That time Finland became a monarchy for a month
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 09. 2017
- To be more precise, Fredercik Charles was king-elect for roughly 2 months, and the country had a monarchist constitution for about a year.
Music: "Concentration" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Clips used in the video:
• World War I: Gorlice T...
• The October Revolution...
• Lenin Speech! (1919)
• Lenin Speech, A movie ...
2:40 Correction: Wilhelm II abdicated on the 9th of November, not October.
Very interesting and well made video! i've been looking for videos on this subject for a while since in school they went past this month.
If only Friedrich... If only......
Pretty good finnish pronunciation, and a very good channel. Just watched the automaton video and it was awesome.
"A bit rusty"
Most people are bit a rusty at finnish :P
True, I'm gonna quit feeling bad about that then :D
Finland was almost always a monarchy, its monarch was the king of Sweden or the emperor of Russia.
No, that was Sweden and Russia. If Finland didn’t exist, they didn’t have a monarchy.
@@OppoRancisis tsar of russia and Grand Duke of Finland
i agree with the russian part as russian tsar was the grand duke of finland but i do not agree that the swedish king was our king
It was a monarchy, but it lacked any native monarchs. The same way that New Zealand is a monarchy, but there are no New Zealand monarchs.
@@mustanaamiotto3812but swedish kings had the titles of dukes of finland
Sucha old country finland,republic by birth
Here's how a descendant of Kaarle I would be had Finland ever kept its monarchy or the Finns wanted their country to be a monarchy.
Video by UsefulCharts (with narration by Jack Rackam): czcams.com/video/gxqnx6zCJh4/video.html
I like Finnish :D
benis :DDD
Finland's strong desire to be ruled by a monarchy - lasted for a very short period; they could not tolerate incompetence atop the social-order. But at least, they stayed true to the mentality of a serfdom; docile, peaceful, compliant, etc. hIgh-taxes, individual-liberties, voting rights, 'free-healthcare', 'free-education' (they take education very seriously), low-unemployment, low-homelessness, low-crime. Also, a ethnically homogeneous nation. Japan also stands as a useful example - same concepts.
America on the other hand, everything is opposite in effect, getting opposite results to Finland. Americans rejected the British Monarchy in sum-total. the leader is elected every 4 years! - it should be atleast 5! - do we not count with our fingers in 5's, and 10's? - let's at least try to be consistent - consistency has value...
some bone-headed 'Supreme Court Judge' even said: "A President is not a King" - as if they didn't fight a war if independence to be free from the British monarchy! the problem exists whereby a social-order-entity cannot be challenged on a regular basis for their crown/'Supreme-ness'. the latter of which you'd find at least in the natural world...whether it is too often: a lion pride (patriarchy/carnivores), or seldom: a family of elephants (matriarchy/herbivores), through time.
this artificial concept that embraces the 'God-theory' (i.e. you get to stay atop the throne to infinity) is still alive-and-well, it is problematic in the American Judiciary, and incumbent politicians; the answer lies in both qualification (whether by popular vote, or nomination), and being able to challenge the 'top-dog'...for the sake of having better leaders.
Worst of all, you have all of these ideologies, who's primary basis, is the seizure of power - and the pronouncement of 'Supreme-ness' over the masses.
Finland never had an Idependent history?
Such a shame that this happened. Monarchy is the best goverment system ever created
i dont think so
but i do love monarchy so i change my mind, yes it is the best type of monarchy
@@official_9101republic keeps country poor because of politics that are corrupt
@@jhonfutalan7112 true true
No monarchy is waste of resources best (UK, Scandinavia) and totalitarian dictatorship at worst (pretty much every other monarchy).