Monarchies Vs Republics - Why Are Monarchies More Democratic?

the title is ridiculous but true lol
If you want to support more videos like this one, I have a patreon:
/ toycat
/ toycat - Subreddit community! For discussions on all the things you see on this channel
Check out my probably main channel at / ibxtoycatletsplays
Also on twitter @ibxtoycat

[@marcor815]

One thing that might mess up all these researchs: if a country was doing poor and was a monarchy: It got overthrown and turned into a republic. But if a coutry was doing good and was a monarchy, it didn‘t get overthrown and turned into a republic. If course there are always exeptions and this is just a small pice in the human history, it still shouldn‘t be ignored

[@ZBisson]

Weird considering most monarchies are republics

[@marcor815]

@@ZBisson they mostly had some soft transformstion into constitutional monarchies, not a hard revolution abandoning it

[@ivanf.482]

EXACTLY. There is a reason if lots of monarchies were abolished, and its cause they weren't doing well and the people didn't like them anymore Like our Italian monarchy, which was abolished (fortunately)

[@johanisnotagamer]

Republics always become aristocratic in practice, and then in turn they become monarchical over time. It just doesnt always happen officially. USA, in its suspended financial aristocratic stage, and China AND Russia abit further down that line, are all examples of that. Its just a cycle.

[@florallyclover]

exactly!! that’s a really good point

[@wordsmith451]

Honestly the term "republic" doesn't really mean anything. Any term that lumps France and the DPRK together is pointless. And a constitutional monarchy like Canada is ridiculous to compare to Saudi Arabia's monarchy. It's not as if we're comparing differing forms of governance - just arbitrary terms that countries use either deceptively or aspirationally.

[@merikfishman2128]

A republic just means it's not a monagy. It really says nothing about how democratic a country is

[@roerd]

I wouldn't say that it doesn't mean anything. It's just a very technical point - it just means that it's not a monarchy, i.e. the position of head of state is not hereditary (which is of course debatable in the case of North Korea). It doesn't say anything about whether the republic is democratic or a dictatorship.

[@deutschermichel5807]

Yes and no. Of cource the term republic means that the people has control of (or atleast interest in) politics, which might imply there's no monarch, like in Rome, where the term originates, but doesn't have to. “Republic” is and was also used refering to constitutional and elective monarchies like the Kingdom of Sweden in the 18th century or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Latter keeps on being called “1st Republic” even today in Poland. Even contemporaries differentiated between “monarchies”, i.e. strong relevant kingdoms with influential and powerful heads, and “republics”, weak irrelevant kingdoms with meaningless and powerless kings. The Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania realy is a great example of a not so great republic: The crown is not passed on hereditarily in a dynastic way. Instead, the entire nobility elects a king on their own. Unlike the Holy Roman Empire, where only a small, fixed amount of electors could take influence on who would become king, effectively making the Empire an oligarchy, Poland had a record-breaking noble proportion of the population of entire ten percent (!), which were more voters than in some democracies (for reference take a look on 19th century Britain). The Polish-Lithuanian rulers became very weak in terms of political power, instead the influence of the Polish parliament, the Sejm, became ever greater. Here, too, there is a parallel to today's (bad) republics: In Republics, especially parliamentary democracies, power accumulates among a class of professional politicians who have little to do with the people they represent. Instead, they are usually only committed to their own best and often represent the interests of powerful lobbies. The influence of the economy, especially huge international corporations, on legislation is almost creepy - similar in the 1st Polish Republic: Many magnates and aristocrats in the Sejm were German or Russian nobles and used their influence in favor of foreign countries. Ultimately, this "infiltration" of the kingdom led to its decline from the most powerful state in Central and Eastern Europe to the plaything of its neighbors. With their influence in the republic, the Russians, Prussians and Austrians got their puppet king elected and ended up partitioning all of Poland-Lithuania.

[@nictamer]

@@merikfishman2128 the DPRK appears to have an ruling dynasty, so it could be seen as a monarchy. On the other hand, I don't speak Korean so maybe they just select the fattest guy in the country as their ruler, and it's indeed a republic.

[@boilingwateronthestove]

@@merikfishman2128 Yeah but that whole definition of a republic being a term to refert to countries that aren't monarchies gets worthless when you throw North Korea into the mix which calls itself a republic but honestly, it is a defacto monarchy. The current leader is the son of the previous leader and the previous leader is the son of the first leader of the country. Essentially it is a monarchy despite them using republic in their name.

[@rasmusn.e.m1064]

The lack of political revolutions tends to result in two things: 1. Monarchy staying in place 2. Stability staying in place

[@florallyclover]

and lack of civil wars + extreme poverty, which is usually what drives these political revolutions right?

[@rasmusn.e.m1064]

@@florallyclover Completely correct, and honestly it's a bit of a chicken and egg syndrome because they are all pretty heavily correlated with each other. The only reason I was able to write the OC so short is that it heavily implies the previous state of the society it describes by saying "stability staying in place"; It's pretty hard for something to stay in place if it isn't in said place already.

[@ImperiumMagistrate]

these countries should be absolute monarchies

[@ludicrous5765]

@@ImperiumMagistrate Mega based

[@petergriffin3194]

@@ImperiumMagistrate 🤡

[@danielgn7849]

Saudi Arabia sponsored this video

[@mariajoaoleal6967]

Thailand sponsored this video

[@ActuallyGarfield]

Toycat rolling in oil now

[@robertwilloughby8050]

Denmark sponsored this video. (Go hygge!)

[@The3PillarsOfGaming]

@@ActuallyGarfield the us willing be because he sold it

[@topz8196]

Indonesia sponsored this video.

[@johnson941]

Back in 1920 the Danish King fired the government because he thought that it was too leftist (and he was allowed to do so), and when the Danish people heard about that, they marched up to his castle and started shouting for a republic. The King ended up cancelling the firing of the government to avoid a revolution, and since then, the royal family has never stated anything political. I think the fact that Kingdoms have an unbiased head of state is likely part of the reason why there are some left and they rank so high on democracy.

[@ImperiumMagistrate]

and that was a stupid move. Why should idiots in Copenhagen run the country? Democracy doesn't work in Europe

[@Rissen_]

Monarchys are probably still very bias just not so openly bias as the danish king is as that sets off ur people. Instead they use sneaky tactics to control which is harder to see

[@Gaelic-Spirit]

@@Rissen_ They don't use any tactics at all. They're rich either way, why should they even care about small political issues?

[@Norup928]

@@Rissen_ the reason he fired them was that they hold an election after the First World War to get slelsvig-Holstein back from Germany they had expected that Holstein would be German and slelsvig danish because that is what was culturally correct before 1864 where they lost it but many Germans had migrated into slelsvig so when they held the election the king didn’t get what he wanted because Denmark only got a little of slelsvig with the border just outside a major culturally important old danish city so when he heard they wouldn’t just take all of slelsvig he fired them

[@mat-qh7sf]

Left is shit

[@Max-pk6uc]

I would say that Monarchies seem to be doing better only because the most democratic countries are from Europe and it just happens to be that most monarchies that still exist are European or tied to a European country

[@sixthcairn]

This is the right answer. Europe, the richest region, and Africa, the poorest region, tip the scales massively for both sides.

[@joeb4294]

Yea, correlation, but no apparent causation

[@LaFacedera]

@@joeb4294 Selection into being a monarchy is not random nonetheless, I think that there is something more interesting to it and that it tells a lot about the historical development of the country. Countries that were able to maintain a monarchy until today are more stable than others because they did not go through any major political change that forced them to abolish the monarchy (admittedly with the exception of Spain). The third variable that affects both democracy and probability of having maintained a monarchy is stability. That's why I would say that having a parliamentary monarchy is the ultimate proof of stability.

[@mint8648]

Also most rich gulf countries seem to be monarchies, thailand and malaysia are doing well too

[@Max-pk6uc]

@@mint8648 if having slaves or insane human rights violations is considered "doing well" then yeah, I guess they are

[@shyhistorian]

Title: 'Why are monarchies more democratic?" Saudi Arabia:

[@blumoogle2901]

I think it's confirmation bias: The countries which happened to be successful, stable, rich and long lasting with happy people have not had big sudden changes in government, and thus they are still monarchies. All the monarchies which were unstable fell apart so it's not so much that monarchies are automatically better, it's that countries which have a relatively good system of government for themselves - regardless of what that system is - doesn't see the need to go through big changes. The countries which have the longest periods of stability thus generally have the system closest to how they started out, and the long periods of stability is good for the people and the economy. This doesn't just hold true for the form of government, even, but for a lot of legal and cultural principles: countries which are happier and wealthier tend to have well working common law systems and quirks of history baked into their structure all over the place that rely far more on precedent than coherent codified documents, as younger countries who started off with greater literacy rates do.

[@danielwebb8402]

That's survival bias

[@blumoogle2901]

@@danielwebb8402 Whoops, yes. You're right.

[@LaFacedera]

@@danielwebb8402 Yes, that is selection bias in general, very interesting issue to tackle in econometrics.

[@sixthcairn]

It also doesn't help that these stable governments then conquered weaker regions of the world, establishing colonial governments that actively cultivated corruption if it meant greater profit, before ultimately "decolonizing" them in what often turns out to be the most haphazard ways possible.

[@senatorstevenarmstrong2807]

Didn't read it, you're wrong

[@qwertystania]

I think that this is a classic case of survivorship bias. Lots of countries once had a monarch, but only the stable countries have kept their monarchs. Unstable countries tend to overthrow their monarchs only to end up being ruled by people that are monarchs in all but name.

[@SoftCrunch917]

This

[@FazeParticles]

false monarchies have no accountability. so monarchies in all but name is very dangerous.

[@jakubzov]

Some monarchs weren't inherently overthrown by people but a foreign regimes. Such as Habsburgs in ww1

[@JohnSmith-sl2qc]

Literally the majority of countries with a monarchy were stable

[@JohnSmith-sl2qc]

Iraq Afganistan Iran were better of under Kings

[@leehallam9365]

I think you sort of got there, both being successful and having a surviving monarchy are a result of inherently stable countries, rather than a monarchy making a country richer. That said in a constitutional monarchy there are real advantages in terms of the head of state being non political compared to the different types of Republic. First many presidents are really just dictators, or have no more legitimacy than monarchs, indeed some presidencies pass through families, how many generations do we have to see before we realise North Korea is a monarchy. Even in democracies some ceremonial Presidents are elected by their politicians, and even when directly elected, they are beholden to their party for nominating them. How many of these people are significant world figures? Then we have those who run the country. These countries entirely lack a unifying figure like the King of Papua New Guinea.

[@thepedrothethethe6151]

But there are republics with non political heads of State, like Germany, and there are monarchies with political heads of State, like Saudi Arabia.

[@WallNutBreaker524]

"First many presidents are really just dictators" And monarchs arent? So long as you dictate you're a dictator , which you are one , and me too.

[@leehallam9365]

@@WallNutBreaker524 Of course an absolute monarch is a dictator, any ruler who weilds executive power without democratic consent is.

[@iakadayrneh]

No such thing as a king of Papua new guinea a tribal primitive chief maybe not king though.

[@GrenadierTerritorial]

"Some cool countries, and Bolivia" had me dying bro

[@sorashadow9775]

6:30 the Vatican can be seen as elected monarchy

[@crazydinosaur8945]

i think he ment elected by the people. not Cardinals but yes, it is

[@Jedib87]

Having a figurehead that isn’t associated with political ideologies is better for unity and allows for the actual lawmakers to be held accountable without leaving the country without a ruler.

[@sirwelch9991]

Exactly.

[@florallyclover]

i would say the queen is associated with the conservatives tho

[@frenchguitarguy1091]

Unity yes, accountability? Nooooope, look at the UK, constitutional monarchy where the prime minister can lie and lie, give broken and corrupt contracts to his mates, try to ilegally deport foreigners, break their own laws etc with no accountability whatsoever. Like Boris Johnson literally didn't have to step down, there's nothing he can that would force him down, the only thing would be a no confidence vote.

[@ninjacell2999]

@@florallyclover she definitely isn't lol

[@SetuwoKecik]

@@florallyclover the only conservative thing about modern monarchs is they're still using the ancient hereditary system and that's it.

[@carlose4314]

Arguably, the United Arab Emirates is an elective monarchy. It's just that the electors are princes/emirs.

[@TheLocalLt]

Yes it’s a very similar setup to the old Kingdom of Germany/Holy Roman Empire or the old Polish-Lithuanian Commomwealth. Today’s Malaysia also has a similar but slightly different setup

[@Luredreier]

2:14 Damned, so Denmark has slipped past us here in Norway when it comes to democracy? We've been ahead for a long time good for them for beating us.

[@danielgn7849]

No that’s from 2020 and if u go to Wikipedia we passed them in both 2020 and 2021 ranking #1

[@solgato5186]

They're blowing it now, though

[@nathanandsugar5252]

The top 5 is worlds above the US. Norway is fine. Soon enough the US oligarchy will go full mark off Hunger Games style.

[@crazydinosaur8945]

isn't it so close that it practically don't matter

[@ganjafi59]

Kraft helvede

[@parabolaaaaa4919]

nah the uk monarchy house’s name is windsor, it would be like the the windsor kingdom or something

[@smpark12]

Windsor Britannia

[@TheZett]

More like Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Britannia

[@crazydinosaur8945]

Windsor kindom(s) of Britannia

[@brunothedev]

The thing isn´t if there is a king or not,the real thing that blocks democracies are aristocrats,one good example is when the king of Denmark started granting rights to the Danish people,since it would weak the aristocracy example 2:Famously there was a problem with British politics called "rotten boroughs",which was electoral boroughs with overly representation(search for more info),when the house of commons passed it,the house of lords(aristocrats) blocked the act,until the king intervened,and threatened to remove them from power and replace them Edit:Added example and fixed spelling error

[@olsenfernandes3634]

It's honestly funny that the current house of lords are the house with "honor" whereas the house of commons are just lording their supporters left and right so they could stop the lords bothering them when they(commons) want to break international promises.

[@zhcultivator]

Empowered Peasantry and Social Democracy are great :)

[@niklashakansson6500]

Couldn't be the reason behind this is that the monarchies peacefully become constitutional-monarchies which could leads to better democracy beacause they are not overthrown

[@sixthcairn]

That, and most republics are haphazard agglomerations of warring ethnicities that were just temporarily pacified by colonial powers; the same colonial powers that cultivated colonial governments aimed less at preventing corruption and more at extracting resources, sometimes even promoting corruption if it benefits the colony's bottom line.

[@gnoetv]

North Korea could be considered a monarchy because power goes from father to son, kind of the defining characteristic of a monarchy

[@carlosmagalhaes7109]

Yeah

[@FazeParticles]

they're a dictatorship. trying to establish a monarchy that is legitimate in the eyes of their people. let's see how well that goes.

[@British_loyalist]

Yes and no Why no? 1- It goes to a son, not necessarily the eldest son, and certainly the eldest daughter. 2- it is secular, where a monarchy is usually religious.

[@darkside0094]

Well in the case many Republics do the too. Like syria it's the same family and in several African countries as well.

[@marinmilevoj4829]

Fun topic I was thinking recently about how in my country, Croatia, we have a directly elected president, even though we are a parlamentary republic which traditionally elect their president in the parliament (think Germany). However, we aren't the only one and when you compare the presidency of parlamentary republics where the president is directly elected to the presidencies of the parlamentary republics where the president is elected in the parliament, you will quickly notice that the directly elected presidents are better know internationally.

[@lphaetaamma291]

at least in Germany the president does not really have power, thou being the official head of state. Instead the chancellor (formerly Angela Merkel, now Olaf Scholz) has more power. If you ignore the title and look at the person in power, the example of germany does not support your claim of directly elected people being known better. Instead the chancellor is not elected directly, but still known around the world (at least Merkel was. I don't know how well known Scholz is).

[@lphaetaamma291]

@@zHaste the german president is more cerimonial as well and I think that is the reason he is unknown instead of the way he is elected.

[@deutschermichel5807]

@@lphaetaamma291 if he is unknown although *only* ceremonial, I think he misses his purpose.

[@deutschermichel5807]

The (Federation's) President (Bundeskanzler) of Germany is neither elected by the people directly, nor by the parliament. Instead, a special electoral body is formel once every five years: the Federal Assembly (Bundesversammlung). Half of the members are members of the parliament (Bundestag), the other half are representatives of the sixteen federal states. While the one half consisting of members of the parliament are all politicians, the state governments mostly appoint celebrities; well-known athletes, doctors, draq queens, musicians and other well-known faces and excellent people. This means that the German president is elected half by politicians, who were elected by the people, and half by random famous people.

[@lphaetaamma291]

@@deutschermichel5807 well he does not have powers used everyday, but he swears in the new chancellor and the new cabinet, he can reject unconstitutional laws and he can dissolve the Bundestag if necessary. But those events happen very rarely (or don't lay the focus on the Bundespräsident in case of elections). So it is not surprising, he is unknown abroad. He is elected by the Bundesversammlung, but the point was, that he isn't elected directly by the people

[@Glockas]

"There are no elective monarchies" Vatican City: Am I a joke to you?

[@RAJ07.1]

yes

[@funnt9055]

Not by the people though

[@Glockas]

@@funnt9055 so like every other elective monarchy in history, like Hungary, PLC, HRE?

[@fur_avery]

"a cool batch of countries... and bolivia" what did bolivia do to you?

[@BeniTheTesseract]

Constitutional monarchy is in my opinion the best form of democracy. The Monarch doesn't really do anything except for sometimes having to approve things, but they are still a possibly popular figurehead. I'm from Canada and I believe the monarchy is good. Lots of people want to abolish it but I don't agree. The Monarch isn't really in charge and if we replace them with something like a President, then they will be tied to a party. If the true leader, the one in charge, is democratically elected along with anyone who is really truly important, why care about abolishing the monarchy and making the country a republic when de facto we are already a democracy?

[@FazeParticles]

some people are monarchists even in canada tho not many.

[@iginheo]

Take aways from this 1. The best way to remain a monarch over time is to slowly introduce a parliamentary system until you can get all the plebs to do everything for you while retaining ultimate veto power 2. Claiming your divine is also a good move as you can then give rights and take them away while making it so your new political system can't do so (God given rights unto man etc etc) 3. Naming anything after yourself is always cliché

[@FazeParticles]

and never become a tyrant. just be strict at worse but never psychotic/tyrannical and you'll keep your kingdom easily.

[@LaurenticAspie]

This parliamentary republican from Finland would argue that constitutional monarchy is a convenient way to justify parliamentary sovereignty, which tends to be more democratic than a system with a potential single-person veto block.

[@tobeytransport2802]

Sure but you see plenty of examples, including your own Finland, as well as Germany, Greece, Italy, Austria and others, across Europe which do well without monarchs and still maintain a parliamentary system.

[@captaincool3329]

Would you rather have a monarch- politically-neutral, loyal to the people, raised with the expectation and duty in mind, the face of the nation- or a politician, who only gets the job through lies, deception, party-politics and back-stabbing, who has little interest in the people or their legacy, and only care about getting paid. I'm an Australian monarchist; our Prime Ministers rarely make two full terms in office.

[@lolumo]

Good that you're back to the usual shit we love

[@theamazing2435]

Being a monarchy generally means you just didn't have a violent revolution and had political and economic freedoms happen slowly over time thus leading to more united country

[@theamazing2435]

But it did after the civil war it continues as before

[@deutschermichel5807]

Toycat, in the video you claimed that there are no elective monarchies left today, which is not true. Even when we ignore the Vatican City, where the Pope is being elected by the Conclave, a College of Cardinals, we still have the Kingdom of Campuchia, where a council elects one among the royal familiy to be king, as well as Malaysia, where the nine sub-national Sultanates de-jure elect one of themselves to a five-year term as king, but de-facto just swap every five years, thus creating an unique rotation system. The official title of Malaysia's king (Yang di-Pertuan Agong) literally translates “he, who was made ruler”.

[@SilvanaDil]

"The Democracy Index" is about as bogus as "The Happiness Index" and most of the rest of the difficult to quantify indices.

[@deutschermichel5807]

A year ago they said in the German television news, a survey says Germans are as happy as never before. Fucking everyone is depressed and pessimistic

[@marinhaalternativa3829]

Happiness index be like: Nordic countries are most happy, but lets ignore the high suicide rates, which means the unhappy people are not part of the data anyway. ^ I got this in my mind since i learned this on school, it's kinda sad the way they rate their data

[@crazydinosaur8945]

sound like your countrie is not that high on the index

[@Eibarwoman]

@@marinhaalternativa3829 There's also other flaws with the happiness index which is that suicidality is linked to seasonality of sunlight regardless of elevation. Places with constant sunlight tend to be more prone to poverty due to agrarian or tourism based economies and have the odd issue with higher religiousity from increased natural disaster rates and higher poverty as the least disaster prone areas in the US have the most atheists and non-religious while Mississippi which sees violent tornadoes and hurricanes every year is the most religious. Edit: Religiousity has a reducing factor on suicidality in non-reincarnation religions which creates an odd feedback loop as higher incomes improve happiness and reduce religiousity but areas with lower religiousity are also more prone to suicidal actions while religiousity is linked to poverty and natural disasters which reduce happiness.

[@andrewrhodes2149]

It’s funny how many of these monarchies are under one Queen… like 70% is just the queen of England.

[@that_lewis_guy6953]

Queen of United Kingdom not just England.

[@wedonteatbears]

I'm pretty surprised you didn't mention how autocratic Thailand, another constitutional monarchy, actually is, as Thai citizens by law cannot criticize or mock the monarchy, and there are often military coups that topple democratically elected governments, making the country very unstable.

[@smoothjazz2143]

this guy is a master at cherry picking to prove his point

[@WallNutBreaker524]

Agreed.

[@joel_rigby]

They choose the top 10 to analyse

[@appleislander8536]

I suspect because both democracy and monarchy require long-term stability? For instance the UK has been politically stable since 1689, the longest of any country.

[@lphaetaamma291]

I think democratic (legitimate) states are more stable over time ->Therefore the system of a democratic country is not likely to be overthrown ->Therefore the kingdoms who became democratically legitimate early probably still exist, while unstable undemocratic countrys discontinued their former monarchies while repetetive replacing the governments

[@mint8648]

Thailand

[@lphaetaamma291]

@@mint8648 I don't know what you want to say. I know that Thailand is an instable country with a king. But this is only one exception from the correlation, the whole video is about. And I don't see the connection above that between my comment and "Thailand"

[@deutschermichel5807]

@@mint8648 the only reason Thailand survived all of the coups and protests etc. was that everyone loved and had a big respect for Rama IX and the monarchy.

[@mint8648]

@@deutschermichel5807 oh ok

[@smoothjazz2143]

@@deutschermichel5807 Far from everyone. Know plent of Thai people who hate this guys, his pettyness and cruelty. But of course, they cant voice their discontent. It's easy to pretend everyone loves you when speaking against you is a criminal offense.

[@olafthebear2327]

I would imagine The Queen handily makes up for that 270+ million pounds with the increase in tourism having a queen provides

[@Xo-3130]

Also pretty sure her check is based on an old agreement that King George 3 had with Parliament were the lands he privately owns are leased out to Parliament for a wage.

[@Kip7300]

she also they world largest land owner. if they abolished the monarchy she could take about 20% of the UK's budget with her

[@HardCounter]

I think a key factor is that with a constitutional monarchy the PM has someone "above them". They also get the chance to talk with someone like her majesty with 70 years worth of expertise and guidance

[@David-qp9bq]

If you honestly whole heartedly believe the queen tells the pm what to do you are living in lala land

[@HardCounter]

@@David-qp9bq well I definitely didn't say tell them what to do. So yes, you're right

[@gijsfromthenetherlands5668]

@@David-qp9bqHM can advice the pm

[@PythonPlusPlus]

5:45 You’d be correct now. It is indeed a King.

[@koposart1489]

I've been thinking about this recently too, I saw another video talking about republics vs monarchies. I am pretty happy with the queen being head of state (that might change when she passes) I do think there is something to having a head of state who rarely changes, it provides a feeling of stability surely? Obviously I'm talking about my experience from being a brit, I do dislike almost all politicians, but I like the queen. I'd be up for the system Ireland has if we become a republic at some point (I think its inevitable in the future). I like the separation of head of state and prime minister as I do not like the idea of one person holding all the power. I do enjoy not having to vote for a head of state and the queen has been there my whole life, so provided me with a sense of stability during the horrid political parties we have had etc. I think I went on a bit but yeah haha

[@deutschermichel5807]

As british, do you realy think monarchy is at risk? I always thought overall most people in GB support the monarchy. Or is it the youth? Abolishing your ancient monarchy would be stupid af and take the last sparkle off your muddy country your politicians have left. The moment the Head of State becomes a matter of politics, the last bullwarck against moral corruption and Lack of responsibility fades. As a Continental European, I can confidently and knowing to speak for all Westerners, say: after the Brexit, the only thing we admire and respect about you is your Queen. You are completely irrelevant

[@tobib6885]

@@deutschermichel5807 I have to politely disagree with you. As a fellow continental European, we absolutely do not all respect and admire the queen. Why would we? The royal family never does anything good for the world except maybe some cherry-picked charities for PR reasons, paid for by the wealth they accumulated by being in power since practically forever. Also how is the British monarchy a bullwarck against moral corruption and lack of responsibility? Could you provide any examples of that? Because I can only think of the case of 'HRH' Meghan, which suggests that the opposite is true.

[@Hideyoshi1991]

​@@deutschermichel5807 the monarchy is not likely to be removed unless something major happens, at this point no one really cares either way, but people would be pissed if the government tried to remove the monarchy when there are more important issues.

[@deutschermichel5807]

@@Hideyoshi1991 another question: Prince Charles privately gets involved against climate change, for environmental protection, etc. Will he be completely banned from doing so as king or is there a way to continue spending or even slightly influencing law-making, pm?

[@smoothjazz2143]

@@deutschermichel5807 They are stuck in this never ending PR campaign where they only do the most uncontroversial and bland statements ever, this secures popularity, but fundamentally comes from lack of real power to push through controversy. Their ancestors did not set out to become a hereditary appointed celebrity but real rulers. One does not need to ask when European monarchies are going out, they're already dead in all but name.

[@Bigdeathy]

Ah yes, "Windsorian Britain"

[@TheZett]

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Britain

[@iginheo]

I'm using this on my home maps. Based

[@David-qp9bq]

The idea that the monarch acts as some kind of scary omnipotent figure to stop elected officials from abusing power is nonsense. If the monarch dared to use their prerogative powers, there would be an immediate constitutional crisis which is why the monarchy in the UK hasnt tried it for so long. And just look at recent British politicians as examples of monarchs scaring politicians into being good boys and see if it is true.

[@sixthcairn]

Or look at how a certain member of the Royal Family is making a fool of himself overseas.

[@richardrose7382]

The queen once dissolved the parliament of Australia when it began to get out of line, some time ago, and insisted on a new election. So there is some power there in the monarchy

[@deutschermichel5807]

Better the monarch should have an eye on politics. Only because a people in it's majority votes for someone or something, it is not instantly good. The Queen should dismiss unworthy politicians and especially Prime Ministers from office and nobody should complain

[@sixthcairn]

@@deutschermichel5807 But how do we make sure the Monarch has the best interest of the people?

[@David-qp9bq]

@@richardrose7382 in Australia, where the population and politics is very different to ours, in the previous century, let's see her try it with the Brits and we will see if we don't turn into a Republic again

[@chillvibeslabo]

Bro there is a mistake in your map! Morocco and his Western Sahara is only one country, western Sahara is not a republic even not a country so make sure that you provide your fans with correct information! VIVA MOROCCO AND MOROCCAN SAHARA

[@VojtaJavora]

Isn't Vatican city elective monarchy?

[@TinyBearTim]

Least favourite group of people is french people

[@TheZett]

Spoken like a true Brit (or German).

[@Angel90011]

u should look in to how much money the royal estates are generating in income for the uk... and then the cost isnt that bad anymore ;) they genereate about £19 billion in income that goes to the state not the familie... so I would say the deal that the goverment pays for everything they do, but also get all the income from their estates, land etc was a fair deal in all... ;)

[@F1rret]

"A cool batch of countries... And Bolivia."

[@thalmoragent9344]

Yeah, Monarchy's aren't so bad tbh, just depends on how the government works alongside said Monarch, the head of state.

[@dipie197]

You don’t have to scroll quite a while to find a poor country that’s happy; Look at Costa Rica, it’s a third-world hell-hole but it’s one of the happiest countries, and one of the most democratic. (Edit) also, don’t come at me telling me I’m wrong about Costa Rica and call me racist or out of touch or something. I’m Costa Rican, I was born here, my family is from here. We’re not US immigrants either, we’re just Costa Rican.

[@robertwilloughby8050]

You're right, but you're like Botswana - just enough resources and more than enough good people to make that as supposed third-world hellholes go, that there isn't much hellhole! More like third-world inconvenient? This comment comes with peace and love, of course!😉

[@Charlestic]

Existing constitutional monarchies are the countries whom succesfully transitioned power from the monarchy to the people on a slow and steady pace, this makes for a great transition and slow building of a democratic transition. The monarch also is a continual power in the country which provides stability. It is also a seperate power of government that can guarantee the rights of the people durring this transition. Its an institution which is tied to the country and has interest in preserving itself. They can be lavish, but not currupt because they have a dynasty to worry about

[@shin-ishikiri-no]

Here in the US becoming a "democracy" isn't a goal or option. We are a constitutional republic.

[@LLMPC]

Just commenting that the name comparison between the UK and Saudi Arabia (of which the full name in English is The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) should be The Kingdom of British Windsor, in reference to the geography area of the British Isles and the house of Windsor

[@cleandinosaur28]

hi toycat! hope you have a good day today my friend

[@merikfishman2128]

Republic doesn't mean democracy yet In addition, it is more often a more stable government in constitutional monarchy, which makes it much more interesting as a private investor to do business there. You are talking about half-truths here, but you also leave out a lot of important information yourself.

[@deutschermichel5807]

Actually Republics and especially Democracies are very interesting locations for Companies, as Lobbyism is legal

[@merikfishman2128]

@@deutschermichel5807 wat? I live in a kingdom with a democracy. Lobbying is also legal here, so I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Lobbying has nothing to do with whether a country is a republic or a monagy.

[@lachy673]

as a kiwi i highly appreciate those 5 seconds of our country not being blocked

[@occamschainsaw3450]

There's a very easy argument why the monarchies are more stable and democratic. Say your highest official is the president or prime-minister. He has to care about a lot of things - such as personal financial wellbeing and how he can get reelected. And the simplest solution to this problems is authocracy. Now, say you take a random dude, or woman, doesn't really matter who it is, and you just give them more money then they can spend in their lifetime and permanent government position that is not for debate or election. And give them this position from the day they were borned, so not only they don't have to worry about anything personally, but it's not even a notion they know. Now, they have no reason to do anything drastic and upset the current order, since the current order is never ending gravy train for them. Now imagine, some up and coming politician wants to compromise security and well-being of the country for his personal gain - and he gains the highest elected office, so it's hard to oppose him without the civil war or something like that. So the only person who can resolve this situation somewhat peacefully is the king or the queen, since it's in their best interest not to give this upshot too much power. It's also a detterent since the game is no longer "Become the president, do whatever", it's now "Become president, but then deal with royals who probably have more popular support then you do". Obviously it's not a fool proof system, plenty of kings have been murdered before, but you know, it's something. Also there's a simple fact that the less drastic changes happening in your country - the more stable, and usually the more prosperous it is. And if you have one ruler for like 80 years, it's kind of a given.

[@Ulissiponense]

The republic in Portugal need to end! Long live the El-Rei! 💙🤍

[@carlosmagalhaes7109]

Agreed, caralho.

[@Munchausenification]

It is definitely a very interesting topic and for a title on youtube its very good. But as with most things as complex as a governmental system, the economy, love etc. its a mix of multiple factors combined. AUE and Qatar having this different type of governing was news to me, great video as usual.

[@HannahHäggAutisticTransWoman]

Japan is only one that actual is an empire since they have an emperor.

[@luuk777w]

You should make a video on the "Happiness index" and compare it to mental health problems and suicides. I find it really bizare that Finland scores as number one happiest country, but has quite high numbers of suicides and depression. How does that work? You could argue that there is better mental care, so more people get diagnosed, but that doesn't work for suicides. The number should be lower if that is the case. This whole happiness index just seems really biased towards a certain definition of "happiness". Like if it is somehow coupled with wealth or something.

[@Anna-pj8te]

I think that many people in Finland are suffering from Seasonal Affective Disorder. And that there is a culture (especially for men) to keep silent and to be "strong".

[@BecketGrimm]

a democracy and a republic are not the same thing. You're conflating the two

[@TheCelticCowboy98]

Everyone does, it's annoying.

[@YoursTrulyJaden]

Kuwait is an elective monarchy. The national assembly votes on who will be the next sovereign prince and who is the crown heir. But he has to be a member of the ruling family.

[@ovenram]

the king of papua new guinea bit killed me ngl

[@givepeaceachance940]

I think it's an interesting question, but as toycat points out at the end of the video, the rich European countries being at the top of the list kind of skews the data. But that being said, there are some very big exceptions to this rule, Saudi Arabia not being the least among them. Thailand is nowhere near democratic- but that being said, is it a more stable country? This is where you start to go into the problematic territory of "are dictatorships more stable?" and the answer to that is no, but when you dress the dictatorship up in the trappings of monarchy, then the answer becomes yes. So what I'm trying to say is the issue of stability and the issue of being more democratic are two completely separate issues

[@ninjam77]

I think a big factor here is survivorship bias. There used to be a lot more monarchies and most of them sucked, so they were overthrown. Some monarchies from particularly stable countries managed to adapt and stayed around. Looking at monarchies still existing we shouldn't be surprised that they mainly exist in stale countries (which tend do be successful, rich and democratic) because all the monarchies that were not were abolished and since the 20th century monarchies don't tend to be established again.

[@manofcultura]

Democracy is bad, Voting should be reserved to those who can name 3 kinds obscure Nhentai tags, the world will be a much better place when the republic of cringe is fully realized.

[@andrewgordon5508]

Do a video on all the city’s named victoria of the world

[@MeowAdi_108]

2:42 Denmark, which is the most democratic country in the world, is also a Constitutional Monarchy. Why didn't you say that ?

[@dontcomply3976]

Watch out for New Zealand to potentially drop right down the list in the next few years The current government wants to introduce what they call 'co-governance', which would give the Maori people who make up 15% of the population 50% of the vote.

[@andreipopa726]

The vatican is an elective absolute monarchy of divine right. Just taught I'd put this up here...

[@alexpaw3493]

What if the correlation works the other way around? My best guess is the countries that still have monarchies didn't go through a lot of political turmoil with some form of highly authoritarian government or violent anti-monarch revolution on their way to become democratic. Things like that kinda kill existing systems in your country and it's not very easy to build your country "from scratch". Perhaps, having a monarch is just a marker of stability of institutions (that slowly get better and better, of course) Yes, Spain had a civil war, but it's not the best constitutional monarchy, is it? Overall, I think, it's not too bad of a theory

[@crazydinosaur8945]

i agree monarchies with bad institutions are not monarchies anymore. scandinavia, was never unhappy enough to kill of the monarchy.

[@SemiHypercube]

It probably is because at this point a lot of monarchies are mostly ceremonial (I mean they totally could do more but this might cause controversy which is probably why they don't)

[@Tydan]

Considering how France is "working" now; can you shift its affiliation from republic to monarchy (or Banana republic) with our "dear" leader Macron 1st...

[@user-kg2lp8jz2r]

Me trying to understand what happend at the proclamation of the republic in brazil

[@MeowAdi_108]

Nepal is gonna be red (again) soon 🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵

[@SubparLoki]

No I have a trade deal We get west Shara Morocco gets Ohio it’s a win lose but at least we gain a cool desert and get rid of Ohio

[@chaoking3119]

The problem with democracies is that people get elected by making as many promises as possible, regardless if they can actually keep them. A monarchy doesn't have that problem. They take their position in a more random manner, and so, have no need to make empty promises.

[@EvanUnknown]

“Venezuela has a great economy” lmao for sure

[@MeowAdi_108]

Saudi Arabia is an Absolute Monarchy. That's why it's in bottom

[@shadow9495]

Hre was elective monarchy, I myself prefer mixed monarchy

[@matthings4133]

Monarchies tend to do better because of the fact that goverments and parties don't see themselves as the highest in power. They have to pay respects to the country s traditions and values to a living person. This means that they do not feel totally empowered causing less 'selfish things' a d more good things for the country.

[@spinyslasher6586]

Because once Europe colonised Asia, South America and Africa, they pretty much destroyed most of the monarchies already existing there and replaced it with European monarchs, so when Europe up and left, there really was no way to restore those destroyed monarchies and so people chose to become republics instead, while Europe itself had most of its monarchies intact.

[@jarjarbinks6018]

12:59 I was interested so I checked out how much of the UK transportation spending was on trains. Apparently around 27 billion That’s more annual funding than Amtrak has gotten almost every year in its existence. If we spent that much as a percentage of GDP on trains we’d have a whopping 200 billion dollar budget going towards rail infrastructure. I don’t know if it would happen though since people don’t like taxes and most of our transportation funding comes from the gas tax which is a user fee for highways. Other than the gas tax we don’t really have a National tax that goes towards transportation

[@jamesbuijs6742]

democratic monarchies are better because the monarch has little functional power, meaning that they become less invested in the political system, it also means they are less likely to become disliked and removed from power, in turn they don't seek to maintain their power though corruption or the concentration of power. Having an outside power with little to lose or gain through political positioning enables them to hold the democracies to account and correct things when they begin to fall into autocracy.

[@Mohammed8778]

Why are monachies more democratic? laughs in saudi arabia

[@neeridge5136]

Great pub quiz question. Who's the king of Papua New Guinea? The Queen!😂

[@JekGamerYT]

The queen has a large amount of land which she allows the government use in exchange for a very cheap price. Getting rid of her would actualy cost the uk more than if they just keep her

[@BecketGrimm]

your kind of elitist against monarchy.

[@MEUProductions]

Almost all of those countries experienced extremely large fascist movements in the 1930s and 1940s. Then they all steered significantly towards democracy in the wake of WW2. Most of them have multiple parties forming coalitions that require cooperation and negotiation between them. The United States is different only because we weren’t in Europe or “under the crown.” Our two party system also tends to favor authoritarians that can demand the respect/control of a party. It’s kinda whack.

[@ginch8300]

@MEUProductions Sort and sort of not. I'd say it comes down to the system, Canada also essentially has a two party system and never experienced any large fascistic movements in the 30's/40's, but the major difference is that Canada uses a parliamentarian system like the rest of Europe, whereas the U.S. uses the presidential system.

[@ginch8300]

@@arjaygee The presidential system is just the official term for what system the U.S. uses, branches have nothing to do with it.

[@Mr_Godmode]

Before I watch the video an idea I’ve always had is if there was democratic elections and also like general elections every four years you can vote on the king/queens power from none to a majority

[@nathanandsugar5252]

Now we need a Union of United People’s Democratic Socialist Federal Republics.

[@UltimatePowa]

England, Scotland, (one of the Nordic countries) and the Holy Roman Empire all had elective Monarchies. With England and Scotland, you voted for a relative of the previous monarch, the Nordic ones was restricted to family and other Lords, and the HRE's candidates were restricted to the immediate family or a direct vassal of the Emperor.

[@imperiumbrasiliae]

The Kingdom of Windsor Britain and Northern Ireland, The kingdom of Orange Nassauian Netherlands, The Kingdom of Saxe Coburg Gothan Belgium, The kingdom of Schleswig Holstein Sonderburg Glucksburgian Norway

[@rd28gu2]

So you’re a republican? the vibes I get haha

[@maiaf1995]

UAE is a federal monarchies. It is a unification of 7 monarchies (aka 7 emirates) into one country with a federal government. with the ruler begin from the emirate's of Abu Dhabi and is elected by the rulers of the rest of the emirates. each emirate has its own monarchy and government and judicial laws ex: you can drink alcohol in Dubai but can't in Sharja. its a pretty unique tbh. not mentioning a wealthy and stable country at that.

[@FazeParticles]

Based

[@nelyyisoppy6509]

China being a "republic" seems a little inaccurate

[@UTubeTulip]

06:23 correction, the Vatican is an elected monarchy.

[@naga_h1316]

In my opinion being none democratic doesn’t equal its a bad country

[@kightsun]

The monarchy gives a living unifying symbol. The US for example, we are losing the unity once found in our New Englander WASP symbols for onbious reasons, if we had the Crown we'd have a single personal symbol everyone could get around.

[@kightsun]

There are also multiple African States where the Local Kings and High Kings are constitutionally recognized. So ironically the Republic of Ghana has more Kings than any of the Kingdoms mentioned. To be quite honest its more accurate to call it the United Kingdoms of Ghana 😅

[@21Kyzix12]

The thing related to monarchies I'm looking forward to is Bougainville. In the next few years, they should get their independence from Papa New Guinea and become the newest country in the world. Then if they choose to keep the queen as their head of state, she will be both the current longest reigning and current shortest reigning monarch.

[@rockfosg]

Regarding monarchies, you should do a family three video on the european royal families, just to confuse people that dont have any knowledge about it even more confused🤣🤣🤣🇳🇴

[@lapiswolf2780]

I think the name Saudi Arabia is similar to how we name past Chinese empires, such as the Tang Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, Han Dynasty. Same with the caliphates, such as the Umayyad Caliphate, or the Iranian empires, such as the Achaemenid Empire. We've named them after the family controlling it. Also People's Republic doesn't mean democratic, I made the same mistake before. It actually means socialist/communist.