The Case Against Monarchy (Debating UsefulCharts)

Monarchy is a bad system of government and I explain why. To hear the monarchist side of the story, check out the response video of Matt Baker from UsefulCharts: • Should Monarchies Stil...
SUBSCRIBE: www.youtube.co...
FOLLOW ME:
🇨🇦Support me on Patreon! / jjmccullough
🤖Join my Discord! / discord
🇺🇸Follow me on Instagram! / jjmccullough
🇨🇦Read my latest Washington Post columns: www.washington...
🇨🇦Visit my Canada Website thecanadaguide.com
HASHTAGS: #monarchy #royalty #debate

[@JJMcCullough]

Here’s Matt’s video. What do you think of his rebuttals? kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpikc4qpZbh7mac

[@graysontan507]

Hello JJ love ur videos

[@briandenning4851]

@@rebeccaanderson5626 I actually agree that we should keep the monarchy, but I don't think the tourist revenue argument holds up, mainly because people would still visit Buckingham Palace (just look at the Palace of Versailles).

[@octoberboiy]

@@rebeccaanderson5626 I noticed you’ve been posting this comment everywhere so let me address it. 1. You talked about the tourist income. Honestly Britain could still make the same income with tourism with the royal family being there. I seriously doubt the average tourist actually sees any of them anyway. 2. The other common wealth countries have the Queen as head of state. I actually think it would be great for them to choose someone else who actually represents their race and not the colonialism and slavery that they represent. 3. The royal family own their property. Good they can keep it and when they no longer have tax payer money to keep it up and running they can sell it to state, let it be turned into a museum and live their lives privately like everyone else.

[@davidozab2753]

Agreed. As long as the people are ok with a symbolic monarchy it can stay.

[@dark_messiah8183]

@@rebeccaanderson5626 these are the same old trite, tired points that I suspect come from an old CGP Grey video, or maybe he just repeated common old dusty arguments himself. In any case, they don’t hold water. There’s a video by “Shaun” (the British guy with the skull avi) that debunks these talking points pretty handily. It’s his rebuttal to the video by CGP on “monarchy”

[@makeriinos]

"We created both our scrips having read each others" *creates a paradox

[@justsomeghostwithinterneta7296]

Fucking Chad.

[@maxthexpfarmer3957]

He said "having read."

[@micayahritchie7158]

@@maxthexpfarmer3957 That's even worse

[@johntom5049]

It doesn't create a paradox if it was a back and forth process. Both scripts are written and changed as they exchange multiple drafts with one another.

[@makeriinos]

@@johntom5049 Its a joke

[@andrelee7081]

JJ being against monarchies is the most French thing I've seen him do, and I'm here for it lol.

[@chadbroski1677]

Yes

[@seneca983]

Haha! I think might also be in favor of the French system of "laïcité" or at least some aspects of it.

[@LjuboCupic1912]

@@seneca983 while I’m not a big fan of the ban on religious garments, banning religious institutions from receiving government money and having them pay taxes is something I can’t agree with more - and I’d imagine JJ agrees with this, considering what his stance was when Quebec implemented _laicite._

[@philosopherpresident4896]

As an American, I think it should be done because it seems like a waste of taxpayers’ money. Only benefit is tourism, but you have to deal with royal drama.

[@_blank-_]

@@LjuboCupic1912 Well, it's a double edged sword. If you don't directly fund them, others will (Gulf monarchies, American evangelical cults etc).

[@pre-debutera6941]

Anti-monarchy conservative vs pro-monarchy progressive. Interesting.

[@flawlessbinary7449]

Wacky world, albeit JJ is a neocon, so it makes sense.

[@pre-debutera6941]

@@flawlessbinary7449 Spread muh freedom and democracy to the rest of the world because Murica knows best for the non-western world!

[@aestheticdegen]

@@pre-debutera6941 but he's Canadian

[@Goodwind88]

@@pre-debutera6941 haha so funny not like I've heard that joke before.

[@badugm5035]

Jj is not a conservative because he is gay

[@adamgreenhaus4691]

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

[@yuven437]

You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

[@maxhess3151]

@@yuven437 If I went round saying I was an emperor just 'cause some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

[@Sorcerers_Apprentice]

"We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as sort-of-executive officer for the week...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting."

[@ousamadearudesuwa]

Oh will you please shut up! *proceeds to shout at the Anarcho-Syndicalists*

[@stuffwithsoph8264]

@@maxhess3151 Oh now you see the violence inherinted in the system! Help, help I'm being repressed!

[@spaghettification8658]

Whether or not a country is a monarchy isn't something that affects people's daily lives, and so most people will just passively support the status quo, whatever that happens to be. If you were to walk around the streets of London and ask people if we should abolish the monarchy, most people would say words to the effect of "No, what would be the point in that?", walk around the streets of Seoul asking if Korea should _restore_ its monarchy, and you'd probably get the same answer. That's why monarchies pretty much only get abolished in times of political turmoil, and usually aren't ever restored after that, and therefore the number of them has been going down. Not really because they're intrinsically immoral or something, but because monarchy is, as you have said JJ, a fairly inconsequential, incidental institution.

[@-haclong2366]

Yeah, Brazil had a referendum to restore its monarchy, and while there are a lot of outspoken Brazilian monarchists on KZbin the referendum failed. To be fair it was rigged.

[@thrallfan1056]

@@-haclong2366 Brazil is funny enough one of the most likely countries to restore their monarchy since the country's problems really stemmed from it becoming a republic. Georgia is another likely one but it like all other Eastern European countries is ruled by oligarchs who will never let that happen.

[@bittenhare4493]

Agreed, I don't see the point of getting rid of my country's monarchy beyond philosophical reasons

[@TheEnergeticPanda]

I mean except Spain whose democratic transition was lead by the monarchy being restored

[@truedarklander]

@@thrallfan1056 what?

[@haneytr3s]

JJ is the king of anti-monarchy.

[@deutschelehrer69]

Hmmmmmmmm

[@reverendroar]

Doesn't that just make all his points invalid...

[@m.a.118]

It's the one thing him and Quebec nationalists have in common.

[@nileshkumaraswamy2711]

yeah!... wait a minute?

[@Monosekist]

Ever notice how it’s always king/queen of this or that rather then president of xyz

[@prospero021]

Thanks for bringing Thailand's situation up. Multiple pro-democracy activists are still detained for alleged lese majeste offences and are given sentences behing closed doors. It has also been 1 year to the day of the forced disappearance of a prominent human rights activist after seeking asylum in Cambodia and was acused with anti-monarchy movement.

[@bettievw]

Jesus, I have to find out more about this. It's strange that I never knew this before!

[@danielsolomon6227]

Coming from Africa, the notion of a parliamentary democracy with a monarchical head of state who stabilizes the country as politicians gain and lose power is not so bad. I mean we have way too many un-elected and brutal king-presidents. So if the price of an otherwise democratic rule is to have a queen, then why not ?

[@achyuthansanal]

the thing is that monarchies really don't "stabilize" countries, there have been many examples of nations undergoing civil war while having a constitutional figurehead monarch

[@mathewjose4753]

@@achyuthansanal but compared to absolute republics, their percentages are very low

[@JewTube001]

probably wouldn't stabilize anything if it just became another thing for the warlords to fight over.

[@TheMementoOfElysia]

@@achyuthansanal seems like republics aren’t good at stabilizing unstable regions because they had even more civil wars. The thing is countries that are in relatively peaceful regions eg Europe don’t tend to collapse since there is no real reason for extreme civil unrest. Civil Unrest tends to spill over borders. The fact however that from 1930-1945 dozens of republics and only three monarchies (Italy, Japan and Greece) collapsed or fell to extremism does however say something

[@user-nf9xc7ww7m]

The other option is a federal collegial republic a la Switzerland. 7 coequal executives that cannot fire each other. If the country has ethnic strife, give a seat on the executive council to each ethnic group, but elected as a whole by parliament or the people directly. The states/cantons can be of one ethnic group/subculture as long as the rule of law and democracy is maintained. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland

[@aysenur6761]

I think the reason of why today's constitutional monarchies exist is the modern man's underlying desire to not tear off completely from its past. Even if the royals are just the mascots of the country, for some people, they still provide a connection to the "glorious" history and are some sort of a source of confidence. Because the stray modernity is terrifying for our societies's historical memory.

[@antonsilva6263]

Well put

[@thedarklordofcats339]

That's a good point, but even if that were innate desire by some, that doesn't mean it's a good thing and something to be entertained. The idea of someone seeing the condition of their nation in the present- as waning in strength, prestige, or quality of life- and retreating to or holding on to the "gloriousness" their nation had in the past is borderline escapism. Holding onto old institutions purely for the sake of their symbol, or at least what they used to symbolism, feels like looking to the past and putting no eyes on the future. As if they've already given up on being anything better than what they were, and refuse to embrace change. I realize that people like to clutch onto what they already know purely because of its familiarity, even if that thing is now betraying them, but that is a desire that can be overcome. I could stay in my bed and never try to do anything ever again because lying down is easier than standing, but I know that isn't good for me. It's something that a culture as a whole has to face and overcome

[@aysenur6761]

@@thedarklordofcats339 yes, I agree with you. I am not in favor of this, just wanted to point out.

[@thedarklordofcats339]

@@aysenur6761 Yea I suspected you were just rationalizing why someone may like it, but I just wanted to say it for the sake of any passerbys who did think that way genuinely. I should've specified

[@Sorcerers_Apprentice]

On a practical level, there is also figuring out a new legal and political arrangement that would likely cost more than it's worth. As an example, the British Royal Family's Estates are managed by Parliament, they keep the proceeds in exchange for giving the Royal Family a guaranteed allowance. Those estates are ridiculously valuable, like hundreds of times worth the allowance and they would be giving up a massive revenue stream if they got rid of the monarchy.

[@Lakster37]

I feel like the way monarchists treat their royals is the same way longtime JJ fans treat the moustache.

[@whilryke]

Well, IT IS a very good looking moustache.

[@joeblow2481]

Fuck it, I'll be the asshole. I don't like it. He looks better clean shaven.

[@whilryke]

@@joeblow2481 At least we can agree he looks good, right?

[@JJMcCullough]

@@whilryke ladies please, there’s enough of me to go around

[@whilryke]

@@JJMcCullough Am I obligated to have desires for someone I like the looks of?

[@adamsfusion]

I think, ostensibly, UsefulCharts had the better arguments in the grand scheme. I feel as though he presented a great case for why the monarchy is not a threat and is sometimes a positive addition to a country. However, to the point "Should monarchies still exist", I side really heavily toward J.J.'s case of monarchy being an anachronism of our current progress in society toward more democratic institutions in addition to the really uncomfortable point of having a family that is almost like dolls at the top of the toy shelf. The way I understood Matt's side was that the reason for monarchies to exist was more of a "why not, they're not hurting anyone and are sometimes positive", which I agree with on its face, but extending it to "should we preserve monarchies or rather work to dissolve them", I think his video gave good support for the former while beyond simple pragmatism, didn't discourage the latter. I feel as though J.J.'s did extend out and answer both sides firmly and I feel as though that question is tangential but related closely enough that it's a question worth answering. Honestly though, J.J.'s video came off as more feely and philosophical than Matt's factual and pragmatic take, and I'm also invested more into J.J.'s channel because I like that style of commentary so I think that may have had more to do with why I found J.J.'s arguments more influential.

[@familyseed1555]

How monarchy being an anachronism ?

[@them631]

I really love how a lot of monarchies (especially the British one) went from the most powerful rulers of the most expansive empire on earth to “yeah we keep them around because tabloids like them”

[@spencermercer7622]

Not just the tabloids. They're very popular with the public.

[@garret1930]

@@rebeccaanderson5626 every one of the other Commonwealth nations also have the crown intricately woven into weird and important places as well.

[@nikolayd.3880]

The power of the British crown dwindled long before the peak of its empire.

[@octoberboiy]

@@rebeccaanderson5626 I noticed you’ve been posting this comment everywhere so let me address it. 1. You talked about the tourist income. Honestly Britain could still make the same income with tourism with the royal family being there. I seriously doubt the average tourist actually sees any of them anyway. 2. The other common wealth countries have the Queen as head of state. I actually think it would be great for them to choose someone else who actually represents their race and not the colonialism and slavery that they represent. 3. The royal family own their property. Good they can keep it and when they no longer have tax payer money to keep it up and running they can sell it to state, let it be turned into a museum and live their lives privately like everyone else.

[@eduardosato8769]

@@octoberboiy 3. Better yet: confiscate it! Redistribute it all to the poor.

[@freddiecawston2892]

"Actually" Norways first king was Harald Fairhair in 872... Medieval Norway ceased to exist in 1397 when it was annexed by Denmark (forming the Kalmar Union).

[@DarkLink606]

Annexed in 1397 wirelessly, forming a kingdom separated by a small patch of sea, by king.... Bluetooth. No, seriously

[@freddiecawston2892]

@@tapio7118 Yes but it wasn't a state of its own anymore

[@martychisnall]

@@freddiecawston2892 yes it was, it was just part of the Kalmar Union

[@ParadoxNinja]

@@DarkLink606 Harald Bluetooth had been dead for 400 years by then. Also, Denmark and Norway were unified before the Kalmar Union.

[@heddajohannessen8350]

His description of the Norwegian throne slightly bothered me, the downplaying of it as being "new". One should not forget that it has old roots and was an important part of finally gaining independence, to be able to elect their own king and reinstate what had been taken from them. This is actually one of the most common reasons for the more recent reinstallment of monarchies in Europe, to signal that they finally control their own country and aren't under someone else's king.

[@lukebrazier3845]

Mate, with the hair and mustache, you are the spitting image of his most glorious majesty, King Charles II.

[@RaymondHng]

More like Louis XIV of France.

[@thalmoragent9344]

Lmao 😅

[@URAWESOME94]

The shirt. the mustache. The hair. The necklace. The Canadian swag here is too powerful.

[@stephanosnormandusdelacroi8570]

He's a nice guy but he's nothing like the majority of Canadian men. Rainbow crew is only 5.8% of Canada's population. Not that there's anything wrong with that it's just different.

[@URAWESOME94]

@@stephanosnormandusdelacroi8570 I didn’t say that to suggest he is representing any majority. As an American I’m simply acknowledging this dude is a Canadian who’s glowing with swag in this video. Far too many variables and styles to really say anything is outright Canadian or American clothing/appearance wise.

[@JJMcCullough]

@@stephanosnormandusdelacroi8570 calm down homophobe

[@edmontonboy99]

@@stephanosnormandusdelacroi8570 You’re a nice guy, but you’re nothing like the majority of Canadians. Homophobe crew are only something percent of Canadian’s population. Not that there’s anything wrong with that except it is wrong.

[@smashingthreeplates2171]

@@JJMcCullough Woah! You responded to peoples' comments, interesting...

[@aidenbuck4765]

As an American this debate over having a monarchy is interesting to watch from a far. Especially since it is the same monarchy we broke a way from (through violent means) in 1776.

[@stephanosnormandusdelacroi8570]

D a r number 211709 and one of my ancestors helped by giving material support and aid. Slave owner Francois baby called my ancestor the most disloyal in the parish at the time. He was a pro-republic abolitionist. My hero Augustin LaCroix.

[@akorn9943]

For real, it’s all so surreal. Any time I see a picture like 6:16 from another modern democratic country my head just spins. These people are being treated so special for... doing nothing? Why?? But I also understand that people like tradition too, it’s just so interesting.

[@octoberboiy]

Exactly, because we believed the government should be run for the people and by the people, not by some random individual who takes all our tax dollars for no reason.

[@TheJH1015]

@@akorn9943 not really, royalty often plays a big part in negotiating trade deals which earns their countries BILLIONS of dollars/pound/euros. They can use their position and influence to smooth over some problems between countries. They do a lot more than people think.

[@Prayingmantis78]

Technically it's a different monarchy as after the Georgian era the house of Hanover inherited the throne, then after them the house that would become the house of Windsor inherited it. So technically it's a different Royal family but it doesn't really matter because they are related anyway 😂

[@user-nf9xc7ww7m]

The civil servants actually run the country. See Yes, Minister.

[@MrBrendan882]

Whenever I see JJ’s polls I wonder which are going to become videos, and this happened to be one of them! I’m hoping a “what do americans think of quebec” video comes out soon.

[@ArmadilloMan]

Tbh, I don’t think most Americans think of Quebec

[@mjordan812]

@@ArmadilloMan But those of us that do have strong opinions. My maternal grandparents bailed on the province in favor (or favour) of the State of Maine.

[@mirabeaux851]

It’s either “Oh yeah parties in Montreal are dope” or ‘what’s Quebec?”

[@MrBrendan882]

@@ArmadilloMan True, but I wonder what their limited opinion might be. I’m also curious what some americans would think after being confronted with the dubious view that Quebecois are still discriminated against today, and books like “White N***** of America”. Canada has a lot of confusing contradictions that I think are exemplified in Quebec.

[@bjs301]

I used to go there on fishing trips. I'm fine with Quebec. On the other hand, there's the people who live there...

[@harmen4436]

3:56, this is kind of a huge oversimplification. The Oranjes have a extensive history tied to the beginning of the Dutch revolt, with William The first being a direct relative of William the silent. And even after that we had the Dutch republic, a pseudo republic with Staatsgezind and Prinsgezind leaders. The Prinsgezinden being supportive for the rule of a Oranje..

[@JJMcCullough]

You have only been a monarchy since 1815.

[@LeSauniere]

@@JJMcCullough @J.J. McCullough but their line dates back to the 1500s, where William the Silent established the state. So dont cherrypick your reductionist gotcha-argument. The Oranje-dynasty ruled the Dutch Republic for many years before the monarchy was formally established after a napoleonic interlude

[@chralexNET]

@@LeSauniere I agree, so many points are cherry-picked. Matt is much better at both sides as a whole.

[@harmen4436]

@@JJMcCullough A monarchy officially yes, but the power Stadhouders had was comparable to monarchs. In 1815 we just changed the system to a parliamentary monarchy and in 1848 the last powers of the king were put in the hands of ministers.

[@superdark336]

@@LeSauniere your line also dates back to the 1500s.

[@matthewy2j]

Me a French Canadian: I dislike monarchy because it's an outdated system of government. Also me: Napoleon Bonaparte was a pretty rad dude.

[@akshatgupta4817]

Well he was pretty progressive for his time and he was basically fighting all of Europe so yeah he was more rad than some old peopl.

[@RealUlrichLeland]

@@akshatgupta4817 Not particularly. He revoked a ban on slavery.

[@akshatgupta4817]

@@RealUlrichLeland yes that was a big downside but economically he was pretty progressive however his social policies also included things such as freedom of religion so it was a balance.

[@Jabberwockybird]

He kinda fought foe his position. Like a merit-onarchy

[@maximusmedia8412]

Tbh at least Napoleon became Emperor by merit and not bloodline

[@lloovvaallee]

Prince Charles knows full well how fragile the institution of monarchy is. I understand he is good friends with his cousin Constantine, the deposed king of Greece.

[@hlynnkeith9334]

I pray that Queen Elizabeth outlives Charles.

[@OHYS]

It's certainly not at any risk in the UK

[@lloovvaallee]

@@hlynnkeith9334 Highly improbable ...

[@Sorcerers_Apprentice]

Also Charles' father was Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark until his family got deposed.

[@DB-ux9lu]

@Oritra Kar there is no desire to be rid of the monarchy in the UK. Its hugely popular. Even Scotland, if it does indeed break away at some point in the future, says that it will still retain the queen as the head of state.

[@elijaheil6413]

I've thought about this topic alot and my mind always falls on Napoleon. He was a deist who did not believe he was ordained by god but rather given the right to rule by the popular consent of the People of France creating the base of the Bonapartist Ideology. He acted for what he believed would bring glory to his people and what he felt was right for his Empire. It is up to us to decide whether what he did was truly moral even if his subjects believed it was right.

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

Did the people of the lands he appointed his own family to be kings over consent to

[@elijaheil6413]

@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl No, not at all, He was Emperor of France and believed he had the consent of the French. Some places like the HRE and Italy did like him but places like Spain did not.

[@owenhayengajohnson9719]

@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl well you have to consider that progress is often brought about against the will of those it benefits. It's just that the policies introduced by Napoleonic regime's were often better then the Angien regime's they replaced, and in turn inspired future reforms

[@Sorcerers_Apprentice]

The things he did that like unifying laws, curbing religion, standardizing taxation and government systems helped improve European governments after his downfall, but he didn't do them out of the goodness out of his heart. They only happened to overlap with his moves to centralize and streamline state power.

[@perfectlyfine1675]

Even as I am rather pro- than anti-Napoleon, you can't possibly claim that he was given the right to rule by popular consent, when he came to power through a military coup. He wasn't even as popular as the hated Spanish royal family. Spain, despite knowing that the king is a literal cuckold, fought on a bloody guerilla war to keep him on the throne. France on the other hand was so sick of Napoleon that Frenchmen excused Coalition warcrimes because they wanted Napoleon gone. Also, Napoleon being a monarch meant that he also placed his relatives to different thrones. That's called nepotism nowadays.

[@yerdasellsavon9232]

He looks to much like Freddie Mercury for someone whose criticizing the monarchy

[@RaymondHng]

He appears to have more hair than Louis XIV of France.

[@Goodguy507]

>old mustache is back >he is arguing against monarchy We've come full circle Edit: thanks for the likes redditors but can we get J.J. to give a heart to this one Edit2: OK boys we tried but didn't get a heart, we'll get it next time

[@natemundt4752]

As an American, I wonder if the idea of the monarchy being a source of national pride has played a role in it lasting for so long in some countries

[@Jeppehartm]

I'm from Denmark and I don't have strong feelings on the topic, but I think a large component is the historical continuity that people can rally around. The history of Denmark is in large parts the history of the royal family. I think people will be hesitant to lose that, especially when the royal family has such a small impact on our daily lives. That being said, I totally agree with JJ that the royal family will be dropped at the first unpopular monarch

[@natemundt4752]

@@Jeppehartm Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I'm American, so I've never had to deal with a monarchy, but I feel like some people will feel that they're losing a part of their cultural identity if their monarchy goes away

[@bomba1905]

As a Norwegian I would say so to some extent. Just as in Denmark and many other nations the monarch served an important role as a symbol of unity during the dark days of the German occupation, a role it still fills today. In Norway the monarchy was also democratically elected by the people when we regained independence in 1905 and the monarchy still retains that popularity. The modern Norwegian kings also have greatly supported democracy and are more down-to-earth than their contemporaries in many other monarchies.

[@acegarcia3719]

@@natemundt4752 And as an american I would much rather have a Parliamentary consutitional monarchy than a presidential system right now as it is causing a ton of our problems and creating cultural collapse

[@IkeOkerekeNews]

@@acegarcia3719 As an American I would much rather have a directorial system of government in the vein of the Pennsylvannia Constitution of 1776.

[@piminer797]

You know you have a good debate in front of you when you agree with the points of both sides.

[@ImperatorGrausam]

JJ, you're among the only political commentators who doesn't seem like an overly zealous jackass. You really are a breath of fresh air on here KZbin.

[@JJMcCullough]

Thank you my friend. What do you mean though? Just that I make my points in a different style?

[@ImperatorGrausam]

@@JJMcCullough For one, you actually shared someone with a different view. Another is that looking at modern political pundits, as you said in your video about political pundits, focus more on being generally provocative than discussion, which is something I'm very not fond of.

[@speedy01247]

I'm a libertarian socialist and I do agree with some points he makes. (I am anti authoritarian and monarchies are themselves a form of authoritarianism, at least in my eyes)

[@silver4809]

@@ImperatorGrausam Yeah he doesn't demean or make fun of monarchists as much as he just argues his points.

[@ImperatorGrausam]

@@silver4809 Exactly.

[@MrOOOe]

4:00 Saying the Norwegian monarchy has no real historical basis is just incorrect. First of all Norway has always been a monarchy and the Norwegian Kings are important figures in the history of the country. Secondly Haakon was not "just some danish prince". He had connections to the independent medieval kings of Norway, which was a large reason why he, and not someone from another royal family, was asked to become king. Saying he was installed by the parliament also seems pretty dishonest. He was elected by a referendum where he won with 79% of the votes. Since the monarchy therefore is tied in with Norways current democracy and its independence, I would argue that this just adds to its historical relevance.

[@Anna-pj8te]

Yeah, I thought it was kinda weird that he said that.

[@LordDim1]

Yeah. He’s really cherry picking and being pretty disingenuous. The same way he said the Dutch monarchy has no real connection to the Netherlands because it was formed in 1815, ignoring the fact the house of Orange, the royal family, founded the country in the 1500s, and basically led the Dutch republic as de-facto monarchs until being ousted by the French just 16 years before the kingdom was established. Really disingenuous

[@MrOOOe]

@@LordDim1 He might not know much about the history of Norway or the Netherlands. How else could he call Haakon the SEVENTH the FIRST king of Norway. But then again he says he as given the topic alot of thought, so he might just be ignoring talking about well functioning and supported monarchies on purpose so everything fits his narrative.

[@MrOOOe]

@@LordDim1 IMO his major points dont make any sense either way. For example when he says that for a monarchy to be a less devisive institution than an elected head of state the monarch must have a 100% approval rating at all times. That for a monarchy to be better not a single person can be against it. Like what? How does this make any sense?

[@Anna-pj8te]

J.J. McCullough replied to my comment “Yes, which proves my point that this is all just made up nonsense with no historical continuity”

[@rtr0_insn323]

As a Moroccan (Morocco is a monarchy) I would say that the monarchy is seen as stabilising political force for the country, plus the fact that it has a well rooted historical background (the current dynasty took power in 1666, and since it’s foundation in 789 the country has always been a monarchy), and politically, the king is seen to be more competent than our elected government so his political involvement is seen positively, and Morocco being a monarchy is still much more democratic than every republic in the Arab world (except Tunisia). All this to say that a republic isn’t an universal effective or universally relevant way to govern a country, everything needs to be contextually relocated.

[@Goodguy507]

1:40 As a Jordanian, I still don't understand why, the king is a good diplomat but jordan has nothing to offer to western nations like oil or gas, interesting you mentioned the support

[@AnCoilean]

You are not Iran that's why

[@thomasxl3975]

Jordan borders nations that are important to western nations. Nations such as Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Israel

[@xaveircombs2690]

You have a coast line

[@stevewilson5292]

Jordan is the example that Arabs don't have to be insane.

[@speedy01247]

@@stevewilson5292 and America is an example of how "westerners" can be insane?

[@lizardlenny]

Personally, as a Brit, I like the Queen. She's been an excellent head of state that broadly has the respect of the general public thanks to her efforts as a mechanic in ww2 and her role in progressing womans liberties. People appreciate the fact she keeps her opinions to herself. If you want to know the feeling the British have for her, she's basically the nations grandmother. It's still less than 20% of the UK population that don't want a monarchy which is a significantly higher approval rating than any major politician. Not to mention the fact it's been proven that the royal family is incredibly profitable for the UK (a near £20b net contribution to the economy every year). Obviously, these things don't really apply to commonwealth countries and I would likely share your view if I was a Canadian. I'm not a strong royalist, but the system works for us. If it ever stopped working for us, it would be abolished.

[@trent6319]

Its great that the queen has peacefully decided to not use her legal power and due to her long reign it has allowed the uk goverment to pretend they're a democracy for a very long time(except the house of lords). But do you trust all of her successors to up hold this relatively new status quo. They may start using there powers again and the military still claims to follow the monarch not parliament.

[@Rob_-dv6ei]

@@trent6319 I think that’s a little dramatic, the last time the monarchy tried anything like that, the country descended into civil war with a parliament victory and the decapitation of King Charles I. That was in 1644, and since then we haven’t had any attempted dictatorships (apart from the one the REPUBLICAN Oliver Cromwell tried setting up!) I think you have slightly mistaken how much power the royals hold nowadays. The Windsors do have those constitutional emergency power to dissolve parliament, but A) parliament equally has the ability to call an election to ban the monarchy, but don’t because it would be enormously unpopular and B), the Windsors, since Victoria’s reign, have been pretty stable and a potent diplomatic force.

[@austinhernandez2716]

Your tax money going to her simply because she was born to a certain family. That's immoral IMO. Huge inequality.

[@alexios4384]

@@austinhernandez2716 So in eccence the government should be giving her 20 billion to queen elizabeth per year because thats what she makes the country or 6.6 billion based on what the government makes from her based on taxes assuming a 33% of gdp on avarage across the uk economy, and even if taxed still a lot more then the 330 million earned per year, so techniclly the government is robbing the queen

[@HaroldMC63]

@@austinhernandez2716 The “Sovereign Grant” was £37.9 million in 2015 and the population was only around 65~ million i think, but 75p isn’t really big enough to worry about, as well she just goes round raising morale like George VI and when she went to that welsh slate mine

[@Anna-pj8te]

4:00 this is incorrect. Norway has had a monarch since the unification of Norway in 872. The country got a new monarch after it got its independence from Denmark in 1905. The new king wasn’t elected by the parliament, but by a referendum. He won with 79% of the votes.

[@JJMcCullough]

Yes, which proves my point that this is all just made up nonsense with no real historic continuity.

[@Anna-pj8te]

@@JJMcCullough it’s not made up nonsense. Norway has continuously had kings since the unification of Norway. The danish prince had ties to the medieval Norwegian kings. When elected as king he even changed his name to Haakon, after the last “norwegian” king.

[@MrOOOe]

​@@JJMcCullough The most important historical works about the country during its founding and the middle ages in general is litteraly called the Kings' sagas. It explaines how the kings formed the country, and is a large basis for the national identity today. I dont understand at all how you can call over a thousand years of monarchy "made up nosense with no real historical continuity".

[@minutemansam1214]

@@MrOOOe I mean, it is made up nonsense. If your national identity is derived from an outdated institution that teaches people one person is better than the other and deserves special privileges because of the circumstances of their birth, you need a new national identity.

[@MrOOOe]

​@@minutemansam1214 Nobody claims the monarchs are better than anyone simply because they are monarchs. They work as representatives for the people and are judged by merit. They are not seen as rulers instated by a higher power. Every person in every nation currently recieves privileges because of the circumstances of their birth. The monarchs are not above the law as they are subject to parliament. Their salary is not that big. The crown prince family for example recieves a private salary of 240k $. An institution is not outdated simply because it is old. It is popular, democratic, and in practise a completely different system than the older forms of monarchy. It is old in name only. The Norwegian monarchs are important figures in the history of the country. Although you are against having a monarchy in todays society, that doesnt mean the previous ones should be dismissed only because they too were monarchs. I still dont understand why you call it "made up nosense".

[@KingOfInsanity777]

3:27 "You think we messed up on that whole 'God's choice' thing?" "NAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH :D"

[@user-nf9xc7ww7m]

I like gods taxation though: Throw all our money in the air and whatever God wants, he keeps. Can we have govt taxation the same way?

[@Themmrnmhrm]

"Blue-blood porn" gave me a very cursed mental image. thank youXD

[@chechnya8006]

In Thailand, we have the king who live in Bavaria mostly in his reign more than Thailand. And he send member of privy council to do almost all monarch's duties such as make merit on his wife's birthday, the queen or to do the traditiona Royal Ploughing Ceremony instead him. Funny, I think we just need privy council for all ceremony of state. More than disappeared king.

[@jamesmiller2521]

Sounds like Canada. Old crone Lizzy (Queen of Canada) also prefers to live in Europe and delegate all her duties to lieutenant governor.

[@Lesdrasill]

@@jamesmiller2521 but that's where she was born and lived tho. Meanwhile in Thailand...

[@myamdane6895]

@@jamesmiller2521Well where tf else is she meant to live? England is the heart of the British monarchy and it is after all where it originated

[@hubazubax]

i really cant decie your arguments are both so good instead of shouting at eachother in a zoom call.

[@Rophaz]

Interesting video as always! Though I would like to point out that the first king of Norway was not actually installed in 1905. Haakon VII was indeed made the first king of the independent nation-state of Norway in 1905, but there had then been a succession of Kings of Norway going all the way back too the 9th century. It's just that between 1397 and 1905, the King of Norway was also the King of Denmark and/or the King of Sweden, in some admittedly unequal personal unions. But the Kingdom of Norway and the position of its King was never abolished.

[@ayoutubechannel.1733]

You forgot to mention that, during her reign, the late Queen vetoed over a thousand proposed UK laws that would have exposed or otherwise interfered with the British Royal Family's financial shenanigans. The British monarch must officially consent to all proposed laws and has the power of vetoe. Also, if one includes all the jewels, artwork, duchies, palaces, antiques, collections, Panama bank deposits and overseas investments belonging to the British Royal Family, their wealth goes well into the trillioms.

[@evilgoose6768]

we could actually fund the NHS properly if we sold all that

[@TheFalklands]

The last time a monarch in the uk vetoed a law was in the 1700s.

[@uniqueyoutuber4248]

I am from The Netherlands, and I see the king as a mascot for the country.

[@roundduck7005]

Based

[@isakkallsmyr9854]

Same lol /Swede

[@NateVDZ]

Pretty darn expensive mascot(s) we've got...

[@alpacacomentadora413]

So, why not have an animal as king?

[@ricardoguanipa8275]

I live in Aruba, which is an "Autonomous State within the Kingdom of the Netherlands" same as Curacao and 1/2 of St Martin, While Bonaire, Saba and St Eustatius are "Special Municipalities of Kingdom of The Netherlands" mostly here on the islands from what I witness most people due to our degree of autonomy The Monarchy is not Bothersome and its part of the Folklore and there isn't a widely Popular movement for "Full independence" The Joke is that there are more people calling for the independence of the Islands from both the Extreme Left and Extreme Right in the Netherlands than from the People that actually live on the Islands

[@teamaestro9200]

I think that the Dutch can abolish the monarchy, but keep the islands. If there is no need for independence. The only difference would be that the islands would be within the republic of the Netherlands instead of the kingdom.

[@millevenon5853]

The islands benefit from protection and milk that welfare

[@MidwestArtMan]

As an American, it sounds weird to me that people still debate this, especially in nations that aren’t that different from mine.

[@revertrevertz5438]

I feel that people of the Americas, except for those in the Commonwealth, have the same feeling. In Latin America, having a king sounds quite foreign, and the mere suggestion of having one would be interpreted as basically having a dictator.

[@revertrevertz5438]

@Oritra Kar yeah, basically the same thing. People who came to power by force and hard to remove...

[@Voltanaut]

I'm British and indifferent to the Monarchy. It stays or leaves, I don't care, little will change. It's all emotional and semantic.

[@rockangel1603]

Same here, I think that's how most citizens feel. Making both republican and royalist argument redundant. We frankly just don't care. Personally I'm more sympathetically to the Republican view because I roll my eyes seeing royal news on my TV or the tabloids

[@rockangel1603]

@@rebeccaanderson5626 I don't care, did you not see my comment jc

[@Voltanaut]

@@rockangel1603 If the royal family does go, I'll miss the holidays.

[@octoberboiy]

Think about all the thousands of dollars wasted on a family that does nothing for the common citizen’s lives? Think of what all that money could fund? The countries that could be pulled out of poverty? Such a waste.

[@matthowells6382]

@@octoberboiy It really doesn't cost a great deal particularly when you're talking about countries and the hundreds of billions spent by governments. The British royal family costs a lot less for example than the US president, both are the heads of state although I concede that the president has a lot more besides

[@jorgeaguado879]

Well JJ, I’m from Spain and I must say that the images you’ve shown about our King Felipe are totally out of context. Those images correspond to an act in Barcelona, Cataluña, as well as those images that show people burning King’s images. Cataluña is a region here where there is an independent movement from Spain. There, and surprisingly promoted by the regional institutions, is hated every thing that has relation with any kind of symbol of our country and of course the King is our maximum symbol. But, of course, this is a part of Cataluña, not the entire population share those thoughts. Moreover, King Felipe VI, and his father the former King Juan Carlos I, are very much beloved by Spaniards in personal ways because they are very close to people. PS I liked very much the debate and, as a person who believes in parliamentary monarchy, I kind of share that argument about Canadian monarchy which in a certain way reminds the colonial past.

[@JJMcCullough]

I don't think it's out of context. The King is supposed to be a symbol of unity for all Spaniards, and Catalonians are still Spaniards, so if the king can't unify the Catalonians then he isn't very good at his job. Also, isn't Juan Carlos living in exile or something now?

[@Sileray18]

@@JJMcCullough catalonians don't want to be Spaniards, that's the problem. They are not interested in unity or any King

[@superdark336]

@@JJMcCullough he is being investigated for some tax fraud thing or another. Incidentaly, the British Monarchy has lobbied for some laws that would make their finances fully hidden, I WONDER WHY

[@mr.anderson2241]

@@JJMcCullough calling Catalonians Spaniards is literally the same thing as saying Kosovo is Serbia

[@murina2504]

I'm also from Spain and yes, the Monarchy is a divisive institution even beyond Catalonia. Recent polls have show that about half of spaniards would rather live in a republic, and many left wing politicians claim themselves to be, at least in theory, republicans. PS: It is kind if weird to defend that Catalonia is a part of Spain and then disregard their opinions on national symbols. JJ is right, Catalan independence movements are arguably the biggest challenge to Spanish national unity and, far from helping, the presence of the Monarchy is making things actively worse.

[@oranjeboven9622]

The British monarchy basically funds its self and gives more money to the government then it recieves.

[@rich7447]

Via land holdings (Crown Estate) that it would not have were it not the monarchy.

[@Christopher_TG]

That's not really true. You're referring to the fact that the funding for the monarchy comes from the Crown Estate rather than tax income. But the monarchy doesn't actually own that estate. That estate was turned over to Parliament by King George III because he had screwed up the royal finances so badly that he needed Parliament to bail him out. So he turned over these lands to the Parliament for them to own and profit from in exchange for the monarchy getting paid a salary from those proceeds. So, it is state-owned land, the proceeds of which the Parliament could choose to put entirely into the public coffers but instead gives a substantial chunk over to the world's most expensive mascot.

[@oranjeboven9622]

@@Christopher_TG King George III never gave up the land directly only the profits off of the land in exchange of a fixed sum of cash. The family costs around 40 million pounds a year but profit from the land comes in around 200 million pounds which goes directly to the government.

[@tomasroberts2016]

As a British Republican I think the work JJ doing is really important. As I think the only way we can get rid of the Royal family in the UK is if other Commonwealth countries start rejecting them to set a precedent.

[@fm-dk9dn]

1:22 Another example would be Spain where the monarchy had a role in bringing back democracy

[@whilryke]

Though that probably counts as an exeption since it happened only once and because the king chose to reestablish democracy. And there's also the little fact monarchy was reestablished through the last will of a dictator, which doesn't really give a good image.

[@JJMcCullough]

That king is widely hated now.

[@alexiosikomnenos7749]

@@whilryke Yes but Juan Carlos could have kept an absolute monarchy, but he chooses to establish a democracy in Spain

[@whilryke]

@@alexiosikomnenos7749 And I'm sure the spaniards are thankful to him for that, however that is a pro-Juan argument, not a pro-spanish monarchy argument since it concerns only him.

[@eoghan.5003]

@@alexiosikomnenos7749 the only reason he was in a position to do that was cause the fascist dictator saw fit to leave him in charge. Ideally (imo) it wouldn't have been up to him. This is a specific situation and doesn't mean that monarchies are in general good.

[@mygetawayart]

As an Italian, i've always felt pretty conflicted about monarchy, on the one hand, i recognize the reasons we had to kick them away: it was either democracy or a monarchy that sold us out to Mussolini. That being said, when i think about monarchy, i smh don't just have That image in mind, of traitors and opportunistic selfish bastards, although maybe i should. See, I live in Turin, which used to be the capital of the Kingdom of Savoy for centuries, and the palaces, the roads, the beatiful covered pathways, the galleries, the cafés, all those beautiful buildings, i mean...this is the image i have of Italian monarchy and I kind of wish that we could get our royal family back if it meant restoring some of that glamour, that prestige and daily use, without giving them any power at all, after all, we already have a head of state, we wouldn't become a constitutional monarchy, we'd just be having a recognized national royal family.

[@cruzgomes5660]

Aye you win some you lose some. If you really want some of that glamour and prestige back, reintroducing a monarch without giving ANY power isn't going to do the job. It's like having a mascot but a huge farce instead. When you see Benny the Chicago Bull, you don't think of him as an actual bull. But when you see The Queen of England, you know in one form or another, she is THE actual queen of England. The institution may not have nearly as much power as it once did, but it's for sure more legitimate than if you just brought in a monarch today and give them no power. If you want change or glamour back for your nation, bringing a risk-free, fake monarch would most likely not be enough to bring it. A small spark of tourism at most would probably be the benefit of such a move.

[@willfakaroni5808]

If you still kept it half of them would have gone to Epstein island

[@Tay12345]

If your monarchy had more power than Mussolini probably wouldn’t have been able to come to power.

[@eriknervik9003]

The house of Savoy didn’t “sell you out” to Mussolini, you people did that all on your own. It sounds like what you’re saying is you’re scapegoating the former Italian monarchy which never liked Mussolini to cover for the fact your grandparents loved him which is why they put him in power

[@KaiHung-wv3ul]

The Italian king also overthrew Mussolini.

[@pedroleuenberger4270]

After watching and listening carefully to both videos I have to say that I would prefer a monarchy rather than a republic.

[@chrisprizzle278]

Why?

[@quinnjohnson9750]

why so?

[@catarinamelchiorgomes8750]

@@chrisprizzle278 Honestly, I support the monarchy because here in Latin America, the republic is just an excuse for authoritarian dictators, monarchic Brazil was more democratic than most european countries at the time.

[@chrisprizzle278]

@@catarinamelchiorgomes8750 Sounds more like an issue with the people who rose to power then the structure of a republic in general.

[@catarinamelchiorgomes8750]

@@chrisprizzle278 This thing of a republic devolving into military dictatorship or unchecked oligarchy is present in all republics of all ethnicities, it happened in Africa, Europe, Asia, even Oceania.

[@hughjass1044]

Respect to J.J. for having formed an opinion on something and speaking frankly about it while encouraging people to engage with an alternative point of view. Not enough of that today. It's almost always "I think XYZ and I'm right and you're wrong!"

[@kacperwoch4368]

Tho J.J.'s approach to the topic of monarchy is a lot more emotional than that of UsefulCharts which doesn't help his argument.

[@hughjass1044]

@@kacperwoch4368 Well, I dunno. You could say emotional but I'd use the term passionately myself. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that. A person can feel very strongly about something but still be respectful enough to entertain an alternate viewpoint. That is to me. what's important.

[@paulak8106]

Cancel the Ham! I would maybe have agreed with him if he used correct information. Norway’s monarch dates back to 885 and he said it was in 1905. What else information could he have gotten wrong🤷‍♂️

[@joke_d]

I don't know, as a Swede it's something about the aesthetics of the monarchy I like. There is so much culture and history around it which I don't want to see abolished.

[@robertocaetano4945]

Yes, thats why a Monarchy is much more stable. I hope someday we can bring back our Monarchy here in Brazil.

[@kevinprzy4539]

The history isn’t just abolished when they’re gone but to me they seem to be mascots my image of royalty has been a-skewed because I not only associated them with the history and culture but also as having the highest of wealth but now billionaires just outshine them in wealth and power so it just seems odd,useless and outdated at this point but that’s just my opinion my friend.

[@myamdane6895]

@@kevinprzy4539But what do we define as outdated? I don’t understand why people think just because something is old it must inherently have less value

[@Maxchillin420]

I think one of the biggest problems with constitutional Monarchy that you almost touched on with the rubber stamp point, is that it ends up giving prime ministers and their cabinets too much power. They essentially control both the executive and legislative levers of powers as monarchs are too scared to have any real political input because as you pointed out they want to never risk falling out of favour with the public

[@JJMcCullough]

Very good point.

[@Christopher_TG]

This is a big advantage of making the head of state an elected official, particularly one elected separately from the head of government. If you give the head of state the democratic legitimacy to be in their position, it empowers them to actually use that office to be a moderating influence on the parliament and the head of government since their actions are simply those of an elected official doing their job. By comparison, any action by a constitutional monarch that in any way contravenes the will of the democratic institutions of the country would be seen as the act of despotism. My own favorite example is Germany. Germany's head of state is the Federal President (Bundespräsident), who is elected by the Federal Convention (Bundesversammlung), an electoral college comprised of all members of the Federal Diet (Bundestag), the directly elected house of Germany's parliament, and an equivalent number of representatives appointed by Germany's state governments. Germany's head of government is the Federal Chancellor (Bundeskanzler), who is traditionally the leader of the largest party in the majority coalition of the Bundestag. The Federal President has many of the same powers as the British Crown, including the official appointment of the head of government, dissolving the parliament prior to an election, and giving assent to bills passed by the parliament to make them law. But since the Federal President has democratic legitimacy, they will actually exercise discretion in the use of their power and not just rubberstamp the Chancellor's policies. They will do things like refuse to give Presidential Assent to bills passed by the parliament that they feel are unconstitutional or intervene in coalition negotiations to help form a stable government. It means that there actually is a check on the will of the German parliament from the head of state, something that doesn't exist in Britain.

[@RealUlrichLeland]

I don't think that's necessarily true. The fascist regime in Spain only ended when the King made a televised address telling the army to stop their coup. Depending on the competence and popularity of the monarch the public can choose to allow their monarch to exercise some of their ceremonial powers as political ones. In France with the Bourbon restoration the constitutional monarchs went too close to being an absolute monarchy and so the public booted them out. In Italy the monarch wasn't confident or popular enough to confront Mussolini and so the Italians kicked him out as a collaborator after the war. People like Queen Elizabeth II will have considered these examples carefully so that they can judge if it's ever appropriate for them to steer the country on another course, for instance when she allowed Boris Johnson to prororgue parliament.

[@scoobysnax9294]

y'know, in the UK, disliking the monarchy is considered a leftist position

[@tsunderegod2920]

Monarchy is inheritantly conservative in nature.

[@MykytaSpivak-ne3cw]

@DEx Stev it's really not

[@kuto0987]

In Canada its not really right or left, I personally as a liberal support the monarchy/am neutral whereas a conservative, such as J.J. , can be against it. Of course if your on the far left its different but most aren't so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@stephanosnormandusdelacroi8570]

@@kuto0987 625 billion in debt for covid alone thanks for screwing the country liberal. That's a debt burden and tax bill for five generations going forward. Bravo great job.

[@stephanosnormandusdelacroi8570]

@@kuto0987 Justin brought the Liberal party all the way left it's not a centrist ideology any longer. Justin has done such a bad job that I myself as a Frenchman will never vote for a Frenchman as prime minister again.

[@T1Oracle]

Monarchy is inherently oppressive. We are all equal regardless of who your parents are. To believe otherwise is narcissism.

[@xavierlauzac5922]

The monarch is supposed to be strictly ceremonial. What about monarchies such as the Emperor of Japan, who is literally head of the Shinto religion?

[@Jonslau]

as a dane i can say it hurts me when someone says we shouldnt have a monarch but i do still belive monarchs shouldnt have any power like in a constitutional monarchy also known as a parlimentary monarchy

[@nietkees6906]

In a constitutional monarchy a monarch still can have power. Their power is just limited by the constitution.

[@jgr7487]

they have a lot of unspoken power. the reason why the French 3rd Republic was brittle is because the constitution had been written for a Monarchy (the Head of State was given almost no real power), but it ended up being a Republic. in the end, because the President didn't have the personal clout to enforce the little power he had to rule that mess, the country ended up being ungovernable & cabinets fell like flies.

[@achyuthansanal]

I just don't see the point in having a monarch. I mean, if she/he has no power, then why keep them around?

[@user-nf9xc7ww7m]

I rather like the idea of spelling out the role of the head of state in the constitution. The Irish president is a good example (submit bills to referendum, refer bills to supreme court). I would be totally fine with a monarch having that power. It is just the power of a referee, not a player. Contrast that with presidents (even parliamentary) in many countries. Former and sometimes still active party players.

[@nietkees6906]

@@user-nf9xc7ww7m Referees can still have power over the game. Power should not be inherited.

[@TheKelsey]

My favorite thing about JJ is how he puts a few of his drawings into each video

[@ST-zc2hy]

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Where I live in Canada, the monarchy is really popular, and really, what is the queen doing that makes it necessary to remove her from power? Constitutional monarchy does no harm to the democratic system, and is part of the canadian culture.

[@ginch8300]

If we applied that to every thing in Canada, literally nothing would get better. Please don't breed.

[@rajkaranvirk7525]

Completely disagree, don’t know what part of Canada you come From but most people I grew up around are pretty apathetic or negative towards the monarchy.

[@talamahmoud10]

THE NORWEGIAN MONARCHY STARTED IN 872 YA DINGUS

[@RaymondHng]

In 1814-1905, the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway was a personal union of the separate kingdoms of Sweden and Norway under a common monarch. The two states kept separate constitutions, laws, legislatures, administrations, state churches, armed forces, and currencies. After the peaceful dissolution of the personal union between Norway and Sweden and the abdication of Oscar II of Sweden from the Norwegian throne, a referendum confirmed by a 79% majority that Norwegians desired to retain a monarchy. Prince Carl of Denmark, the second son of then Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark and grandson of Christian IX of Denmark, was formally offered the throne of Norway by the Storting (Norwegian parliament). He chose the regnal name of Haakon VII of Norway.

[@ShellShock11C]

As an American and freedom advocate I only have one thing to say upon Monarchy and Democracy; J.J. is attractive af. Thats it. Thats the Tweet.

[@terrorgaming459]

American puppet state

[@withonelook1985]

A constitutional Monarchy is the best form of government. Having both a single head of state and government is awful. Everyone in the world hated Donald Trump. Everyone hate Boris Johnson but everyone loves Queen Elizabeth. The monarch, who has no political power, creates a sense of unity. Americans were ashamed because they were only represented by Trump. Britts weren't ashamed because, while yes Johnson is a moron, the Queen is still the public face. The Royal Family also makes money for the UK. In 2019 the Crown Estate earned nearly $500 million dollars in profit 3/4th of which went to the government. If those lands where in private hands the country would see less than 1/10th of that price.

[@withonelook1985]

@@viviancooper5892 Not one single Pound of tax money goes to the royal family. The Queen, the late Prince Phillip, and Prince Charles are funded by the Crown Estate. The rest of the family are funded by HRH. The UK makes money off the the royal family, the revenue from the Crown Estate is nearly 2 billion dollars, but the Grant is only $100 million. The government retains the excess. Also, how can you say they Queen doesn't work to make her money? What other 95 year old do you know who still meets the Prime Minister every week, lunches with Presidents and Kings, and shows up to an community center opening in Poole two days after their husband had died?

[@lauscar]

For me, the virtue of the British Monarchy is impartiality. It's much harder to claim that you can't be in government and impartial at the same time in the UK, because the walking talking embodiment of that virtue is at the centre of our national life. I would trace the high level of trust the public places in institutions like the BBC and the courts compared to other democracies at least partially to the existence of Her Majesty

[@eoghan.5003]

What evidence do you have for that link? Recently conservatives have been complaining a lot about the BBC (it is to the left of most of Britain's press but I don't think that makes it left wing, but this is beside the point), and it tends to be conservatives who most strongly support the monarchy, so I don't think your theory holds.

[@lambchop7986]

Impartiality isn’t a real thing You’ll always support what is in your best interest, there are no detached and enlightened people.

[@senbassador]

Here in the US we have Supreme Court justices who serve for life. That's about the closest we get to an "impartial monarch". So maybe I can kind of see the appeal of another branch of government acting as a counter balance between whatever faction is currently in power.

[@robertjarman3703]

That seems like an absurd claim. Other institutions lack broader participation for reasons plenty aside from the monarchy, like how parliament is not elected proportionally and thus the PM doesn´t have a majority of the voters having voted for parties which support the PM and thus a majority are less likely to support the appointments to these institutions like the BBC and courts. Ethics rules are lax in crucial areas like how unions and corporations can donate to politicians but that is fixable by regular laws not by supporting a monarch.

[@nikolayd.3880]

@Mikel Garmendia nobody cares about abolishing the monarchy, mate. The right will always prioritise cutting taxes, and the left, caring for the disadvantaged. What political battles are you talking about

[@Wompwompwomp.ny1]

As an American I kinda like the idea of monarchy, especially in such politically polarized times as now. In think countries are lucky to have a national political figure not plague by partisan squabbles and are largely approved of and loved by the population.

[@ObviusRetard]

But you might just as well elect a popular apolitical figure to that sort of office then, if its just about popularity

[@kosinusify]

@@ObviusRetard Well, that's a good idea in general, but how can you ensure this figure stays apolitical? They can still be quite powerful once elected into office.

[@ObviusRetard]

@@kosinusify Okay, same with Monarchs?

[@IkeOkerekeNews]

Directorial government is better anyway.

[@Canalbizarrof]

@@ObviusRetard The Germans, Austrians and Israelis do this. Lacking a recent royal tradition, their presidents are normally some generally liked politician. I think there's merit to it. In places where there's a monarch already, why not keep them?

There's quite an interesting point about the "Jet Set" that nowadays is composed by richs of different sorts: Corporatives, Aristocracy and Show Buss: if you pay attention you'll find "The King of soft pillows" or "the Queen of Reagetton" or "The Prince of Football", etc., etc., etc.; Bourgeoisie, after defeating Aristocracy, loose it's values ("LIberte, Egalite, Fraternite") and became every day more and more like its alleged enemy.

[@azanulbizar12]

Same happend with "proletarians"; the leaders of communist regimes around the world (and their families) were the new royals after the fall of emperors and tsars.

[@Stewart1965HH]

Monarchy in Germany was abolished in 1918. And we do not miss it.

[@benjaminr6153]

I’d argue Germans might feel better actually if they had a focus of patriotism that didn’t make them feel like they were on the cusp of reliving the 1930s. Not having national pride is not a good thing, especially in a country that is, or is becoming, more multicultural and multiethnic. A Monarch can be one facet of national pride and celebration that isn’t reminiscent of the Nazis and ergo “kosher” for Germans

[@Stewart1965HH]

@@benjaminr6153 Patriotism is a good thing. But a monarch is not necessary for implementing some new patriotism. In our culture monarchy has been overtaken by history.

[@Rman775]

As someone who lives in a republic I never really understood the concept of a monarchy and always found it to be a tad but ridiculous. However as you rightfully said in the video different systems of government are highly contextual and I would never suggest that what works for my country works for every country. So if the majority of people in a particular country support the idea of having a monarchy well then I say good for them.

[@huldanoren951]

@@night6724 You mean in the sense of not having a monarchy is ridiculous, or that having to elect a president and other representatives to decide what to do when you yourself and everybody else could have just decided what to do is ridiculous?

[@Ludovicus1769]

And as someone who lives under a constitutional monarchy I think the exact same about many republics, for example France. Monarchies are apart of a nations culture, the monarch is not there to rule but more for moral support, take Denmark and Norway under Germany in WWII, their monarchs did wonders to help their citizens. Sure you don’t need the monarch, but you also don’t need art, the right to vote or individuality, but we appreciate it because it’s apart of our nations culture, and if you don’t understand why people love their culture you’re a lost cause.

[@Rman775]

@@Ludovicus1769 Not going to lie, I got a good laugh from you comparing a monarchy to the right to vote. I mean slavery is part of my countries history but you'd get some strange looks from people if you went on about how good it was because it was 'part of the nation's culture' Look, like I said if the whole royal family thing works for you then I wish you well. I don't see the sense in it, which is fine as we don't have to agree on everything. Good luck to you.

[@Ludovicus1769]

@@Rman775 It essentially is, by not allowing monarchies to exist you’re taking monarchs away from people who want them, that wouldn’t be very democratic, in fact it would be downright tyrannical. Also there’s a difference between history and culture, learn that difference and then we can talk.

[@Rman775]

@@Ludovicus1769 I cannot allow nor prevent anyone from having anything, in fact I have made it clear that I do not really care. Have your king or your queen it does not matter to me.

[@KaisarHendrik]

While the Dutch monarchy was indeed established under Napoleon. The royal family held significant power as Stadhouders all the way back since the 80 years war of independence. Meaning that depending on how you look at it, you could say the family has ruled the Netherlands ever since its creation. While also being widely credited as the main reason the country even gained its independence.

[@fdaunja]

"Every man a king."

[@jgr7487]

that's how the US got Drumpf & Joementia as the symbol of their country.

[@justsomeghostwithinterneta7296]

Kaiserreich player spotted.

[@Crick1952]

Huey Long Dong to Rule Them All!

[@Dew2Much]

Huey Long shlong

[@fdaunja]

@@jgr7487 What exactly are you even trying to conceptualize? Huey Long modernized Louisiana and his slogan is an acknowledgement to every citizens g-d given right to the pursuit of happiness. Trump and Biden aren't that relevant to me. I recommend you read "Candide"

[@JL-hz5li]

All your arguments are 100% correct and applicable-if we are talking about establishing a new country from a blank piece of paper; or if we are discussing whether to convert a country that hasn’t had a monarch for centuries (such a France) into a monarchy, which is obviously ridiculous. But if we are discussing whether to change a real life monarchy that has those cultural sentiment and traditions for centuries into a republic, then no, monarchy has its significant cultural and sentimental values that no calculative debates can easily defeat. So if the debate question is “should monarchy exist in the 21st century”, then obviously a big yes, because people in monarchist countries STILL WANT IT.

[@JohnParks-zc1pn]

The clip at 8:30 showing the Reign of Terror in France is what happened AFTER the monarchy was overthrown.

[@bolgerlake]

Keep the monarchy!

[@savagedarksider5934]

Yes.

[@deutschelehrer69]

Keepn't

[@michal31131]

Any position that is acquired by being born to the right family should be abolished. Being head of state should be elected like any other politician.

[@terrorgaming459]

@@michal31131 im British i dont want my country to turn into America

[@michal31131]

@@terrorgaming459 Many countries on this earth don't have monarchies, as an Israeli I couldn't be happier that we kicked out the crown after what they've done in the entire region and other places around the world.

[@christopherflux6254]

Interesting that you are a conservative against Monarchy and I’m liberal/left Brit who supports the Monarchy. Maybe right wing anti-monarchism is a thing in Canada.

[@ByddinRhyddidCymru]

If you support the monarchy, you’re not left wing

[@nathanriver1556]

I think it's fair to say the vast majority of Canadians are apathetic about the monarchy, both because it doesn't really affect daily or political life beyond some aesthetic touches and because abolishing the monarchy in Canada is almost impossible as long as the institution exists in the UK (since it requires unanimous consent from all provinces, and the Eastern Maritime provinces are fairly traditionalist).

[@oldmanlogan9616]

@@ByddinRhyddidCymru nice gatekeeping you got there, mate

[@jgr7487]

@@ByddinRhyddidCymru tell that to the Spanish PSOE

[@varotjutaviriya1808]

Candana aren't even a real monarchy anyway, it's de fecto head of state which apponited by PM acts like a president in a parliamentary republics. We should consider commonweath relms a "de facto parliamentary republic".

[@mirabeaux851]

Timestamps for this who want them 00:00 Opening (duh) 1:06 introduction and stuff is complex bc politics 2:34 Point 1: monarchism is dishonest 7:36 Point 2: monarchy cannot be reformed 10:41 Final point: Royals are sad and pathetic mascots

[@larsdahlgren739]

I have an argument for monarchy: in many countries leadership is a reflection of cultural ideal, be it monarchical or presidential. In a monarchy the reflection of culture and iconification of leadership is somewhat carried by the royal family, leaving the leadership of the country with a more birocratic forcuse and is thereby scrutinized, while in a country like america where there is no monarchy to lift the cultural reflection berdon, the leader (president) takes this role, and is idelised in a manner similar to royalty, this could potentially affect the political agenda of the state. PS: This might be an argumen, which is rather hard to prove, just a thought really, so don't go preaching this stuff

[@cruzgomes5660]

The president is temporary and unless he cares about being liked by everyone or a the majority of people (which they probably didn't in the first place since that's not a great trait to have when becoming a politician), the public's opinion of him won't matter once he leaves office. The king never leaves office, he is ideal bound by public opinion as long as he lives.

[@willfakaroni5808]

There’s nothing bad about that

[@youcantalwaysgetwhatyouwan6687]

We should abolish the Absolute Monarchies

[@bigbuckss4303]

As someone who lives in an Absolute Monarchy, hell no

[@olivebread]

@@bigbuckss4303 why not?

[@skybananaqueen4051]

@@olivebread is there even a modern day absolute monarchy?

[@bigbuckss4303]

@@olivebread The short answer: There's no real reason to get rid of monarchs. The long answer: The country is much better off being ruled by a family that consists of well educated members that can manage the country more efficiently than the politicians of democratic republics who tend to bicker about issues instead of solving them. Where I live, the country is stable, provides health care, provides education, has a very low crime rate than most world countries, and laws that solve our issues tend to be implemented in a matter of days rather than be argued over without any real solution for a decade or so. Over all, having a family of well educated people that run the country efficiently allows for the country to thrive.

[@bigbuckss4303]

@@skybananaqueen4051 Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Brunei, eSwatini, the Vatican, and the UAE is made up of small absolute monarchies that are joined together in a federal monarchy system.

[@Luredreier]

7:49 Interestingly the current crown prince of Norway went to lectures when he was studying held by an anti-monarchist who made a point of sharing all of his reasons for why monarchism shouldn't be a thing, and our crown prince sat there and listened politely like any other student. For what it's worth.

[@jonathankeith3793]

As a decendent of illegitimate British line from an affair, I would love it get rid of it so that I am no longer dead to the crown.

[@warrenlehmkuhleii8472]

Wait, I am an American monarchist, and you are a republican. I feel like something has gotten all swapped around.

[@beyou1813]

@@Harry-cd9hm not exactly lower they just wanted a seat in the parliament that was levying taxes on them. Hence the term "No taxation without representation."

[@warrenlehmkuhleii8472]

@@Onlinerando what? I really advocate for monarchy in my fatherland.

[@folofus4815]

American Monarchy gang rise up

[@speedy01247]

As an American libertarian socialist, I will oppose all forms of authoritarian government.

[@warrenlehmkuhleii8472]

@@Onlinerando I am a Jacobite. I don’t want the Windsors.

[@jorgancrath2885]

I am of the opinion that the British Monarch will end as a result of Prince Charles ascending to the throne. While I do support abolishing to Monarchy I think that the current Queen of England has done a relatively good job of avoiding controversy and her son will not. When someone who is given a prominent symbolic role in government as a result of chance starts mouthing off opinions controversial or not people will start to turn against them.

[@seaotter4439]

I think a good video supporting this position is from Philosophy Tube, called "Why Does Britain Still Have A Queen?" It covers the debate about monarchy in the UK and the anti-monarchical position quite fairly imo. Abigail does pretty good summarizing the debate and also has a lot of humor put into it.

[@gigachadgaming6071]

Philosophy Tube is a horrible channel, so I highly doubt he covered it "quite fairly"

[@olegdzyuba2489]

@@gigachadgaming6071 care to elaborate?

[@kaiceecrane3884]

@@gigachadgaming6071 I like her channel

[@ironicdivinemandatestan4262]

@@gigachadgaming6071 *she

[@gigachadgaming6071]

@@ironicdivinemandatestan4262 I know what I said.

[@seneca983]

I think part of the reason why some monarchies can achieve high popularity is due to them having no political power. The same can be true for powerless presidents. Here in Finland, the president used to have a lot of power but over time most of those powers were stripped away (and the remaining powers are such that the exercise of them doesn't usually make headlines). The current president has a very high approval rating and his predecessor had an even higher one. However, neither of them could ever hope to achieve such high approval ratings in their earlier positions as cabinet ministers because making actual impactful decisions is almost inherently divisive.

[@RedDeathShinigami]

The King of Norway was no installed by the parliament but by a nationalwide votum ;) The people WANTED a monarchy.

[@stantorren4400]

I can fix that

[@65mcman]

The “Gods Choice” killed me 💀

[@CH-ek2bm]

The questions you say you're answering at the start of your videos are slightly different. You're answering the question of whether monarchy has any "inherent use", whereas the Useful Charts guy is answering the question of whether monarchy should be an option in the 21st Century (which you concede in the first 2 minutes of your answer).

[@martychisnall]

Yep, he can’t win the argument so he moves the goal post

[@alpacacomentadora413]

Monarchy is inmoral

[@thorthewolf8801]

If it has no use, why should it exist?

[@evilemperorzurg9615]

As an American I hate seeing so much attention given to the British Royal family in the media. My ancestors fought a revolution 250 years ago so I wouldn’t have to give a damn.

[@spencersss1251]

One monarchy I think goes about against the odds is Bhutan’s. Their king stepped down from power for his younger son. The son then got rid of the absolute power monarchy into a democratic monarchy. The people actually didn’t seem to be so supportive of it as they’d seen the instability of democracy and the country worshiped it’s king. The king then personally went around the country helping promote democracy and working with the government to get elections done

[@marktaylor526]

Unfortunately, the exception proves the rule.

[@swastik4302]

In Bhutan large number of parties are banned....only pro monarchy parties are allowed

[@JackWaParker]

J.J. had an easier argument to make, but I still think he nailed it. I might be biased though because I despise royal families and people who gawk over them.

[@Vastilious]

Yeah they represent racism and colony Era I think it is dumb that canada is a federal monarchy

[@myamdane6895]

@@VastiliousWithout colonies half the world would still be living in mud huts

[@MermmyDermmy]

How can we all be truly be equal if one person or family is held up as more worthy than another

[@Joeljdwatts]

I love the collaboration between you both! Keep it up!

[@TheRennDawg]

As am American I was perplexed by all those who so infatuated by the wedding of Meghan Markle and Harry Windsor. I was thinking, didn't we fight a war to kick this garbage out of here?

[@halifaxx55]

Yep. I am like fuck that shit. I don't want to see that. I paid slightly more attention to the whole interview fiasco, because of the implications/insight into racial dynamics in society. but just for that piece.

[@myself2noone]

"As an Amarican.." really? Didn't get that form the profile picture?

[@user-is1lo9dx2i]

Don't be that harsh. Garbage didn't usually fuck up the world that much.

[@qwertyTRiG]

The fact that people also care about it here in Ireland just confuses me.

[@RaymondHng]

We're just watching a wedding. We are not paying for it.

[@dogvom]

I became a card-carrying member of the Monarchist League of Canada when I was a teenager, and yet I and my whole family are NDP, while you, who have historically supported a more conservative party, are against monarchy. How very odd in both cases!

[@martychisnall]

JJ calls himself a conservative but has no conservative views.

[@JJMcCullough]

It’s not that odd. There are ton of left wing monarchists in this country and ton of right wing anti monarchists. It’s not a partisan issue.

[@terrorgaming459]

@@JJMcCullough yep im a socialist pro monarch

[@Tobberz]

I'm not going to convince JJ and he's not gonna convince me, so I'll make two remarks: a) Ultimately a nation should be governed in the way it wishes. If it wants a constitutional monarchy, or a direct democracy, or a representative democracy, so be it. b) Some of the most prosperous countries in the world are constitutional monarchies. Australia, Canada, Belgium, the UK, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands, etc. Correlation does not equal causation, but that's good correlation. But maybe it's the case that system of government doesn't matter among prosperous countries, so there is no incentive to change.

[@JJMcCullough]

I've never heard anyone even TRY to make the causation argument. But I would agree that wealth and stability probably helps ensure the survival of monarchies. The countries in Europe that do not have monarchies are generally poorer.

[@Tobberz]

@@JJMcCullough Mm. Maybe I'm a cynic, but in the commonwealth you often see governments push for a republic when things aren't going well domestically (Barbados recently, Australia in the 90s). Ultimately most British derivative monarchies are effectively republics in almost every sense, except regarding the head of state. So it's an emotional and patriotic issue more than anything else, and that can't be reasoned for or against.

[@nikolayd.3880]

There is a causative element: monarchies used to be abolished through revolutions. Revolutions are costly, unstable, and signal general economic hardships.

[@davidrubio.24]

I'm a citizen of the "Kingdom of Spain". I 100% agree with video, so here is my compromise with those who don't: We completely remove the King of the political system, no mention of him in the constitution. BUT, he keeps working for the government under the tourism ministry doing all the ceremonial stuff.

[@thefilipinokid3575]

VIVA REY!

[@mostafamd2144]

That sounds fair

[@TheddunTOSS]

If you like monarchies or not, but it is a fact that constitutional monarchies are nowadays the most stable and human rights abiding democracies. Look to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada, etc.

[@Redemmo]

Thank you for the calm and informative debate about monarchy - you both had several thought-provoking points. Also, it was fun finding two Canadian channels - hello country-mate 🍁

[@canadianlad3388]

I like the queen as a figure head. We don't really pay to help them, and we keel close ties with the commonwealth

[@davogunnersm.5280]

Reject a republic, embrace a constitutional monarchy.

[@JJMcCullough]

No.

[@brunog3768]

JJ: "we may as well have the monarchs run for elections every four years" Now that doesn't sound like a bad idea, have the Monarchy stay for as long as they remain popular, just have an extra option in the ballot.

[@christopherflux6254]

That’s the system they have on Naboo in Star Wars. But then the Empire took over.

[@JJMcCullough]

@@christopherflux6254 isn’t the moral of the Star Wars movies that they have a stupid system of government and that’s why Senator Palpatine was able to so easily persuade everyone to ditch it?

[@eldestdragon5766]

@@JJMcCullough Palpatine took over the galactic government, not the planetary government of Naboo. The galactic government was the Reublic.

[@christopherflux6254]

@@JJMcCullough Yeah. But Queen Amidalla 😍

[@Hand-in-Shot_Productions]

@@JJMcCullough As someone who is re-watching the _Star_ _Wars_ prequel trilogy, I think that's a huge part of the plot of those movies! The Republic wasn't able to prevent itself becoming an Empire, hence why the events of the original trilogy had to take place!

[@Ironbanner12]

JJ loves his royalty-free music

[@lelouch18plus]

As a Thai, I just wanna say that monarchy sucks. In the past, many people were killed because of it. And now I’m stuck with currently king, who if someone found out I talk about him in this tone I could be put in jail.

[@ADivineFellow]

The one thing we disagree on my fellow Canadian. Long live the Queen of Canada! 🇨🇦

[@lastp6905]

Why would you want to be ruled by an old woman thousands of miles away from you in a completely different country?

[@ADivineFellow]

@@lastp6905 It's a matter of loyalty.

[@lastp6905]

@@ADivineFellow Loyalty to what though? A foreign ruler who has little to do with your country at all? I’m just trying to understand

[@ADivineFellow]

@@lastp6905 having a queen gives you someone to be loyal to, to fight for in a war, to live and die for, to serve. Also I believe monarchy is better than democracy because it's one person making decisions not different groups of people arguing every four years on decisions and one group of people arguing all the time. Monarchy takes out the hassle and confusion of democracy. Long live the queen.

[@lastp6905]

@@ADivineFellow I don’t know about that, there’s no queen in my country and I still feel that intense loyalty. I’m not sure though if having a woman who’s 90 odd making decisions is a good idea though