John Talks the Death of the Queen
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 09. 2022
- PATREON: / johndruddy
ONLINE STORE: www.johndruddy.com/shop/
PODCAST: open.spotify.com/show/55aKvEr...
TWITTER: / johndruddy
INSTAGRAM: / johndruddy
CZcams CHANNEL 1: / johndruddymannyman
CZcams CHANNEL 2: / @johndruddydoesstuff5585
My thoughts on the Death of Queen Elizabeth II.
Written and created by JOHN D RUDDY @johndruddy
Illustrated by JOHN D RUDDY @johndruddy
Edited by GRACE NUGENT
Enjoy! Please share! BUY MY BOOKS HERE: johndruddy.com/books/
To put in perspective how long The Queen lived & served, she was born when Coolidge was President, been on the thrown since Truman was President, & has been around to see 39% of our country's history.
Sadly she didn't manage to surpass King Louis XIV's reign which is at 72 years. She only reigned for 70 years.
The reason why Louis has been the Sun King for so long is because he began at the age of just FOUR, and by the time of his death he was 76, four days before he turned 77 years old.
I wonder if Part 3 would cover all the way to Elizabeth I or James I/VI.
@10K CALROIE TAKIS FUEGO CHALLENGE yes. it came from Roblox B&I.
I find the closing of such a wide variety of things a bit excessive honestly
I don‘t get all this appreciation for the praise for the queen . Like people here in Germany say that she shall Rest In Peace .You do realize that she only has little power and only serves a ceremonial role. She never achieved anything then being born extremely rich and in royalty. All her life she and the royal family have only lived as celebrities .Name me one thing she achieved in the many decades she lived . What a bunch of fake sympathy for woman that never helped your family or your country . And all I see his r.i.p the Queen or the Queen has died and she was such a powerful and influential woman like wake up and be real . Princess Diana was a real queen if anything as she cared about the people of Britain and was one of them as you know to represent them , which is probably why Elizabeth didn’t like her especially since she has an Egyptian fiancé and an Arab offspring of course wouldn’t be appropriate for the view of the royalty. Furthermore it was only a matter of time before she would die . In the end Queen Elizabeth lived as she died on the jewels and riches of countries which her kingdom exploited .
I hear people who defend having a monarchy on the basis of "being a national symbol that unites the people" but Im like you don't need a royal rich family to do that lol. Countries like Ireland, France, and Germany are prime examples of states who abolished their monarchies and they have no lack of cultural, social, or traditional identies to embody themselves with lol.
She dedicated her entire life to public service for the United Kingdom and the other Realms. Every day she worked to represent the nation, the Commonwealth, the armed forces and the Church of England. There is no one in recent history with that sense of duty, and that is an admirable quality in any person.
@@someguy3766 No just showing up and representing the country aren‘t achievements that‘s just her existing and going places to represent the country . I could go to a protest for the rights of Palestinians and call for justice and represent the basic factors the Palestinians as an oppressed people in Israel need in that sense I represent them not just as a Palestinian and going to a protest but actively protesting . The British monarchy doesn’t represent it‘s people as they aren’t elected and show a level of wealth and lavishness that isn’t applicable to any other British citizen . She may represent a country symbolically but representing a country requires listening to the demand and will of its people aswell as the people themselves . However one person can‘t and never can represent a whole group but can actively set out to act on the majority demands and for the greater good based on these demands . Queen Elizabeth may have represented the British monarchy but never the country as a country isn’t defined by one person nor is representable by one unless they hold absolute power. She may have made one think of The United Kingdom of Great Britain as of her but she never represented the country as she never set out to represent a people‘s majority demands . She never even chose political decisions and was basically just the person signing everything the Parlament could enact blindly . She only served as a figure head going on tours for the royalty’s image and for symbolic images and that is not an admirable achievement but only things she needed to do for her image. The only power she held and on her deathbed holds is apathy and the illusion of achievement and grandeur.
@@momo-rf5fe She worked hard all her life; I'm not going to debate that point with you further because we clearly have different ideas of what 'work' entails.
We don't care that the Queen wasn't elected because she had no real power. She represented something more than a mere election victory - a bloodline that goes back over a thousand years, a living link to our origins as a nation. What good would another elected politician do for us, one who can't even do anything, lol.
And as for her wealth, well queen or not it would still be her wealth because all her lands and valuables belong to her family. We can't just seize her lawful property. You should know this, after the German Empire fell the royals still kept all their castles and money.
We actually make a lot of money off the Royals because they give all the profits of the Crown Estates to the Treasury in exchange for a fixed salary from Parliament, and the Estates bring in WAY more money than the royals get paid. If they ceased to be royals, that deal would end and they would just keep all that money.
Lol, you clearly don't understand the role the monarchy has in Britain. The Queen represented the whole country precisely because she was NOT political. This is why politicians can't represent the country very well - they will (usually) side with a majority view, which necessarily means they are at odds with the minority. The Queen did not work for policy or votes, she worked for us, all of us, not a majority.
I dunno man if you really think a President of Great Britain would be an improvement over the royals, I think you're nuts. If there is one thing politics teaches us, it is to bloody hate politicians.
@@someguy3766 I certainly recognize the symbolic and historic role that the queen had or has for the British people, however I despise the exaggeration of her life and achievements which make her seem larger than life . I must admit I didn’t know that wealth of the royals is fixed in this manner and this system in itself is admirable. I am aware that the power of the queen is limited but this doesn’t justify any kind of big praise for her as just a figure head especially from people outside of Britain and I feel she is in a way just admired for herself being part of a lineage. Don’t get me wrong I’m aware that her her powers are limited however a person just living for the sake of being royal isn‘t to be mourned or admired in my opinion especially with her relation to Apartheid South Africa. As long as she looked and acted up to par it didn’t matter who she met or where she traveled she downright didn’t intervene or said anything , what mattered was her presence and image alone and heir reign alone as an passive observer isn‘t justifiable even if her powers were limited.
As an Englishman, I expect I have a biased opinion in favour of the monarchy as many others do in my country within a country.
I do, however, think that you make some very important points that ought to be considered when weighing up history and current affairs. The British Empire has done atrocious things in the name of the power and wealth and many other things. I cannot speak for the past as there are many scars upon the world we (speaking of the England and Britain of years past (and present)) inflicted.
That being said, I have a lot of respect for those in the royal family who take their job* seriously and have used their position not to seek their own legacy but to uplift those they "serve". And given her record as the longest reigning monarch in one of the most difficult periods in world history, I think Elizabeth II has done very well.
I also don't think any economic argument against the monarchy holds water anymore because despite historical and political arguments against the monarchy, they bring in more money for the UK economy than they cost to maintain.
I think the idea of a person being above the law is a pretty bad idea especially if that person has that position because of their birth not from any electoral process.
@@nothisispatrick6528 I think this is an excellent point. The idea of a person being unelected in a position of power and above the law or effectively the law deciding point is a notion that I do not support.
However, that is not what the current British Monarchy is.
The institution as it stands has evolved over many centuries and now is significantly different from what it was even 70 years ago. The monarch acts as a final word and head of state but only in a ceremonial sense. Were the monarch to exercise power without the government's say-so, the United Kingdom would likely very quickly transform into the United Republic
The monarchs actual job, the job to which I think Elizabeth performed very well over the years is some what of a voice above the crowd, an ideal to consider and a point of accountability. She may well be in her position due to being a descendant of, in the words of another CZcamsr I cannot remember, the person with the most violent army, but she was in a position of powerless authority with a role to be a major part of culture and the discussion in Government. Had the majority of people of the UK any qualms with her to the extent that they believed the modern monarchy to be a negative part of the woodwork, she would have probably stepped down with dignity and without a fuss. But so many people from across the world have spoken of their appreciation for her. Even those on opposite sides of conflicts.
There is something to be said of that.
They inferere either politics heavily behind the scenes, hid a fucking child rapist, and continue to benefit off blood money. Tell me how they are any better than saudi royalty or similar.
@@nothisispatrick6528 It's really not that simple though. The monarch is raised from birth to be king or queen. It is not accurate to say they are above the law; rather, they ARE the law. A lot of expectations come with that. There is precedent for a monarch having been perceived to violate their authority as the sovereign to tyrannise the people of England - King Charles I, and he was tried and executed for his crimes. While legal scholars may debate the de jure legitimacy of such a trial and sentence to this day, the fact remains de facto a monarch is meant to personify the law and should they seek to pervert the law, Parliament WILL step in and address it.
Although these days should they feel the need to do so, they would probably just force King Charles to abdicate and then try him, or abolish the monarchy altogether. I don't think they would chop his head off, lol.
As an Indian, I can assure you the scars are still deep and still healing. But i would say, keep the monarch alive. Doesn't feel good to stop every tradition.
Easy to say when you don't pay taxes to these arseholes
I think England will, at least. Scotland and Wales I'm not so sure- they both have strong traditions of leftism, particularly Wales. And tbh I can't see the union holding together for another 100 years (as an Englishman).
She was born never expecting to be queen. On her 21st birthday in South Africa she vowed to devote her whole life to the service of her people which I’d say she succeeded in doing. During her reign she managed to avoid getting into any scandals. I’d like to challenge a few things that John said in the video:
1. The commonwealth is not a rebranding of the British empire which no longer exists. The commonwealth is a unifying organisation that brings together the diverse former countries of the British empire who are all now sovereign independent states all friends and cooperating together. No one is forcing any of them to remain in the organisation and a country is free to go at any point which is what Ireland chose to do in 1950s. It is all done by consent. It is very interesting that out of all the former imperialist European powers such as France, Spain and Portugal only Britain has managed to maintain a strong relationship with its former colonies and dominions.
2. In the recent opinion polls conducted in the UK show that republicanism is now at around 25% and there have been times where it has been a lot higher than that.
3. John is also spreading fake news on the number of people that have been arrested for protesting against the monarchy. Just one person has been arrested and that was because he disturbing the peace and was causing trouble that was negatively impacting other people which goes against the principle of liberty.
I personally don't believe in monarchies at all and I am Irish, but while I dislike the British government and the position of Queen I separate the person from the position. I don't support people protesting at her funeral because that is just disrespectful, especially from Irish people who claim to be Catholic. While I don't like monarchs, if Britain had to have a monarch, she was as good as they come.
RIP
Agreed, I'm Irish and catholic and while I don't like monarchies, protesting at her funeral is just disgusting.
One thing that will be interesting to see in future Monarchs of England/Britain videos is with regards to Edward VIII's abdication in 1936
I think that a lot of the retention of the monarchy came from Elizabeth, since she was just so personable.
Now that she's gone, I really don't think the monarch will just carry on. I'm nearly certain there will be a change, either small or drastic, in the near future.
And I'm all for that change, so long as it's what the people want.
There are scars from the British Empire that the Commonwealth cannot always paper over but also consider Mozambique in 1995 (a former Portugeuese colony), Rwanda (German colony) in 2009, followed by Togo and Gabon (former French colonies) this year that have all joined the Commonwealth having had no British rule. Something must have drawn them into this group of nations.
I'd been hoping to hear your perspective on this. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. As an American, I am fairly indifferent to the Crown as an entity but can recognize the symbolic nature it has in British history.
The monarchy only exist to manufacture consent of the common people at this point
Hey just wanted to say this was very thought out, respectfully of both individuals and ideas who are on the "other side," and still gets the point across clearly. A 10/10 in political debate
Nate K.M. Bowie
Still, not at a "classy" time
Hey John, I’m a huge fan of your channel and I was wondering if you could maybe do a video on Yugoslav Wars?
Hi John, been a really long time fan and supporter of your work. I remember being aged 7 and watching your videos on the cold war and the second world war.
I think your words were very well spoken, topics such as these are never a black or white situation! However as you said I myself am in more of the positive outlook camp on her legacy and contributions.
By the way I live in Kells Co Meath so not too far from where your based!!
As a Catholic in the North of Ireland that 2 week bank holiday was the only thing standing in the way of a united Ireland and we only got 1 day🥲
I'll miss the queen, I feel as the years go on the Royal Family is going to get so much more flak and criticism pointed at it. Cracks have been forming over the last decade and I beleive within the century the monarchy will fall apart if its directly or indirectly it will come.
No monarch from this point on is going to gain the support and backing Queen Elizabeth 2nd once did.
I think it needed to bypass chales and go straight to William. People will look at him and see his mother. Other than Edward and Anne, Charles has had bad press since the divorce because the papers keep fawning over diana. Even in death they still hound her because she makes headlines. If journalism was curtailed the monarchy but without journalists and the such we will live in blind ignorance. It's a vicious circle. Monarchs crumble then democracies rise and vice versa when you elect people like putin or Trump. Soz for the reply.
Guys l meet this guy in school he told us about the old time and alot of history
I am an American in fact Southern American from Texas where we fought our own War of Independence against Mexico but I'm also a Monarchists and i support the British Royal Family and the Imperial Families of the Habsburgs and Mexico.
And I would understand the perspectives of people like you
I’ve always been a strong English Republican, but I was still a bit sad when the queen passed. She was a hugely important historical figure and was the face (quite literally) of a moderate, constitutional monarchy. I can understand why people are mourning currently. However I don’t see Charles being able to maintain that popularity, especially with the multiple controversies at the moment
id like to see a vid bout the history of estonia from the knights order to until today
I honestly cannot comprehend why people think it is a good idea for a government to derive its authority from a single person let alone a person selected by birth and not an electoral process
While the British monarchy serves as the head of state for the UK and its ~~imperial holdings~~ commonwealths, they're pretty well divorced from any legal power. That said, it is kind of dumb that this role is still awarded through hereditary means.
And yet it works for us. We haven't had a civil war since the 17th century and we're a prosperous, democratic country with very high living standards. We tried republicanism briefly and it didn't go too well. Then France tried it and it went even more... head-choppy. They're on their fifth one now, lol.
It's totally symbolic the monchary holds on no power in political debates or anything the alone thing she does is put her name on the laws and that's ok with British people and we elected are head of state we may as well be America and look how they went so far
well its a constitutional monarchy so the government doesn't really derive it authority from the monarchy.....
@@Oskle616 it does in name and that's the point of a constitutional monarchy
As ever, I thank you for a truly mature and sophisticated take on a topic that has sorely lacked it this week. Best wishes from Essex.
I like republics. I’m used to this type of government. BUT, if you have to roll with a constitutional monarchy, Elizabeth was not the worst choice for a leader.
But also far from the best
Saying all of this with a cutout of Oliver Cromwell in the background must mean.... something
Well spotted :D
Honestly I'm not sure how I feel about constitutional monarchies, although I absolutely do not support absolute monarchies, of which there are still a few of even today. I myself live in a constitutional monarchy: Sweden and here the monarchy is generally something that most people don't care that much about, although there is some republicanism, mainly in the Left Party of the Riksdag. Concerning the Queen, from what I know (which isn't much), she as a person seemed to be alright, though definitely no saint or anything and I think some of the things people are saying are unfair, I don't think it is fair to dunk on the Queen for what the British Empire did well before she was Queen, or even born for that matter. That being said I do agree with the points made by John about the legacy of the British Empire and how people from Ireland or various countries in Africa who suffered under British rule must feel. And also, there were terrible things happening under the Queen's reign as well.
Comparing to the monarchy in my country it's also quite different, we in Sweden obviously don't have a Commonwealth and the Royal Family while it has had some scandals, hasn't really been in the type of hot water the British monarchy has found itself in, especially in recent times. The monarchy is supposed to be impartial to politics, have no political power at all and are generally just celebrities with extra steps due to being descended from previous Kings and Queens. That being said, in the future maybe more people will start to see things differently here in Sweden.
What I think is undeniable however, regardless of your view of Queen Elizabeth II, is that she was an icon of the 20th and 21st century.
I always hear the talking points of "the monarchy is a symbol that unites the people" but I really cant wrap my head around that. Theres hundreds of counties that used to be monarchies but once they got abolished, it's not like they had no national, cultural, or traditional identity with
4:24 okay maybe Mountbatten isn’t as impactful to Irish people as he was to Indians. As an Indian however my great grandmother remembered what he did to her friends. Her friends never saw their families again, separated by a border. Most of them died recently, never seeing their loved ones again. Heck I think some of their children even fought against each other in 1971.
Oooh yea, I’m not defending Lord Mountbatten. Dude was scum! Sad his grandchildren got caught in the assassination though
@@JohnDRuddyMannyMan fair, he did use them as a shield tho.
Rip 💀
I'm sad for the family to loose their mother and grandmother, however her handling and covering of the Andrew's sexual assault allegations and friendship with Epstein, on top of her self-exemption from several laws has left me unable to express any personal sorrow. I'm not comfortable being asked to ignore that and have no personal attachment that will make me mourn her aside.
So did everyone forget that Gorbachev also died
I'm English born to an English father and an Irish (catholic, republican) late mother, so I value both sides. I think your comments were reasonable, but not quite balanced in as much as you played down somewhat the atrocities committed by the IRA. It wasn't just the assassination of Lord Mountbatten in 1979, with collateral damage. The IRA were cold hearted sons of bitches, no better than the British at their worst. Think of the two little English boys who died in the Warrington (England) bombing of 1993, while they were out buying a Mother's Day card. Even the Irish band "The Cranberries" spoke out in music (the song "Zombie", which has over 1B views here on CZcams) for an end to the violence after that incident. Killing innocent children for the sake of trying to change the administration of a region from British back to Irish is madness. Killing people for the sake of national identity is certainly not unique to the British. The Irish and everyone else are all guilty. It is the history of the world. Even Britain has been invaded and occupied by the Romans, etc. Perhaps the UK should demand "reparations" from Italy!!
I am a second language speaker and interested: Where is your accent from?
It sometimes sounds american, irish, canadian or british...but what is it?
Northwest of Ireland.
I'd have guessed Sligo or Donegal due to some elongations on the pronunciation of some words.
As an American I truly feel we need to recognize the harmful Deeds we've done to the world. And I think we should have a good standing relationship with all of the other former British colonies. Whether we like it or not at some point in our history the royal family has tied us all together
I saw you today it tuar ard
In*
R.I.P. Queen Elizabeth 2 ❤️🇬🇧❤️🇬🇧❤️🇬🇧❤️🇬🇧❤️🇬🇧
As someone who is part Irish and father (who was in the IRA) it was good to see a completely fair view I don’t like the monarchy myself but you go in to details rather than ‘abolish the monarchy lizzie in a box’ nice vid
I'm the biggest royalist out there, but a day off work is nice.
As a British person I would much prefer we keep the monarchy. Aside from the fact that the Crown is an integral part of our history, tradition and identity, and something that sets us apart from most other countries as somewhat special... it works. I don't know exactly why or how, but our system has kept this country politically stable for centuries to a degree that few other nations can rival.
And I do mean our specific brand of constitutional monarchy from the late 1600s on. Indeed when you look at the wealthiest, most stable, most developed nations on earth, most of them are constitutional monarchies - the Commonwealth countries, the Nordic countries, Japan, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands etc. We tend to score better than even first world republics like the US or France on many indexes.
So for me it is a pragmatic thing as well as a traditional thing. You know what they say - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. For whatever reason our country seems to work well enough as it is. And most of the problems we do have come from politicians... so why add yet another one of those to the mix!
British Anti-Monarchist here, while I respect the fact that a family has lost a member and that many people are saddened by the loss. I certainly agree that the deep rooted scars and issues left by the British Empire/commonwealth and the lack of reconciliation and efforts to fix/heal the damage on our part is abhorrent.
I'm sure that the Monarchs of England series is in the forefront, but with the hand over of the Prince of Wales title and the...unfortunate possibility of another investiture ceremony, I'd love to see a video covering that baggage.
Irelands relationship with the conservative government not so positive. Don’t worry, the British peoples relationship with them is pretty awful at the minute.
As an Englishman, I think it may be wise to wind down the monarchy. No one’s going to be as loved or popular as Elizabeth. Besides, (controversies aside) things are changing and things need to change. Brexit and the conservative governments handling of covid are proving how toxic classism is in the UK.
Either way, what ever happens. I hope we can all go forward together in peace and hope.
🇬🇧🤝🏻🇮🇪
I want peace with you so much, but I can't be truly at peace with your nation until all of Ireland is a single nation reunification by the democratic process only. That doesn't mean I hate your nation it just means there's still a layer of animosity, but not hatred.
So the french republic should also be abolished because of their atrocities then?
Here's the only thing that keeps me from going full republican: as an American we've seen every single one of our apolitical institutions politicised to within an inch of their lives, so how can we reliably keep an elected president apolitical like they should be in a parliamentary democracy?
Do what we do in Ireland. Our President is Head of State, but NOT Head of Government; that’s our Taoiseach (Primeminister). The President is elected every 7 years and acts essentially like the monarch of England. Our Taoiseach is elected in an election, whoever is the leader of the biggest political party.
The two party system in America is also really broken! Ranked voting can fix that
@@JohnDRuddyMannyMan Those are all good points and I’m in favour of all of them. It’s just somehow I have a feeling we’d figure out a way to ruin it
@@JohnDRuddyMannyMan Yeah but if the president has no power what is even the point of electing them?
@@someguy3766 Diplomatic duties just like what the monarchy in Britain do
As an American, I'm very much anti-monarchy.
"It's very clear you're being unfair, king,
No matter what you say, we won't obey.
Gonna hold a revolution now, king,
And we're gonna run it all our way
With no more kings."
And, you know, with my little Armalite.
(Which, of course, as an American, I have. Because America and guns, because we're like that and we have lots of them.)
May Ireland never have to fire another shot in anger. May peace and happiness be achieved by the vote and not the bullet.
Sadly we know what that looks like in our time. Slava Ukraini.
I’m way too early to say anything
The only thing I feel people are forgetting is she was a human. Genuinely celebrating the death of another leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
We’ll said John!
From my point of view as a non-Englishman, I don't quite understand the whole "Maybe the monarchy isn't such a good idea"-thing in regards to the modern english monarchy.
While I'm certainly not a monarchist, I think the english monarchy is fine as it is right now. They may still hold lands, though they do pay the government quite handsomely in the non-corrupt kind of way, moreso than they would as private citizens, and they are the heads of the Church of England but they don't hold much political power serving more as a figure head, a symbol.
While yes, atrocities were committed during her reign, that does not mean it was her fault. She wasn't an autocrat ruling with absolute power after all.
Much like the Irish Potato Famine, it was the fault of the people running the British Parliament.
Even if the English Bill of RIghts would have ended the Royal Family for good, these atrocities would have still happened.
And removing the Royal Family now would change little in the way of the UK's politics. The people with ACTUAL power, aka the people running Parliament, would still be in charge and still be running the country like nothing ever happened.
Now I''m not saying Parliament should be abolished. After all, as with all democratic governments, any fault tends to come down to the people running it rather than the government as an institution. I am, however, saying that the consequences of harmful political decisions, much like beneficial ones really, should not be layed at the feet of a monarch with barely if any actual say in politcal matters. That would be scapegoating and that's never a good idea.
The UK is a constitutional monarchy. Not an absolute one like France before the French Revolution or a fake one like the German Empire pretended to be.
It's a relic from a bygone era. And much like a relic in a museum, people pay to goggle at it thus generating revenue for those running the "museum" (in this case the government) or making merchandise of it.
Do correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've seen and heard, from actual british people who didn't care much of the Royal Family no less, it doesn't do any harm having it around.
So I fail to see any actually good reason to remove it.
If you look at the letter of the law the monarch actually has tremendous political power it’s just that none of them have exercised that power lately.
The monarch can theoretically choose the prime minister, veto laws put forward by parliament, and has complete immunity from all criminal charges
Sure if the monarchy is defanged of its political power I don’t really think it’s a problem but right now at least according to the United Kingdoms current laws it definitely is not defanged
@@nothisispatrick6528 they have used the power to veto laws in a different way. Many times they’ve used their influence to change parts of laws that might impact them in any way. They scum the whole lot of them.
@@nothisispatrick6528
But if they chose to not exercised any of those powers (in fact, according to my research, the last time an english monarch vetoed someting put forth by Parliament was in *1708* (314 years ago!)), in practice it's basically like they don't have them.
In fact, I think them not using those theoretical powers and not having done so in over 300 years says a lot about them and how not-a-threat they are to the much more hands-on democratic part of the goverment.
Honastly, I think they could be stripped of these "powers" and literally nothing would change.
Not to mention that, again according to my research, they are constitutionally obliged to follow the government’s advice.
The whole "immunity from all criminal charges" is a problem, I agree with that especially in regards to Prince Andrew. But we shouldn't forget that "Immunity from prosecution" is part of the international law. Every diplomat has it as well as certain democratic leader-position (and in some cases the country's parliament as a whole), most famously the US president. So while it is a problem, it's a general problem not specific to the english monarchy.
Union is on it's last legs now
Lizzy's in a box. Woo! Abolish the Monarchy.
As an American, I have often felt the need for a head of state different from the head of government. This is what the monarchy provides. In the US, they are the same person. It is sad when that person cannot be respected (see: Donald Trump).
I descend from people who were tortured and enslaved in the transatlantic slave trade. The idea that anyone should deserve reverence or rule simply from descending from those evil monarchs is an absolute farce. I hope all monarchies end
Go back far enough and everyone is descended from slaves.
You know Africans sold each other into slavery?
@@rogerkeleshian2215 demanding someone's background because you think you can visually determine people's race is the behavior of racists
@@rogerkeleshian2215 ever think that my "percentage of African" is none of your damn business?
@@sierrrrrrrra Is it any of your business to determine what system of government my country should have?
From someone who is from South Asia, I can never forgive the Crown for Bengal Femine
I don’t think any one person has done more for Anglo-Irish relations, especially in modern times than Queen Elizabeth II. I do hope the reconciliation of our two countries continues.
I think you heavily overestimate republicanism in the UK. At worst, most are indifferent with very few actively supporting a republic. The platinum jubilee for one showed how strong support for the monarchy still is over here. I just don’t see how having a President (elected or appointed by the government) would be any better or less divisive.
On Empire, the Commonwealth is literally nothing like the Empire and I was disappointed to hear you compare it so. In fact Rwanda and Mozambique have joined the Commonwealth fairly recently and weren’t even part of the British Empire. It still has a global appeal and it’s a good way for like minded countries with a shared heritage to work together and support each other. Heck, many of your Irish compatriots will probably go nuts at me for saying this, but if Ireland joined, I fully believe it would make unification much for palatable for Unionists who wish to retain their links with the UK.
Onto historical links, while I appreciate that the past cannot be changed or undone, I’m not sure the British Empire deserves to be singled out in such a way. I think basic geography ensured Ireland would be in England/Britain’s sphere of influence historically speaking and if the British Empire didn’t exist, it is infinitely likely someone else would have done and by most accounts, would have been worse. I understand the anti-colonialism is incredibly strong in Ireland for obvious reasons, but to pretend only Britain was doing bad things is either ignorant or naive at best. Colonialism in the enlightenment and industrial period needs to be explained from a European perspective rather than an individual national one.
Oh 100% on it wasn’t just Britain doing the empiring, but this is a video about the British monarch, so I focussed on that.
@@JohnDRuddyMannyMan Fair enough, although in regards Elizabeth II, the only colonisation I can think of that happened on her watch was an interim colonial administration in what is now Zimbabwe for a few years in the late 70’s to early 80’s. Otherwise, nobody has done more for decolonisation and she embraced that. Dancing with Nkrumah in Ghana perhaps being the most obvious symbol in this regard.
However, good video otherwise and keep up the good work. I’ve learned a lot about modern Irish history through your channel.
"Moment of reconciliation" my hide. She did the same thing that businesses do when they're caught peddling poison or lying to customers, doing whatever it takes to dance around the issue without ever actually admitting any wrongdoing.
The only thing she could ever have done to salvage any shred of her legacy would be to have condemned colonialism as an idea and an institution, call for restitution toward the countries that Britain held under its heel and publicly, directly acknowledge her own role in those crimes. She had a higher personal popularity than any elected politician in British history and she did nothing with it.
She played nice with apartheid regimes and genocidal dictatorships, even her own prime ministers stealing milk out of the hands of school children, but so long as she smiled for the camera and waved her diamond speckled glove so got a pass.
Neutrality against evil is cowardice. Neutrality against evil she benefited directly from is simply evil of its own.
I agree . couldn’t have said it any better
Wish more people understood this. She and her family can rot in hell.
On the topic or empire to commonwealth exploiting people and using slaves.
That's still going on. In the east. Places like china, middle east and parts of africa to name afew
I think Ireland is as much British as anything else. In history terms of course. The celts that originally inhabited the Isles of Britainna during Romans. And your own language is decended down from Celtish britonic and the original colonisers latin and the norse. If anything ireland is more British then the English or Scots.
Irish is Gaelic not Brythonic. Welsh is Brythonic and for a good chunk of history, Welsh, Cornish and Breton people where refered to as 'Britons' before it started being used for the UK. However the Irish where considered seperate.
@@gota7738 I knew I got it confused as soon as wrote it. My history is more classical greek later imperial Rome and anglo saxon. But I think the celts did settle in Ireland aswell and Britons after the saxon invasion but mainly along the Eastern coast before the norse came. Sorry about previous comment
@@stevenpearce8715 Goidelic is a branch of insular Celtic but the other branch from Brythonic. There was some migration back and forth between the two islands and there's a lot shared, but there was also a lot distinct. The peoples of ancient Briton where viewed separately to those of Ireland.
This actually the first time I've seen Gaelic mistaken for a Brythonic language and not the other way round. Usually I have to correct people about Welsh not being Gaelic.
@@gota7738 I find welsh almost comparable to old English but diluted by saxon germanic. Although some people of Sweden notice similarities between their own language and old English. Welsh and galic are two very different languages. Although there are those who suggest they are decended from some form of singular dialect. I have a partial theory that all languages will actually form into one similar to how English stemmed from germanic and French and Latin.
I’m an American but I have a right to talk about it because my grandmother and great grandmother were immigrants from malta when it was a crown colony. First of all as an American I support having Democratic leaders ones we chose because monarchs can’t work in political sense though the queen was a good person. I do give my wishes to King Charles and wish him luck for how ever long he rules.
He does not rule, he reigns. There is a big difference.
Say what like but in the end, governments come and go but she carries on.