middle spiv, who refuses to take power when it is within his grasp. He has no right to tell the King to shut up.
I praised Charles as a modern example of Noblesse Oblige and said I didn't believe the comment about the defender of the faiths.
He’s just another woke traitor Globalist like all the rest of the Western elites and will be just as worthless as is his mother.
@@daqt6079 Well I doubt it will be long before we find out. Let's hope he proves us wrong, or at least tries. I sense he will have a mighty struggle if he doesn't want to be the compliant 'hip' Monarch. His Coronation oath could be a revelation.
@@ApostolicMajesty Indeed, I realized that in the stream. So wasn't having a go are you. But the person who put the comment in at the end.
@@daqt6079 He is the King of England, he is part of the elite, he is a globalism. OMG what a shock, who knew, wow what are new take you have. There are dozens of Aristocratic families who aren't globalist, aren't part of the elite, yet do any of us support them or their power within England? Or do we just whine about how we are under the elite, if we are, we need to give power to people who would do battle on our behalf against the other elites. I agree about his mother.
So sad if Only the United Kingdom lost the Great War then thing’s may be better
$50 says the narrator is an incel.
She was the worst monarch