American Reacts to What Powers Does the Queen of England Actually Have?
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 02. 2021
- Hello! I'm an American on a quest to learn more about history, geography and the universe in general. In this video I learn more about how much power the Queen of England still has. Honestly, I was kind of shocked at what I found out! If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe!
Follow me for a behind-the-scenes look of my learning journey:
Instagram: / sogal.yt
Twitter: / sogal_yt
Link to original video: • What Powers Does the Q...
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
#queen #royalfamily #england #americanreacts #reaction
Let me know what you think about the monarchy! A little PSA: whenever a video gets into the realm of politics, it's easy for people to get offended. Please don't take any of my thoughts the wrong way (as some have on my previous videos) - no disrespect intended towards my friends across the pond ✌️I enjoy learning more about Britain and hearing your perspectives on things. Like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻 Follow me on social media:
Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/
Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT
She teeeeeeeehnically still has Dominion over the Commonwealth. But in practice if HM the QEII actually tried to, say, claim a city or an area of Australia for the use of the British Crown, the Australian government would likely tell her to jog-on.
Plus, the British government would likely "quietly advise" her not to exercise her authority over the Commonwealth, as it would likely just inspire countries to leave the Commonwealth.
Personally, I think the Royals are a good investment in the UK. The President costs the US about $1.5 billion a year. The Royals cost us about £20 million.
She's still technically part of the legal process too, but again, it's the elected parliament that has the real authority.
@@jolan_tru she doesn't have dominion over the whole Commonwealth, member states of which can leave at will. But she is still Queen of the Commonwealth Realms (Aus, Canada, NZ, various Caribbean islands) and has a similar level of theoretical power in those specific cases.
Absolutely adore Her Gracious Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II & Our Royal Family. The United Kingdom is all about History, traditions etc & our Monarch & Royal Family are the Core of it all. I’ve always been a Loyal & humble subject & proud 😊✊🏻
You can’t have a kingdom without subjects, and Britain deserves all the dignity that being a kingdom and realm should have.
Are you for real. Fairy tales are for kids.
@@williamwilson5577 Goodbye. Have a nice trip.
@@briantitchener4829 What are you on about?
God save the queen 🇬🇧🇬🇸🇸🇭🇹🇨🇹🇻
I def trust the queen with these powers over any elected official
She had a 90% approval rating in 2012 and it presently sits around 81%. Basically we want a leader who listens to experts and only acts when it is necessary to do so.
@@alexanderharris5022 Not with younger people she hasnt
czcams.com/video/AlQpOXrzXU8/video.html
@@rodden1953 I’m well aware of the Monarchy thank you. Flaws and benefits.
And at 23 I’m still considered young.
Frankly, the benefits of Her Majesty outweigh the issues she poses by quite some considerable margin.
Without her we’d have strained relations with every commonwealth nation rather than positive or indifferent, a trade embargo with America and we’d never have been ALLOWED in the European Union to begin with due to our non-compliance with human rights OF WHICH the crown has pushed demands on the government to adhere to.
The Queen is and always will be an immense asset to this country. It is a pity her Heir Apparent is likely going to be the death of the monarchy.
@@alexanderharris5022 Non-compliance with human rights? Have you seen inside a French prison? Hegemonic powers like Britain and the US created the concept of universal rights, it's an atlanticist idea that they can use as a stick to beat other countries and could do especially during the cold war. Despite this it was no problem flying detainees to North Africa to torture them. When Josep Borrell Visited Russia recently, they showed him a video of European police dealing with demonstrations. Including the demonstrations in Catalonia. That including criticism of rigged elections no longer carry any weight in light of how western countries actually act in contrast to their words. Governments are cynical and hypocritical and all countries are playing by the same rules. That is why they all use the same methods.
@@jwadaow The EU and UN created various additions to human rights since the British started the notion after WWII to help create stability in Europe.
By the formation of the European Market, later the European Union, certain rights were added that the British didn’t formally recognise. This resulted in pressure during the 70’s and 80’s from the EU to at least COMPLY with those rights even if we didn’t recognise them.
The Queen applied pressure to the government on behalf of the Commonwealth to have Britain acknowledge some of those rights. At great cost to her family I might add, as some of those rights gave more freedom to the press, which previously was only covered by Freedom of Expression.
Britain HAS failed to adhere to certain human rights in the past that we created or were created by organisations we wished to join and be a part of. The most famous being the Freedom to Privacy, which after WWII our government neglected to add to the British Bill of Rights, enabling the government to spy on anyone within U.K. borders without need for warrant or evidence that they had committed a crime.
While I do not deny that in the past Human Rights have been used to whip other countries into a western ideology, that does not negate the fact that without our Queen we wouldn’t have some of the freedoms we do in the U.K.
The majority of us British love the queen, to be called a subject of the realm is a privilege
If you say so
@@lecturesfromleeds614 you get the protection of the realm, on a British passport it says that British citizens can travel freely with the backing of the Monarch, she guarantee’s our safety.
I'm a South African, and she's still my queen.
So you are the King? 😁
yes the queen can do anything in other countries, only thing the country can do is go to war
@Sometimes Blue how stupid are you?
@Sometimes Blue Really?😂😂😂
@Sometimes Blue the british empire stopped slavery across the world you donut!
When I started my officers training I had to attest in the name of Her Majesty the Queen and it was genuinely one of the proudest moments of my life. With her especially not only does she hold all these royal powers for being the monarch but also commends a tremendous amount of respect from the British populace and people from all round the world. Long may she reign.
When I attested in the 60s I and most of the private soldiers who had enlisted did so in order to obtain employment and get out of poverty. Attestation wasn't mentioned after enlistment. The Royal family could just as well have been Martians. I remain indifferent to the institution. It represents privillage unlike us who served. Its an anachronism and self serving system. I respect the service of the Queen but in order for the institution to survive it needs reform or oit will diminish.
The Royal Navy does not swear allegiance to the monarch as it is just assumed. This is because navy sided with the king in the Civil War.
@@williamwilson5577 The Queen and Her Husband served in WWll so....
@@jazzbarker9514 So did my father he died from his injuries 7years after the war. So did his younger brother who was killed at El Alemein, Bill who I was named after.
My grandfather served with the Royal Fusiliers WW1 he ws killed on the first day of the battle of Arras and has no known grave. My Mother was born thw months after he was killed and never got to see her dad. My grandmother was awarded a widows pension which was poverty, she had to take in washing to survive.
My great uncle William served and was killed at Gallipoli, he also has no known grave.
I also served with the Queens Regiment.
So I really don't get your point it's irrelevant.
I swear by almighty God that i will bear true and faithful allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II , Her heirs and successors
Somebody once described the Queen as a glass cannon. Powerful but as soon as she uses that power, it breaks.
Good comment!, that sums it up completely
She uses her power all the time. She just does it well.
RIP Her Majesty, but I still believe that, should she have used her power to dissolve the parliament or the like, just to fix this godawful MESS we've been in for the past decade, 60% of the British people would have risen up to support her and a good 30% would have just sat aside and let it happen :P
The Queen has done nearly seventy years of service and most of us Brits love her
I,m 75 years of age this year, saw HM the Queen visit just after the Coronation, I was 7 years of age!! Waving my Union flag as her car passed, I still revere our Queen!
I am Scottish and fervently loyal to our Queen Elizabeth...
Anyone born into Royality has to do service. You act like she came from nothing and done great things
@Aiden Cox You are brainwashed, you would die for a woman who was born into extreme wealth. In winter time when pensioners who served the country have to choose between eating or heating does the Queen and her very wealthy family put her hand in her pocket to help? Not a chance. They live in extreme luxury and pay absolutely no taxes. You love the Queen because you were brought up to love her and get absolutely nothing in return.
@Aiden Cox You say the Queen brings in alot of money to the country? Through tourism? That money is a drop in the ocean compared to the taxes the Royals don't pay. I'd die for my family but I would never die for someone who was born into extreme wealth and does nothing to help veterans who served the country and now struggle to eat and heat their homes when winter comes
@Aiden Cox I work and pay my taxes, I serve my family as they come before anyone. Her son Prince Andrew gets protected for his scumbag actions because he is a Royal
It's not the power that the Queen has that is important, it's the power she denies to others.
Exactly.
that is very very well put...
it means that a president is not head of state
I think you need to check the conventions and laws of the British constitution to understand how far from reality your statement is.
@@brontewcat Briton or indeed the UK does not have a written constitution
Think of the Queen as a nuclear weapon, she could cause massive devastation but in doing so would destroy herself and the monachy
This is a hilarious, and accurate metaphor
There's also the matter that the Supreme Court have, and will, reverse her decisions (such as proroguing parliament on the PMs advice), meaning even then we can simply ignore her desires if it came to it. That's the beauty of British law.
@@calum5975 But she has the last laugh. No court in the land can ever prosecute her. :D
@@markbanner6473 There is precident for it. That carries a lot of weight,
No, she is just our Queen. God save the Queen.
Subjects is widely used. We’re okay with it... mostly because we know it’s ceremonial more than anything.
Not so ,the army all swear a oath to the queen ,the courts are the queens (or the crown !) The police swear to the queen , when there's a new prime minister voted in the first thing they have to do is go and get a "ok" from the queen , etc there's loads more can't be assed to go through it all !
We are subjected to her rule. Simple as. Fine by me - who would want Boris as the head of state?
@@danjames5552 thanks, Dan. I’m not army, police, courts or the Prime Minister.... most of us aren’t. All residents of the U.K. are considered “subjects” most of us aren’t bound to any oath. For the great unwashed masses like myself, being thought of or classed as a “subject” of the Queen is entirely ceremonial.
Please feel free to go round the other comments on this thread to tell everyone else answers to questions they never asked now 👍
@@MrStockoHMK You did ask/say it by saying that it's all ceremonial etc ....
@@danjames5552 the crown and the monarch are two different things, the armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch but the government and Parliment control them.
As a New Zealander and a subject of Her Majesty, I am very happy to have her as the technical head of state. In recent NZ history the NZ Government ordered the Military to intervene during a foreign countries political problem. The military refused on the grounds that no blood had been spilt and classed it as a political problem not a military one. The Governor general ( Queens Representative) supported the militaries refusal so the Government were kept in check. By the military/ Judiciary/law enforcement and many other departments having the Queen as its head, are far less prone to Political interference. For example our Supreme court judges/ Police are not appointed by Politicians so remain independent unlike the republic of the (USA) which is not a democracy, Presidents appoint judges on their political ideology. Our Prime Minster can't order the police to stop an investigation or Pardon anyone from prosecution. Put it in a way you might understand, the crown is the embodiment of the people she rules over, so when the military (which I served for 30 years) pledge allegiance to the crown we in effect are pledging allegiance to not only our own countries people but to all those within the the commonwealth where the queen is the head of state. Some uneducated people believe that just because you get to vote makes you a democracy....this is far from the truth and there is a lot more involved.
👍👍👍👍
Chur.
Having a Monarchy has worked out well for the last thousand years, if it's not broke why fix it.
It didn't work well during the 17th century. That's why the Restoration was under strict conditions, and then when James II went off-message the Dutch invaded/invited to invade, subject to even more strict conditions. And there were numerous periods of excess, civil wars, etc. The last 250 years have been unusual - no civil war.
@@wbertie2604 Those Dutch were actually distant relatives of the English royal family who were welcomed because of their Protestant standing. William of Orange co-ruled with his wife Mary in 1688.
@@briantitchener4829 King George and the Kaiser were cousins, but the bombs being dropped by Zeppelins and Gothas weren't exactly friendly. Being related doesn't make it not an invasion, even if some of the population is in favour!
You are absolutely spot on with that,Ed………….things could always be better,but then they could also be a million times worse,!
Probably 2,000 years !!! So we would like to keep it & not want out side interests & interference of foreign peoples & powers trying to change our culture , which we have enough of !!!!
You could also consider the Queen as a "safety backstop" against the potential excesses of politicians as she still controls (and is respected by) the military.
that is a point often overlooked. Were the country to be in a deep enough crisis, the military fights for queen and country, not prime minister.
Our Queen is so popular in the UK being a " subject " of her maj is not an issue for most of us.
I think that Royalists tend to vastly overstate how "happy" everyone is to be the subject of an inbred mutant who was born into a position of power. And I think that anti-royalists like me perhaps overstate how many people hate the concept.
I suspect that the majority of people are relatively ambivalent towards the Queen, and don't especially care whether the royal family continue to exist or not.
We dont really have a problem with the whole subjects thing because it used in an endearing way, and she very clearly has our best interest at heart.
The fact that she has all that power is actually more comforting to me because I see the monarch as the last line of defense against a corrupt political party taking full control of the country and creating a dictatorship.
I agree with you!
It's actual a legal term too. Subject basically you don't have a choice if you live in Britain or the commonwealth you don't have a choice the Queen reigns over you therefore you are a subject whether you like it or not.
Long live the Queen of Australia! 👍
God bless Australia!
God save the queen!
And godspeed to our commonwealth brothers!
Long live the Queen of Canada!
In other countries the queen would be treated as a diplomat and therefore would have legal immunity
Regal immunity*
No, diplomats have personal immunity because of the office they hold and ceases when they no longer hold that office (and can be withdrawn by the host state). The Queen possesses functional immunity which applies to those (such as a head of state) performing acts of state and does not cease if they no longer hold the office, though it is limited to those acts.
Yeah doesn't matter what nations she's in, she's pretty much above the law anywhere 😆
@@KissMyFatAxe fun fact, she doesn't need a passport because she is a passport. Passports for UK and commonwealth realms are issued in her name, and as such the queen having a document of herself asking a foreign nation to let her in is somewhat redundant.
@@thejesusaurus6573 I am aware of this 😆 pretty cool imo
The last monarch that really tried to use his power in the ways you seem to fear lost his head
James II was just kicked out and replaced by William of Orange.
But that was due to his religion more than anything else.
@@mrb.5610 yes there’s no going back to Catholicism
Wrong. He died protecting our rights from a usurper who tried to use those powers.
@@helenwood8482 WTF - read some history.
Our queen has earned the respect of her subjects, she drove and fixed trucks and ambulances during ww2 and has continued to ensure her people come first even before her only family at times. She is an amazing woman full of strength and prefers to talk with other countries than start wars this gets her respect and us brits pride
When I joined up, I swore to support the Queen, and I still do.
It is true. We, as members of the armed forces, swear allegiance to the crown, not to the UK government.
Oddly, 'the crown' is not quite the same thing as 'the current reigning monarch' either.
It’s so nice to see someone who is actually wanting to learn. 👍
You've seen those "Break glass in an emergency" red mounted objects on a wall. Giving you access to an alarm bell or a Axe or the like to get you out of the crisis? Well the Queen is kind of the ultimate "Break glass in an emergency" object. When the situation's dire, smash the glass and out comes a person/force with ultimate power to put things back as British subjects would like to see them.
I’m proud to be one of the Queen’s subjects. I fully support the Monarchy. For Queen and country 🇬🇧
Yeah subjects isn’t really insulting. We get that it’s ceremonial and it’s on par with calling her our queen.
Just for the record I’m completely fine recognising her as my monarch. Great person and worthy of the title
It's like American citizens being a politicians "constituents." It just is what it is, no need to call it anything different.
Hear hear my friend. God save the Queen.👑
I don't mind being called a subject, that's kinda what we are so I'll let it be.
Yeah I agree - it's a factual word, not an impication of anything.
We're not subjects. That legal status ended in 1983 after the British Nationality Act 1981 gave all Brits citizenship.
@@TheHopperUK it's a word but it's not factual. British subject was a legal status that was abolished almost 40 years ago.
It's like saying it's factual they we're peasants because peasants was a legal status that used to exist.
@@DS9TREK Ooh fascinating, thanks! I'm more than 40 years old so I probably just came across the phrase a lot as a kid.
Either way, I'd rather do what the Queen tells me than what the Prime Minister tells me.
In the United Kingdom, we are subjects of the Royal Family, meaning we are their people. It isn't really condescending, more traditional. The word 'Kingdom' translates to *a country, state, or territory ruled by a king or queen.* Meaning we are Royal subjects. - Subjects of the crown. To be honest, I feel proud to be called a subject of the crown, as it unifies all people and includes them with the Royals, meaning we are all acknowledged by the crown.
It also comes with the protection of the crown, on a British passport it says as a British citizen I have the protection of free travel without harassment anywhere in the world
I would be honoured if the Queen commandeered my boat for 'Service to the realm' lol
I don't object to being one of the Queens Subjects! I quite like the term!
i do. I'm not her subject. I don't live in a dictatorship
That all changed in 1983. It's almost 40 years since anyone in the UK has been a subject of the Queen.
@@readingfcdec dictators don't have subjects dumass!
@@readingfcdec d8ctators don't have subjects tho?😂 might wanna know wat you're talking about before speaking
One thing I do know the monarchy on the whole works and brings in revenue to the UK, if we lost the monarchy we'd end up with a President and a Prime Minister like in other countries with no monarchy and the last thing we want are more self serving politicians
A president or prime minister voted in by the people? Someone who is accountable to the people? Great, can I have that please? Where do I vote? Oh wait.... I can’t 😕
@@jasonc651 well not all politicians you've voted will serve you actually, some just want the salary from the tax payers.
@Sky Sky The thing is there are self serving politicians in any country, monarchies included. The idea that a country is more or less likely to be poor or corrupt is based on whether they are a monarchy or not is false.
@Sky Sky The Western European monarchies are rich, but so are the republics. The Southern African republics are poor, but so are the monarchies. Even if what you say is true, a countries wealth is rarely decided by whether or not their head of state is hereditary. Yemen of course may be an excemption as they seem to be excluded by their neighbours
@Sky Sky Also republic or monarchy just because a country is rich does not mean they have a great human rights record.
The power of a constitutional monarch was shown in Spain in the 70s when there was an attempted coup and elements of the Spanish Army grabbed their parliament and held all the politicians hostage. King Juan Carlos went on TV and ordered loyal military units to retake parliament at all costs, effectively disregarding politicians lives. The rebels surrendered.
It happened in 1981.
What you need to understand is, she may I have the power, but she has the good grace not to use it.
I'm a royalist so I consider myself as a subject of the crown Steve Mccollum uk
I am nobody's subject, I cam a citizen.
@@williamwilson5577 no your a subject
@@johncurrie6693 Read my passport. And get your facts together.
@@williamwilson5577 actually I didn't say it was a fact. But we are subjects if HM the Queen whether little you likes it or not.
@@johncurrie6693 You may be a subject of the UK but a subject if the Queen that is really wide of the mark.
I personally am not a subject of the Queen. Nothing personal about the Queen it's the institution that I don't recognise.
The Queen has been the best civil servant of all time, She has done so much for Great Britain. People keep moaning about how much tax payers pay to keep the monarchy in place until they realise how much money they create in tourism. She has had to meet some detestable nation leaders in her time and always come out on top. long live the Queen.
There isn't actually any evidence to support the tourism arguement that is wheeled out everytime the monarchy is scrutinised. The fact is that of all the major tourism centres there is only one destination in the top 10 most visited, Buckingham Palace. If tourists came here to see Lizzy, they would leave disappointed 99.99% of the time. The fact is taxpayers having to pay for these people to live in luxury while others live on the streets is wrong.
The monarchy costs everyone in the UK about 50p annually. So anyone who brings up the financial argument is probably just an idiot.
@@danep8553 You know that same reply has been said for 20 odd years? It was never the case even back then 50p, because the figure never included the astronomical cost of security and doesn't factor the increase in funding the monarchy has had year on year even when public sector workers wage don't increase. They must love having gullible idiots parroting the same gibberish to defend them. They are not your friend and they don't care about you.
@@generaladvance5812 the truth is mate there is no financial argument to abolish the monarchy. You have just witnessed £500 billion being summoned into existence through the bank of England using quantitative easing. A measily £12 billion of which went to 'track & trace'. Anyone who wants to abolish the monarchy has no argument in terms financial.
@@danep8553 There is an arguement for it, you just choose to ignore it. There is an inherent economic cost to 'summoning money into existence' as it devalues the currency (see the Wiemar republic). If you don't care about ordinary people having to rely on foodbanks while one family is given tens of millions of tax payers money for their weddings, home refurbishments and everything else it is wasted on then I think you are a lost cause honestly. Just keep waving your flag, sing god save the queen and be a good little serf.
It might help you get a picture of where she stands if you realise that Queen is the person - the Monarch. But The Crown is the idea that passes from Monarch to Monarch. So the Queen acts as the embodiment of the state. Her powers are (as some have indicated) are kept in check by convention and tradition. As a constitutional monarchy (there is no written constitution) she effectively has to navigate a middle ground. Oh, and by the way, she is the Queen of the United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) as well a Queen to a number of Commonwealth Countries.
I was brought up to always give the most respect to our queen and royal family, they unite us in crisis even the post man serves her majesty the queen. Our monarch is one of the biggest reasons im proud to be British
Long live the queen
We Brits were classed as “ British subjects “ on passports etc up until the 60s/70s now we’re seen as “ Citizens “ but I prefer “ Subject “ as that’s what I am 😊. Queen Anne was the last Queen of England. Her Gracious Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland 🇬🇧🇬🇧
When you type it all out like that J it makes me want to stand up and sing. 🙂
@@Bridgejunky2 Lol my daily life 😂😂 I’m proud of my Queen & Nation 🇬🇧✊🏻 God Save Our Gracious Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II & Our Britannic Royal Family 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
@TheRenaissanceman65 the 80s? Really? All citizens of Commonwealth countries were collectively referred to as 'British subjects' until January 1983. ... Since 1983, very few people have qualified as British subjects. You’re right!! That’s strange as I read it was the 60s/70s it changed. I don’t mind being a subject 😊🇬🇧
TRIVIA: Queen Anne is the Queen (very loosely) portrayed by Olivia Colman in "The Favourite"
@@OneTrueScotsman Oh you very MUCH are a Subject of Her Gracious Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
The Queen is not only the Queen of England, she is the Queen of the whole of the United Kingdom and the ceremonial head of state of a number of the Commonwealth countries.
She's the head of state in commonwealth countries in every bit the same capacity as she is head of state in the UK. But the legal authority in those countries is derived from separate crowns. The Queen of the UK has no authority in Canada, but the queen of Canada does and plays the same role that the queen of the UK does in britain.
"The Queen is not only the Queen of England" - No. No she isn't. The English monarchy no longer exists. Calling her the queen of England is the same as calling her the queen of Scotland. i.e. they're *both* equally wrong.
@@redceltnet Technically incorrect: the crowns of England and Scotland were joined under James the Sixth (of Scotland - in 1567) and First (of England - in 1603 - and Wales, of course, everyone always forgets Wales). The Nations of England and Scotland were joined by the Act of Union in 1707, Wales had already basically been subsumed by England in 1535-42. So the Queen is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (her other realms and dominions, etc), but she is still technically invested in the crowns of both England and Scotland and must be crowned whilst sat upon the Stone of Scone, least she not be recognised as Queen in Scotland. She is also the suzerain of the Crown Dependencies, which are technically not a part of the United Kingdom. Hope that helps. :)
@@piersellenbencard1666 In your Wikipedia'd word salad, you included the (actually relevant) text "she is still technically invested in the crowns of both England and Scotland and must be crowned whilst sat upon the Stone of Scone, least she not be recognised as Queen in Scotland" - Wrong. There are no crowns of England or Scotland. Unless you're referring to museum pieces of the actual headwear. Those monarchies no longer exist.
@@redceltnet In theory that should be the case. In reality that certainly isn't true. Why Elizabeth II, and not Elizabeth I of the UK? Elizabeth I was an English monarch way before the Union Act... and Scotland's first Queen Elizabeth IS our current Elizabeth... so, if she should be named Elizabeth II, she should be named rather more accurately, Elizabeth I & II, such as James VI & I of the Union of Crowns Act in 1603, pursued on the death of Elizabeth I by Sir Robert Carey. It shows the two monarchies are not subsumed entirely into this UK, rather obstensibly, but the idea of the English monarch still exists in some form...
Enjoyed your vid, thank you. Here in England, and I reckon in the larger UK and Europe, I've watched the last four years of American political drama play out with increasing concern. And I've drawn comfort from the knowledge that there is a benevolent power beyond the Prime Minister and Parliament if that kind of nonsense ever happened in my own country. A power that would likely enjoy overwhelming support from the civil service, military and general population.
It is sometimes said that it is not the power that the queen has but the power she denies others.
The last time a British monarch unilaterally decided to exercise their theoretical power, they wound up without a head.
That's what happens when you get a foreign power involved with domestic affairs, France I believe, could be wrong on France.
What about during WWII and King George?
What about Charles1?
Think I'm right George V said make a government, or I'll can another election, in 1932. It was a hung parliament
@@paulfarnier3914 Charles I is who I was referring to. There was no unilateral declaration (without parliament) in WWII. And the French comment I don't understand.
subject is used a lot, but i don't find it bad, i'm quite proud of it. we tend not to think of needing a check on the monarchy, but the monarch is seen as a check on democracy.
I tell ya? Never have I learnt so much about history and the UK?! History bored me in school, as I get older my opinion has changed a lot, hope you don't mind me joining you on this ride :)
11:55 Commonwealth countries - I think it depends on the country. Australia has a Governor General who is the Queen's representative here. And does a lot of Queenly duties - supporting charities, approving laws, appointing PMs (and firing them - look up 1975 Australian constitutional crisis) That person is appointed every 5 years by the Queen, there's usually a short list sent from the PM of candidates and a clear favourite.
I'm Scottish, and yes even here we are called subjects or commoners but only a small fraction of British people tend to get offended by that.
England took the Scottish King, as the Nobel King of Great Britain, when the English King Died. A few Weeks back 🤣.
So techniquely, Scotish Subjects were not only recognized as an equal, but the Scottish Blood Line superseded the English Blood Line. (PBS 1 Channel)
From an injured British War Veteran
@@stevenhenry7862 Is this a reference back to 1603 when Queen Elizabeth I died? Childless, her nearest relative in succession was James Stuart (son of Mary Queen of Scots) who was already King James Vi of Scotland. He came down to London and was crowned James I of England and therefore has been always known as James the First and Sixth.
@@raymondporter2094 yes, that's the Pal. Thanks 👍
There is nothing in current law which describes us as subjects. We are British citizens. Before nationality law changed in 1983, we were both: "British subject : Citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies".
@sparkiegaz no
The queen is an icon i am happy to be her subject and for her to rule over us. God save the queen.
she don't rule over anything my friend. she is a tourist attraction.
@@linusfootballtips2838 more people go to see lego land
@@rodden1953 not surprised
@@linusfootballtips2838 More people visit France that has no monarch , i lived near Windsor most of my life ans i have never seen any of them
@@rodden1953 cool..........i guess we should get rid of them then.
I loved the part where, when the queen goes to give an address to Parliament, the room ostensibly has Charles I's death warrant.
You know, to remind her what happened the last time a British monarch tried to exercise all the power they theoretically had and disregarded parliament.
Royal power was last used in 1834 when King William IV refused to select the leader of the Conservatives as Prime Minister, but chose the Duke of Wellington (also a Conservative) as Prime Minister instead.
Good for you, SoGal. As a Canadian, I think it's refreshing to see an American that actually wants to understand and learn something about the world outside their own borders. The ignorance and lack of knowledge many Americans have regarding the rest of the world (even us, and we're their neighbour) is truly embarrassing. With that said, It's odd that someone from a country that very nearly re-elected a dictator that was trying to dismantle their democracy would have concerns about the Queen's ceremonial power over the Commonwealth countries. Most political scientists agree that the system of parliamentary democracy we enjoy is far more stable, representative and responsive to the wishes of the people than a democratic republic such as that in the US. Canada is a little different from many other Commonwealth countries in that it has its own constitution but it's nice to still have the Queen as Head of State, even though the Crown's role is really ceremonial. I'm quite happy to have a Governor General (the Crown's representative for Canada for any American's reading this) officially appoint our elected Prime Minister and Government Members into office.
The US doesn't have a state religion but displays the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court? That seems a bit odd to me, especially since the 1st Commandment directly contradicts the 1st Amendment of your constitution.
M8 I never thought of that lmao that's awesome
Go look up the American Civil Religion if you have the time, as a concept it's basically the state religion and it explains a lot about American political attitudes, even though it's not something most American citizens are consciously part of
I don't know but doesn't the constitution include the right to exercise religious freedom and implies no interference by religion in government
I think that contradiction perfectly captures the element of double-think at the heart of the video to which we are all reacting. In theory the Queen has tremendous powers but in reality she does not. In theory the United States does not have a state religion but in truth it clearly does.
@El Trollo Thanks for the response.
As a matter of plain fact you are obviously correct but I'm referencing the way things are, rather than the way they are written down. I'm aware you already know that this is my meaning but I'm laying it out in order to make the case.
The message of commandments on the wall isn't just contradictory, it's sinister. It says the founding fathers may have prevented the nation's prevailing religious attitude being written into law, but readers should be in no doubt how things really stand. The line printed on our money makes clear what we believe in general, and our list on the wall narrows it down to the particular for you. A law which prevents an atheist becoming president can't be made, but a society where that won't happen is firmly in place. It is illegal to bar a Muslim becoming president but we have an environment where a camel would have an easier time with the eye of a needle. Being a Christian is not a handicap in any area of US public life, but not being one is.
I'll be interested to read your thoughts if you disagree but these things seem to me to be self evident. So strong is this unwritten understanding that even such a seemingly irreligious man as President Trump feels the need to demonstrate an adherence to Christianity for the benefit of the cameras. The United States does not have a legally enforced state religion but it thinks, talks and acts like it does.
Europe has several “Constitutional Monarchs”, and they stay above politics. And yes, I am a subject.
I wish we could bring back the Monarchy in Poland
Whether or not the term "subject" sounds condescending or not, by definition, we are subjects of the crown. I'm personally proud of it.
Being a subject is something I am proud to be, I would die for our queen, she is grace and dignity personified
I recommend you react to "Who's in Charge of Britain" by Jay Foreman.
That's an amazing channel
Map men. map men. Maaaap men.
Dear Sogal. Most of us in UK are OK about being subjects. The Queen can't really overrule a Prime Minister or the `Will of Parliament` I thought that video you watched was a bit misleading. It never mentioned that the Monarch and all the Royal family cannot vote in General Elections and Referendums. Parliament once executed a Monarch (Charles the First) after the Civil war between Crown and Parliament in the 17th Century. As a historian; I would hope you can research the `English Civil War` at some future date.
As an historian you will know she is not the queen of Cornwall.
Well she can technically overrule anything parliament does, as it's her parliament, she could dissolve it with the click of a finger, BUT she would likely never get away with it 😂 It would bring down the whole monarchy if she did 👍
But yeah I agree she should react to the English Civil War👍
A good Video on the Subject is called "Cromwell" if I remember the Title correctly.
As for the Queen cannot overrule Parliament!?...well, that would be a matter of Opinion. Legally no, but there again Her Majesty IS the Law.
My Oath of Allegiance is to Her Majesty the Queen Personally and foremost.
Although such a Power Move would be Academic, there are Contingency Plans for such Scenarios.
The Queen must Live at all cost! Her Majesty is who we are and all we are.
Don't kid yourself, the Queen still has a lot of Power, regardless what has been written on Paper.
A "Royalist" is Loyal to the end, upon to God.
From an injured British War Veteran
@@shaunrogers2256 That's because She is the mother of the Duke of Cornwall.
@@stevenhenry7862 "Her Majesty IS the Law." Since 1689 the power of the monarchy has been constitutionally limited. (Yes, the UK does have a constitution, just not in one document so it's messy).
It kind of works that we vote our representatives in to parliament, then the leader of the majority goes to the palace to ask permission to form a government. She gives permission and for the term of office she kind of loans the prime minister her executive power to run the country.
In regards to the commonwealth, the Queen is head of state in 15 other countries including Canada and Australia. There her powers will be codified in their written constitutions, in practice she appoints a Governor General to act on her behalf for each nation on the advice of that nation’s government.
New Zealand would be a different case as they have no codified constitution and is therefore more similar to the UK however, she still appoints a Governor General on the advice of the NZ Prime Minister to act on her behalf.
The Queen receives the Red Box (Dispatch Box) each day apart from Christmas Day and Easter Sunday which you may wish to check out what this is about, it's origins and what does it contain.
Oh yes. Definitely find a video about dispatch boxes. Some videos will show how the aids of Ministers try to influence the Minister with a certain way of stacking the contents of the box. The Queen apparently takes out the papers and turns the whole pile over. She then works through. She knows the aids in Downing Street would have put what they think is important on top. She will be the judge of what is important so starts at the bottom.
I love the Queen , I've no problem with the word " subject " in protocol it's the correct term .
Proud to be a subject of this great woman!
Although we never really use the word unless the Queen is being discussed
I love what you do, you really think things through and that's so rare ❤️🌟🥇👑🇺🇲
In the UK we are technically all Subjects of the Crown, although its not generally in every-day usage.
Not anymore, passports now say Brittish Citizins not Subjects like it used to
Yeah it's rarely used. I don't mind it though. Feels kinda traditional 😆
@@Damo2690 Actually we still officially are Subjects, but they've changed that as a lot of people dont like the word
I am not a subject.
@@williamwilson5577 Yes you are and you always will be
Great videos :-) Anyone who turns 100 years old receives a personal birthday card from the Queen
Hello. thanks for your time and your efforts god bless you and bless American people
Diplomatic immunity means that anyone who holds it- Heads of State/Government, Ambassadors, and some Conciller staff (depends on the country/situation) are immune from prosecution in a foreign country. A recent example was an American Diplomats wife in the UK who killed a teenager in a road traffic accident and the US claimed diplomatic immunity and refused to send her back to the UK to stand trial.
Two films you might find interesting, and enjoyable, one about the Queen, one about her father. “The King’s Speech” (Colin Firth) and The Queen (Helen Mirren). Well worth watching 😃
2 great films.
Young Victoria is also great, and shows how being political effects the people
I was always taught that the armed forces work for the Queen so that they are decoupled from any particular political party - especially whichever one happens to be in power.
For sure. I was a member of our armed forces from 1981 - 1996 and served the crown.
Which is why we could never have the farce we've just seen in the US, where Nancy Pelosi had to quietly warn the generals in the Pentagon to keep out of Trump's way when he was threatening to use force to stop himself losing the election. In the UK when a Prime Minister loses an election the moving van's there next morning, and the new man's already on his way to the Palace to kiss Her Majesty's hand.
Seems like a good move especially today.
We're citizens legally but subjects ceremonially. I like being a subject of the monarch. It's endearing and unites us with citizens of other countries who are also subjects of the Queen.
In simple terms the Queens powers are absolute. Don’t forget it’s
HM Government, she allows them to run the country. It’s also HM Forces, all the Police forces have the ER badge. She’s in charge of the lot, all the previously mentioned only have delighted power. Even the laws Parliament pass have to get Royal assent so signed off by the Queen. So as you can see she has a lot more power than people think.
For a very good perspective on how the Royal family’s position has evolved over the centuries, I can recommend Simon Schama’s BBC series History of Britain.
As a dutch person I am totally ok with the term subject. It is almost the same as citizen but somewhat broader.
Sounds posher and I like that haha
Yup - a video on Magna Carta would be a good one to watch.
A very nice and intelligent lady. Im proud to serve her and not the politicians. I guess we can all relate to that. Another great video. Many thanks SoGal.
The Queen has diplomatic immunity when aboard, which is why she cant be prosecuted. While it would be frowned upon for her to commit a crime, the Queen is protect from local laws just like any other official with diplomatic immunity
Diplomatic immunity can be removed by the host country. With a cohort of repercussions, sure, but it can be done. A speeding ticket is one thing. Were she to murder somemone or smuggle drugs (Imagining The Queen as a ruthless cartel boss is somehow hillarious to me...), well...
@@k.v.7681 not with the Queen ... becouse that be a Auto call fo war ... thats why if she do something wrong the work behide the screen happens ..
@@istrysii It would break her own country. A similar thing went on in Belgium during WW2 (altho in reverse). When the king surrendered, the government and army disobeyed, sabotaged equipment or gave it to the Brits and French. The government repudiated the order and after the war forced the king to abdicate following a poll.
@@k.v.7681 yea... but no one really like a new war
@@k.v.7681 Diplomatic immunity cannot be removed by the host country, only by the country that grants it, e.g. a British diplomat cannot have their diplomatic immunity removed by the USA, otherwise there is no point to it as the host country can just remove it. What they can do is request the individual be recalled, and in most situations, the granting country will comply as this can cause serious diplomatic issues. Even murder is covered by immunity, although I dont think any but the most ruthless country will not strip immunity and let them be prosecuted.
Enjoying the content you should check out who's in charge of Britain by jay foreman
It answers some of the questions you ask
The privilege of ownership of whale carcasses is actually worth more than it seems at first, because many whale carcasses contain ambergris, which is extremely valuable.
Also, what many people do not realise is that she is a safety net. Her Majesty The Queen is not just a figure head. If there was ever a downfall of the government/parliament, HM The Queen would take control of the country and keep it in order and will form a new government.
The prime minister appointed by the queen has been the majority party leader for all of recent history
except in 1910, 1923, 1929, 1974, 2010 and 2017 when the majority party leader did not have an actual majority.
It is the person who can command the confidence of the House of Commons. Usually the leader of the largest party in the house.
@@ghughesarch so plurality then.
As with many things in the uk tradition and convention hold much sway such as ‘The Arrangement’(as I call it) between The Crown(the permanent entity which the reigning monarch embodies) and Parliament(The House of Commons more than House of Lords but that is another complicated arrangement)
He isn't really making the distinction that needs to be made between "The Crown", an abstract legal concept embodied for the time being in the monarch, and the Queen as a person. We have, in the past, generally found ways round what could happen if the Queen went mad, or ceased to behave in accordance with the restrictions placed on her by normal custom.
We also have a history of standing up to tyrannical monarchs, with the earliest recorded getting a magna carta and others being forced to abdicate.
That is also why the British Empire never had an Emperor or Empress, because the title seemed tyrannical.
The only exception was in India when Queen Victoria was given the title "Empress of India" since the rest of the empire would have told the monarch to sod off.
@Noobatron 5000 Did not know that and now understand why Victoria was the Empress of India. My understanding is that Victoria was given the title of Empress because her oldest daughter Victoria was about to become an Empress as the wife of Frederick III of Germany. It was agreed that Queen Victoria should not be humiliated by having to bow or Curtsey to her own daughter who by title would have been the senior royal.
@@RugbyMatters I am unaware of that tidbit. Victorian era history was pretty much glossed over in school when I was there
@@RugbyMatters History Matters just came out with a video on this, I suggest you watch it :).
czcams.com/video/u7mXNEkONUo/video.html
@@Noobatron-cc7ff its pretty interesting. Victoria was called the grandmother of europe for some time, and it was not a euphemistic term. Her relatives were literally in charge of most of the countries of any note.
The PM and Parliament are in charge of the UK (the PM runs the day to day while Parliament passes the laws) but they also have powers over certain things JUST for England, like healthcare which in wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is devolved to their local Parliaments but England doesn’t have a local Parliament so we just rely on the national Parliament to do everything for us (except the really small things like bin collection which the council does)
Canadian here, our relationship to the Queen is more or less the same (except for us she has no religious role) so I'll try and explain why these powers are only theoretical and would never actually be used.
See, in both the Canadian and British legal traditions, statutory law (that is, laws that are formally written down) is only one part of what makes up our respective constitutional documents: another major component are legal traditions and conventions, which are treated with the exact same legal weight. So for example, even though there is no codified, written procedure for who gets to be appointed Prime Minister, convention mandates that it be the leader of whatever the largest party or coalition in parliament is at the time. If the monarch does not do this, the supreme court can hold a trial, and potentially declare the actions of the monarch as unconstitutional. Once an action is declared unconstitutional, it is immediately struck down and no longer has any effect.
The single most important of these conventions is called "parliamentary supremacy", which basically means that the monarch cannot exercise the royal prorogative without the advice and consent of parliament. So in the US you have a separation of powers between the Executive (the President), the Legislative (Congress), and the Judicial (the Supreme Court) branches which are theoretically equal in power. Under parliamentary supremacy however, the legislative branch (in this case, the parliament and Prime Minister) is the most powerful component of government, and has the ultimate say in how the other branches exercise their powers. So while the monarch technically holds all those powers, she can't actually exercise most of them unless parliament tells them to. So basically, imagine if the President was pretty much only allowed to do what Congress told them to.
The reason this exists is because the monarchy derives its legitimacy from parliament, and not the other way around. This started when King Henry VIII sought a marriage annullment from parliament instead of the Pope: by doing so, he set the precedent that parliament has power over the monarch even in something so personal as marriage. Several kings have historically tried to rule as absolute monarchs in Britain, and each one ended up being overthrown by parliament, so their successors realised that if they wanted to stay in power, they had to be on good terms with parliament. Another example would be the Glorious Revolution in the 17th century when parliament gave the British crown to the Dutch Stadtholder William of Orange. This meant that parliament has the power to choose a new monarch if they feel the current one is tyrannical.
So really, all the power lies in the hands of parliament, as not only does the monarch have to do what they say, but they also have the power to simply choose someone else to be the new monarch if they wanted to. The monarch's power may sound scary at first, but that's only if you look at written law says and don't take into account the sizeable body of unwritten laws, traditions, and conventions.
Sorry for the wall of text but hopefully this was helpful at all! Great video btw! :)
Australian here, the PM's are voted by the the people but the Queen has the power to kick them out or appoint one
I think the only time that power would ever be used is if the PM turned genocidal towards they're own people 😂
@@Bill-2203 interestingly it actually happened in Australia in the 1970s, though I'm afraid I can't remember the context of the incident. However it did lead to the Governor-general of Australia (the Queen's representative) removing the prime minister and Parliament finding a replacement
@@greg_mca that's fascinating I wonder if it was The governor-generals Protocol or actually the queen who told him to do it
Australian here. We don't vote for the PM. We vote for politicians that, in theory, represent our constituency. The party or groups of parties, (coalition) that gets a majority of politicians in parliament forms government and they, the politicians, vote for a leader who becomes PM. The government can dismiss a PM and vote a new PM without any say of the people of Australia. I think the Queen-Governor General still has to formally ratify the appointment.
@TheRenaissanceman65 The anniversary of that was recently, or the Palace documents were recently released. Is there any contention in Australia over the matter, or is it recognised as an important constitutional function?
Please note UK has the first Bill of Rights and Magna Carta both which the US Bill of Rights is based on.(and D.o.I)
Always glad to see someone trying to learn more about the world around them (particularly 'Mericans)... this is a very big hole in your approach to life you need to sort out...keep on doing you are doing lady
Hello, it's very nice video thanks god bless you and bless American people
I love watching this stuff with you it gives me a history lesson and I’m English
She's not the Queen of England. There is no such sovereign country as "England" and there hasn't been since 1707. And no such title as "Queen of England". Her proper title is "The Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
But her favourite title under her breath is and always will be Queen of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, which is shortened to Queen of England.
I suspect you are not English.
Yeah, but that's a mouthful...
"pars pro toto"
Use the singular to mean the whole. Everyone does it. Before the dissolution of the USSR, it was normal to refer to it as Russia, when Russia was actually one of 15 republics. Bosnia or Bosnia and Herzegovina? The Roman Empire ... Rome.
In 1839, Lord Melbourne, the Queen’s prime minister, announced his intention to resign. Victoria asked former PM the Duke of Wellington to form a government and he declined. She then asked Robert Peel (a Tory) to form one. He said only if she removed some of her Ladies of the Bedchamber, many of whom were wives and or relatives of leading Whigs. She responded, “The Queen of England will not submit to such trickery.” If Queen Victoria can say it, anyone can say it.
Or how about official documentation. Take, for example, and there are many, the Treaty of Waitangi, from 1840, which set up New Zealand as British. (Look, there it is again!) The first line of the preamble starts, “HER MAJESTY VICTORIA Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ……” But Article the First reads:
"The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England…."
You are much more likely to hear a French person say ‘Angleterre’ than ‘ le Royaume-Uni’.
Certainly, context is important. To say Scotland is in England would be wrong and, to some, insulting. But when referring to the sovereign political entity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland without regard to its constituent parts, pars pro toto is perfectly acceptable.
So a person is not wrong to say "England" if they meant the UK.
@@davidkaye8712 I think England , Wales ,Scotland and Northern Ireland does have a shortened version and it's not England !!!!!!.....Try UK or full title United Kingdom . Also you might like to check up that the Queen is not head of state of Ireland !!!.....I take it you ARE English
Thank you for posting this! I was about to do it myself 😊
I had a discussion with 'Merican friends about our government differences. I got to say the best part of having my head of state not being my head of government is I can criticize my government but not be a traitor. 31 years ago I became a member of the Royal Canadian Air Force and pledged my oath that “I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God." I have Her Majesty's Commission and Her Order of Military Merit so I have two pieces of parchment that open with "Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Queen of Canada, Defender of the Faith, Greetings." still gives me chills.
Check out the magna carta, it was signed By King John. it may help to explain why she will not abuse her power.
All heads of state tend to have diplomatic immunity when traveling abroad so they can't be charged with any crimes. That includes the US president.
We have a Queen (or King) we are therefore subjects
The appointment of a prime minister is a thing where the ruling monarch still has final say. Queen Victoria faced some issues with this when she didn't much care for an incoming prime minister and didn't want anything to do with him.
It would be good to look at the dismissal of Gough Whitlam in Australia.
Subjects is a term that has been used for years. The house of (commons) parliment is short for commoners ie they represent the common folk.
In theory, mostly they just represent themselves like most politicians.
It is remarkable how Britons, like you, know fuckall about your own history. Parliament took shape under Henry III conceived by people like Simon de Montfort. The House of Commons derives its name from the Norman word ‘communes’ as the burgesses represented towns (i.e. communities, hence communes). The English word ‘commoner’ comes from this not the other way round.
Technically the House of Commons doesn't represent common people, they represent Commons, or communes (Norman French, very popular pre-Tudors) today we'd call them constituancies.
When you say parliament you are thinking of the UK parliament based at the Palace of Westminster in London, this is where the Prime Minster (currently Boris Johnson) leads the government of the whole UK. Although the UK parliament is the supreme legislative assembly in all the countries that make up the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also have devolved administrations (their own parliaments/assemblies) that handle local matters. Unlike the other countires of the UK England does not have its own devolved assembly with all matters handled by the UK parliament. This leaves the interesting situation where English MPs (members of parliament) have no vote on laws that soley effect Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland but MPs from these countries can vote on laws that solely effect England.
Uh...wow. That's more complicated than I thought, lol.
@@SoGal_YT As a very rough comparison to the US system prime minister = president, UK Parliament = US Congress and devolved administrations = state legislatures
What about English votes on English laws introduced by Cameron?
6:19 she has diplomatic immunity from any crime anywhere!
There are 54 countries in the commonwealth, which is more than i thought. I had 26 in my mind. Glad I looked it up.
With regards to Parliament. Try to imagine a president who is an independent and fairly happy with this arrangement. And a house and senate comprised more or less of two parties, one of which would have a majority and make all of the decisions.
Except the UK is nothing like this.
8:45 The answer to this really is that it wouldn't be the first time that a popular uprising overthrew the reigning monarch. In 1649 the English Civil War resulted in the arrest and execution of King Charles I and the establishment of a republic, which lasted until 1660.
And let's not forget that James II was booted off the thrown in the glorious revolution of 1688. He was a catholic. These two depositions were crucial moments in the evolution of parliamentary government. They clearly demonstrated where the power really lay.
Brit and happy subject here 🙋♂️😂🇬🇧