THE FORBIDDEN MONARCHY STUNLOCK! VAUSH RANTS AT CHAT! | 2020 Throwback

This stunlock was edited out of this video: • Trans Hypocrisy, Black...
🔴 Website - www.vaush.gg/
💵 Patreon - / vaush
🌟 Other Socials 🌟
⭐️ Main Channel - / @vaush
🐦 Twitter - / vaushv
👾 Twitch - / vaushvidya
📸 Instagram - / vaushv
🔵 Facebook - / vaushvidya
🎵 TikTok - / vaushvidya
🎙Podcast - anchor.fm/vaush
#Vaush #VaushPit

[@slime8177]

The Vaush Pit is not of God. It is of its father, the devil

[@TheVaushPit]

I don't know what this means, but I love it.

[@TheExterminatorGuy]

@@TheVaushPit same lol

[@slime8177]

@@TheVaushPit it’s a JLP quote about liberals lmao

[@timeisup3094]

@@TheVaushPit Is Vaush still recovering from surgery?

[@TheVaushPit]

It's mostly his cough at this point. I talked to him the other day, and he could barely get through the convo without hacking up a lung.

[@foggy808]

Insane that no brits just cleared it up immediately by stating the blatantly obvious fact that the uk is a parliamentary monarchy

[@gamingdiamond352]

I mean there were probably like 5 brits bothered to stay up until vaush's stream started

[@Xeridanus]

Wikipedia lumps them into the same thing. "A constitutional monarchy, parliamentary monarchy, or democratic monarchy is a form of monarchy in which the monarch exercises their authority in accordance with a constitution and is not alone in deciding."

[@sebastianedwards4668]

@@gamingdiamond352 true I was sleeping

[@thenotsodiscretewolf2098]

Hey look at my comments as soon I heard that I was like the uk isn't a true monarchy

[@foggy808]

@@Xeridanus it’s a bit simplistic to conflate them imo, its never used in parlance here. In a parliamentary monarchy all statecraft is theoretically devolved to the elected representatives and the monarch is a figurehead for status for reactionaries. The unionists (british nationalist monarchists) always shout about how the royals have no power yadayada but it’s bollocks. The guardian white papers revealed they had an untoward influence on fiscal/tax policy. Colour me surprised

[@bumblebeeatbreadloaf1286]

I would live under a monarchy that forced Vaush to stream every day

[@socialist_vocalist]

A Vausharchy.

[@bibubbletea]

Let’s do it

[@mielipuolisiili7240]

I would live under monarchy that led chatters to the camps

[@MA-jn7rd]

Pigeon would be the monarch

[@fartyfazbear1932]

And okbuddy every month :D

[@sergioaugusto166]

chat is like Would you steal bread to feed your family? chat: trick question, the bread is poisoned

[@Sabrina0s]

being from a common wealth country and listening to this makes chat is really funny. we used to say that the royal family are the largest recipients of welfare in the world.

[@Towlapeiwa]

God it was so weird my citizenship and there’s a big plastic standup poster of some old lady from England 😭

[@sovietdoggo3779]

Why is this profile picture everywhere

[@1ute]

that’s funny

[@Meggiesoarsrex]

Chat here sounds like my dad after he watched "The Crown" and he argued fervently against abolishing the monarchy in a country we dont live in.

[@moksha8473]

Your Dad sounds based ngl

[@jadegrace1312]

@@moksha8473 There's no good argument for having a monarchy, even a ceremonial figurehead.

[@fartyfazbear1932]

@@jadegrace1312 i want that qussy

[@nicolaim4275]

A constitutional monarchy can mean both a democratic monarchy and a dictatorial monarchy. The only relevant detail is that the monarch is also bound by rules.

[@jach99]

A recent-ish example of a dictatorial constitutional monarchy would be Romania between 1938 and 1940, when the king established a one party state under royal dictatorship. There still was a constitution, a prime minister and even elections, it's just that the only party was the king's party.

[@LordDim1]

@@jach99 Good ol’ Carol II. The one saving Grace of his dictatorship was his staunch opposition to the Romanian Nazis, and his killing of Codreanu

[@flrnGM]

So could you show me how anyone ever refered England in respect to the Magna Carta as a constitutional monarchy. Edit: 13th century feudal England.

[@nicolaim4275]

@@flrnGM The wikipage on Constitutional Monarchy actually refers to the Magna Carta in exactly those terms. :)

[@factsmachine9905]

It’s all based on the constitution

[@goodsocksproductions9397]

"I got so mad that I forgot that I have a cough" Guys I have an idea

[@Bobbing4Fries]

Chat: but they never took away the Queen's power to jump all the way to the moon, so we'll just assume she CAN even though she HASN'T. Voosh: aneurysm

[@supereero9]

From a legal perspective Vaush's argument was shit and bad

[@Bobbing4Fries]

@@supereero9 what? He was objectibely correct on the main point, which was that merely saying constitutional monarchy does not imply any republic nor democratic process of any kind. On everything else, he's right in the only way he cares about; in utility. Example: if the queen were to all of a sudden try to do something she's technically and legally still allowed to do, but parliament and the British Oligarchy disagreed with it, you better bet that would change immediately via a vote in Parliment.

[@supereero9]

@@Bobbing4Fries I don't disagree with his main point, he still could have clarified instead of throwing a fit, what I take issue with is that when defining the UK's form of government he makes the mistake of dismissing the existence of the Queen's de jure powers as an argument, for me as a legal scholar the most important factor when defining a country's form of government is the legal framework behind it's governance, in the case of the UK, the law and most importantly the judiciary which interprets the many codifications of which the "unwritten constitution" of the UK consists of. So the fact that the practical use of the Queen's powers would result in a reaction does not, at least in a legal sense, make the UK any less of a (constitutional) monarchy

[@zacheryeckard3051]

@@supereero9 The parliament, however, kinda does.

[@Bobbing4Fries]

@@supereero9 See, you say "he's right about the main point" then say "but he's wrong" citing that the dismissal of her powers changes the interpretation of the type of monarchy the UK has. Thats incorrect. The dismissal of the queen's powers has nothing to do with whether or not it is a constitutional monarchy was central to his rant. As long as there is any document at all that limits the powers of the monarch, we now have a constitutional monarchy. The argument that followed happened when many people assumed Vaush immediately meant the UK specifically he clarified that in utility the UK is pretty much a republic, since the queen has so little actual power. So main point was "monarchies where people have little say are bad" and that uncovered a cognitive bias toward monarchies based on the experience with the UK, and Vaush clarified that bias revealing that it is based on assuming the queen has any utilitarian powers at all, which makes it a very poor example of a typical constitutional monarchy since the monarch in question has virtually no powers other than their name and land. Tl;dr: UK is virtually a democratic republic based on actual utility of the powers of the monarch so using them as a litmus test for the typical constitutional monarchy is bad.

[@frostyfrenchtoast]

The 2020 Vaush era leading up to the election was iconic

[@certifiedfunnyguy]

When chat said that she could dissolve parliament I would love to tell chat what happened the past two times the crown tried to dissolve the parliament. (Hint: they were beheaded)

[@KajsarTitus]

So she can at least once. Still counts!

[@afridge8608]

Third times the charm

[@jadegrace1312]

@@KajsarTitus I would encourage her and any future British monarchs to utilize that power, rapidly.

[@mrsnrub282]

Based and Cromwell-pilled

[@tidalink]

The Australian constitutional crisis is actually pretty interesting. Considering the CIA as well as the Queen had a hand in dethroning Gough Whitlam who was our most 'left wing' Prime Minister and introduced so many good reforms like Medicare for all, making University free and ending conscription to Vietnam.

[@rickenman9844]

Maybe the Queen but I doubt the CIA

[@kstar1489]

@@rickenman9844 you doubt the CIA interferes with democratic elections to oust a left wing ruler? I’d say that’s very in character for them

[@godoflight558]

Whitlam tried to nationalise mining industry (mostly owned by American companies) and was threatening to kick out the CIA from Pine Gap (because they weren't honouring the agreements to share Intelligence). The Governer-General was literally funded by a CIA (he was a member of some society which got money from CIA) The US replaced their ambassador to Australia with the guy who just recently did a coup in Indonesia To say that the CIA was not involved in the Whitlam dismissal is just factually incorrect

[@eelvis1674]

"the magna carta is not a constitution" nobody tell that chatter that by their definition the UK still has no constitution. (codified or otherwise)

[@Nukeguy909]

No, they are literally correct, the UK literally has no written constitution. Instead it is governed by various statutes and conventions such as the Bill of Rights 1689, Acts of Union 1707 and 1800, Act of Settlement 1701, Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, Human Rights Act 1998, Scotland Act, Northern Ireland Act and Government of Wales Act 1998. The magna carta actually never falls into it.

[@supereero9]

@@Nukeguy909 So it has what is called an uncodified constitution

[@eelvis1674]

@@Nukeguy909 you can have an 'non-codified constitution', which is what the UK has. All of those precedents are considered to be a part of the "constitution". And the magna carta is generally considered to be the start of this process If you want to argue that a non-codified constitution doesn't count as a constitution that's fine. But the chatter was pretty clearly of the belief that the UK currently has a constitution.

[@dakunssd]

This reminds me of german right-wing conspiracists that claim the BRD has no constitution because the damn thing is called "Grundgesetz" (base or foundational law) rather than "Verfassung" (constitution). It's bird-brained rules-lawyering of the highest order. If it functions as a constitution, it is de facto a constitution.

[@Tyacis]

I cannot believe he just called the Queen of England a Chibi doll, I'm fucking dead

[@samanthablackman4960]

Omg this was one of his best moments 😂

[@Meggiesoarsrex]

Another day, another shout out to the editors whi are forced to feverishly comb through year old vods in Vaush's basment so that they can be given the crusts of Vaush's pizza.

[@iron-mage]

vaushfeild pizza crusts hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm NOM

[@hexogramd8430]

Cheese pizza 🤨📸

[@SanguineThor]

"My groove, MY GROOVE!" Classic fat ian moment.

[@mcbaws21]

remember this one. classic chat moment

[@SanguineThor]

They made him say hes gonna kill himself like 4 or 5 times! A record 👏

[@xenos_n.]

Omg I remember this 😆 ... Love seeing chat trigger tf out of Vaush. Always hilarious. Edit: Magna Carter

[@mookiestewart3776]

Manga cartel *

[@angryretailbanker5103]

So much talk about the Magna Carter, but we never talk about its Japanese equivalent, the Manga Carter.

[@bramvandenheuvel4049]

This is very funny ^^ Growing up in NL, I understand the confusion and then Vaush goes of screaming about technicalities. Better entertainment than Netflix :P

[@someidiot6545]

I love the magner carter, gonna be one of my favorite constitution.

[@JurasJankauskas]

Actually, UK is a weird stand out case. The queen has a lot of power, but traditionally does not use it and chances are if she tried to, the parliament would implement laws to curtail that power. A lot of political stuff in Britain is weird because it works on tradition instead of being legally implemented or actually written down.

[@jach99]

I think due to some recent court case in the newly-ish established British Constitutional Court(I forgot what they call it but that's what it is, the role use to be fulfilled by the Law Lords) it's actually the Parliament which is sovereign, not the monarch anymore.

[@PancakemonsterFO4]

Thats because she's afraid the entirety of britains gutter press will turn on her

[@gregunyk1225]

Same thing in Canada/other commonwealth countries. The Queen (or her local representative) still has veto power on ALL legislation, makes all appointments, chooses the Prime minister, calls elections, can prorogue (aka turn off) parliament, along with a bunch of other "royal prerogatives". The reason she never uses these powers independently from the will of the Prime Minister is that if she did, she would likely be ignored, or just have her palace confiscated by the state. Technically speaking, even a law abolishing the monarchy, or formally curtailing her power requires her signature, so she could veto it at will.

[@MrxstGrssmnstMttckstPhlNelThot]

She did do that one thing with the prime minister of Australia that one time tho Sometimes she can use her power

[@MrxstGrssmnstMttckstPhlNelThot]

Oh he talked about that specific one time

[@Canuovea]

We are taught in Canada that we have both a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. And there was one time a Governor General (the Queen's Representative, basically) refused to call an election when asked and tried to have the other parties form a coalition. This went poorly, and convention has since made sure this doesn't happen again. Technically, too, constitutions tend to establish something like a parliament (or at least an alternative power system, which is often some kind of parliament). Also, teeeechnically, a constitution need not be written (funnily enough), and there were references to the English Constitution even though they don't have a written one (not specifically, or at least not only, the Magna Carta). It's messy. Of course, none of this really matters to the point being made.

[@KerfaI]

The UK does actually have a written constitution, it's just not codified into a single document like the US. Not sure Vaush knows what he's talking about here

[@Canuovea]

@@KerfaI Yeah, though if I recall correctly it can also refer to unwritten convention occasionally.

[@SpielkindFR]

Yet another fine example of chat illustrating the dunning kruger effect.

[@William1w1]

I mean, technically she is the head of state. She hasn't been exercising most of her powers, but if she suddenly decided to do so, or if she died and the next in line decided to do so, it might not be so clear who would come out on top. I'm pretty sure Vaush is mostly right, but you'd be surprised how much the military even here in Canada venerates her. I'm not sure it's so cut and dry that she would be ignored. It might really depend on the policy she's trying to enact and how popular it is with the people. We should probably take care of these potential legal issues before she dies.

[@U.F.R.G]

Well most of the queen's current power comes from the fact she's well liked If this hypothetical successor came to power and tried to do some dictator shit and they were less liked (witch most other member of the royal family are not as liked as Elizabeth 2) than anything they tried doing would probably fall falt on its face But despite that the Uk should probably make it clear in law that the monarchy is merely ceremonial so an takeover cannot happen

[@mjg2008121]

In the UK it is generally understood that the 'Monarchy' have one shot left. The Queen (or the next monarch) gets to use one political intervention ONCE. After that all political power will be removed. So they never use it. But they could because of our laws and other BS. But if they do then they are gone. But they can. But they wont. But they might.... Welcome to the messed up political system of the UK

[@christian2i]

No im sure it will be fine...

[@certifiedfunnyguy]

She is head of state, not head of government, these are big distinctions

[@natethegreatest1000]

No worries, that gives us like, 3 decades of time before that’ll happen, if at all.

[@les_chegwin]

These are the kind of arguments people had in the pub before everyone had access to the internet on their phones

[@brasswing2681]

Bring back 2020 vaush, I'm loving these throwbacks

[@JayDao1462]

BRO IVE BEEN LOOKING FOR THIS FOR SOOO LONG

[@dannysdungareedanceoff8481]

Vaush asking himself if he was wrong was funny because ofc he wasn't about something like that He's like a social studies teacher

[@theMosen]

The queen does have real power. If she suddenly decided to forego convention and wield her legal powers against the will of parliament, well most in parliament wouldn't accept it, but they wouldn't have any legal means to oppose it. The result would be a constitutional crisis. So she has the very real power of throwing the country into disarray at the snap of her fingers.

[@peterwilliams2887]

But she wouldn’t Because that would threaten the nation and the nation is the only power giving her the ability to destroy it. It cancels each other out. It’s like how mutual assured destruction works

[@tomsyme8282]

good points, disconcertingly sombre light. Thanks Vaush

[@TimothyFerguson]

The Magna Carta lasted as an active law for, what, a couple of years? The second he got the chance King John called it off, and Henry III replaced it.

[@tylerhackner9731]

Classic chat moment

[@bolshevikY2K]

To all of the UK simps I put to you this: Morocco is also a "constitutional monarchy." With a parliament and a PM. If you are a pro-democracy conservative, or a liberal, or a socialist, or a communist, or queer in Morocco, you will be disappeared and nobody will hear from you for at least 6 months. "Constitutional" doesn't mean shit, it's still a monarchy where the monarch can have power to do as they will. EDIT: clarification for the orangists in the replies; "constitutional" =/= "has democratic institutions"

[@pepela8214]

Constitutional monarchy isn't a very specific term. The UK is still legally a constitutional monarchy. It's important to make a distinction between de jure and de facto powers.

[@cf3714]

To be fair, the same thing happens in Chechnya, which last time I checked wasn't a monarchy either.

[@Snipehsheep]

This is like saying republics are bad because North Korea is officially a Democratic Republic yet they're still autocratic. Complete nonsense point.

[@thebrewsky26]

Vaush has been putting in the work, I didn't notice the gradual changes but damn, nice work on the fitness

[@matthew55793]

Chat: well actually the queen secretly controls everything and the UK is a very real monarchy and not just a democracy in denial and Vaush: Magna Carter. 14:40

[@lineriderrulz]

Somewhere in the world, someone is called Magna Carter

[@HiimIny]

it is a charter

[@jqsm1neS]

It’s so fucking funny that this stunlock is so entirely unrelated to the entire point Vaush was trying to make

[@Shidonmytid]

This is just a testament to how many people skipped 5th grade history. I’m not deeply educated on this but I could almost immediately get at what Vaush was saying.

[@know_no_th3ory128]

Late 2020 Vaush was peak Vaush man lol. He was snapping every other day from the end of summer through the end of the elections. I need this energy back lol.

[@AlSpice]

God this is so good🤣

[@iamaloafofbread8926]

6:32 Oh, so that's how the queen died today

[@transquelaag]

I LOVE THESE RANTS

[@TheCeruleanEmerald]

THE MAGNA CARTER IS A CHARTER

[@temerodiavolo470]

the queen is literally just a celebrity

[@bekkahboodles]

I REMEMBER THIS OH MY GOSH

[@DabDabGoose]

Here in Australia in the 70s the Queen(Via the Governor-General who they appointed) deposed our Prime minister(Gough Whitlam) and installed a new one without democratic vote. The Crown then tried to deny their involvement saying they had no say in it, but at the end of the day the Governor-General represents the Crown in Australia and the Crown appoints them. These powers still exist in our constitution, so Australia technically is still a constitutional monarchy before a Parliamentary, the UK has these powers but it won't ever be in acted for reasons Vaush brought up, but because it has happened in australia and the Queen still has her title here you can argue it's not the same case for Australia.

[@iron-mage]

the editors slaving away in the content mines o7

[@kevinligutom6994]

The monarchy of most “monarchies” were also (in essence) ceremonial in practice-mostly because of logistics. Ie, since communication always had a long delay (due messengers literally having to walk/ride their way to the people, then the peasants literally only did the bidding of Lords/Representatives. Ie, the King would give his commands and decrees to his parliament of Lords, and often had to negotiate what laws were feasible based on the material conditions of the region each lord commanded. So was there a King? Yes. Did 99% of the population never met or even know who the king was? Also yes. The current parliamentary system simply skips the pretense of the past. Most civil wars in the past was literally representatives telling the people that the king wanted them to do it-so you’d have wars where both sides would be telling each other “in the name of the king, surrender!” EDIT: For context, I definitely do think that monarchs back then would act like how we imagined they acted if they had something like Twitter or even just phones. Physics + Logistics might have stopped them from actually ruling as a true monarch and instead through the vassals and loyal sub-kingdoms he gave orders to-but if he could just send out a tweet saying “why don’t we kill all black people”, he totally would and the culture of that time would result in everyone just saying “oh well, kings orders you know” and just do it.

[@Korvmannen]

Not that Kings didn't have absolute power, but for the most part it might be surprising to know that it wasn't as centralized as one might think (we unintentionally compare it to dictatorships with modern communication devices, right). Practically it does make more sense to assign loyal subjects, that in turn assigns subjects loyal to them, and so on, rather than have to rely on information that takes days or weeks to recieve, and just as long when asking what they meant with that oddly worded letter.

[@kevinligutom6994]

@@Korvmannen And its not that they wouldn't be malicious with power--100% they would do their best to do it. But a horse can only run so fast with orders given, and the game of telephone gets much worse when the lag time is weeks, months, or years. They weren't benevolent by any means--just that they couldn't be as malevolent as they probably wanted to, and ended up creating a more benevolent system than intended. Such as a system of representatives that speak for the people as much as they spoke for you--assuming they even have heard from you anytime that year as much as you've heard from them as they sent letter after letter asking for help against whatever.

[@epimisti]

You just restated what feudalism is. Nothing you say surprises anyone.

[@kevinligutom6994]

@@epimisti it apparently is surprising to Vaush who imagines monarchies of the past to be the same thing as dictatorships we have now. Did you even watch the video?

[@moxleyproductions]

The uk had a civil war over an absolute monarch claiming divine rights of kings… the only reason the queen doesn’t claim the same divine right is the institutional memory of her great great great grandfathers beheading.

[@breadpirateroberts4946]

the phrase "2020 throwback" is making me shrivel into dust

[@thenotsodiscretewolf2098]

12:40 Magna Carta was one of the most used documents in history hell the US constitution has links too it. It had be updated at least 4 time and destroy a couple of times.

[@manymangos]

it's so good. in retrospect . .

[@graysonwilson3343]

Sounds like a monarchy with extra steps

[@dan438]

Well... today's UK can be described as a constitutional monachy as well. When Vaush asks "Would you like to live in a constitutional monarchy?", my first thought went to today's UK as well. Maybe he would do good to not just throw around buzz words and explain, what he is talking about.

[@NeoZhinzo]

Same goes for the Netherlands. I think he might just not comprehend that when you say "constitutional monarchy" colloquially that is equated to a parlaimentary constitutional monarchy. He's technically not incorrect, but he's arguing against what people in at least those contries, if not a few others as well have colloquially accepted to be the same thing for years. He would've been better off just going "that's not what I meant, this is what I meant, let's move on."

[@ewan8433]

@@NeoZhinzo Yeah I really don't get why he didn't just clarify then continue. He seems to want to/look for excuses to be annoyed sometimes.

[@brianlowe904]

@@ewan8433 he did. A lot. And he’s right. A constitutional monarchy just means the monarch is bound by a written or unwritten legal document, it doesn’t make any mention of the monarch actual power, some just think it does cause they can only think in the now without greater historical context which is really embarrassing btw. Proving that it’s not just Americans that know nothing about their own government.

[@jamesh3775]

Fat Ian returns from the past to crush monarchy

[@DeathAlchemist]

Ah, the best stunlock

[@lunsen402]

hehe as a swede this throwback was really fun to see.

[@auguste573]

"German here... Swede here... Doctor here" i hate that so much!!!

[@lunsen402]

@@auguste573 cute

[@thinkublu]

No fucking way Vaush was in the new room since 2020 what Also, I vividly remember watching this stunlock when it happened

[@justindestafney]

"1215" broke me

[@SA-mo3hq]

"Go Witlam" Oh, so this is what having a stroke feels like.

[@wejder12345]

XD I love it :)

[@literallyjudas2157]

The Magna Carter

[@gidjabolgo]

The interesting part of the Westminster system is not the queen’s reserve powers, which are similar to those of a president in a semi presidential republic. It’s the existence of the crown providing the legal framework for the civil service as independent from the government (to a degree)

[@TheAnneGwish]

I dont know why, but i feel so loved when he tells chat that we are being stupid. I smile and feel happy. I think vaush gave me a degradation kink 😫

[@Azusartcorner]

"Allright, dipshits!" He's so caring.

[@TheAnneGwish]

@@Azusartcorner IKR??? I feel so happy. I blame parasocial relationships and not taking things so serious 🤷🏻‍♀️ .

[@Azusartcorner]

@@TheAnneGwish Yeah. Normally I like to think that I'm not super parasocial with entertainers, but Vaush has a special kind of cadence to solicit that, I guess. Plus, for the most part he seems to have a healthy kind of attitude. I like learning from that.

[@fraser21]

touch grass

[@TheAnneGwish]

@@fraser21 only if vaush tells me to UwU

[@Azuwat]

I love Vaush call his own fans idots! Hehe

[@willium.1]

front view is unnerving

[@SemiIocon]

You can see me in chat there, I was rembering my education, since I had written a paper about the time of Magna Carta, lmao. Now I did my master's thesis on the Statute of Marlborough, which was the second biggest thing after Magna Carta but is even more important in a legal sense. I wish he did more history streams, it's really funny.

[@jessiemiller880]

I remember it like it was yesterday

[@fakenamebunchonumbers]

"Chat, you threw off my groove!"

[@omaraalabou4953]

Vaush could have just said a morocco/jordan type constitutional monarchy and it would have proven his point that constitutional monarchy and limited monarch rule doesn't mean democracy and would have saved him the hussle of debating an army of brits with far more knowledge of the UK's political system than his

[@jdprettynails]

"The Queen is a fucking chibi doll that sits on her throne and waits for death." I mean....he's not wrong, lol Honestly at this point, the Royal Family is basically our version of the Kardashians Edit: I'm on Vaush's side here, but hearing "Magna Carter" gave me psychic damage.

[@DM-Raven]

I feel like Vaush is always so mad about everything. But with a mustache like that, I don't see how he could ever be upset.

[@phaerlax]

Wow Vaush really has visibly improved huh

[@Lotan_]

Shout out to Inshallahda for being the only one in chat to make a funny joke on this subject.

[@goodsocksproductions9397]

I'm convinced they uploaded this video exclusively because he coughs and was just coming back from a break from streaming

[@en-voguepugh3472]

sometimes i wonder if the chat routinely piss him off just to get this fun rants.

[@anchlo]

Almost as good as the grass rant

[@manuelgarcia3122]

If chat really wanted to prove their point they should mention the king of tailand, has a parlament and still has most of the power.

[@michael.471]

Officially Irish approved.

[@MayorofHopeville]

Before he was anti-gentlemen's agreements pilled. All monarchs have power. Unjust power.

[@Mikleisn]

Irish ladie is back.

[@NoodleBerry]

Oh yeah we had a crown election thing in Canada back in the '20s. Gov. general Byng made PM makenzie king wait like a couple weeks before doing another election so the cons would have a chance to form governement first. They failed, an election happenned, and King formed government again. Then in 1931 (same time Ireland pulled out of the comonwealth, I think), we told them not to do that again, and everybody signed some agreement.

[@gudboah4688]

Vaush be lookin like Tradelord Greasus Tribestealer Drakecrush Gatecrasher Hoardmaster Goldtooth the Shockingly Obese in the thumbnail

[@LewisCox]

Vaush I live in the UK under a Monarchy and it is a facts

[@arnoclaesen8105]

I don't think a constitutional monarchy ever existed without a parlement, at least not in england

[@younggod5230]

I read "Stunlock" and instantly clicked

[@hobbabobba7912]

I don't think the magna carta was a constitution, more like a peace treaty.

[@elloingo]

The UK monarchy is nationalised keeping up with the kardashians

[@chairmanoxygen6811]

vaush mad vaush mad

[@iamdanyboy1]

One of the many times Vaush was wrong but also right

[@wordart_guian]

the magner carter is a charter

[@douglaslangley9251]

And?

[@timetuner]

So many bans that should have been

[@KufLMAO]

did jazdog ever make a remix out of carter/charter??? Bro I need that

[@LividE101]

I will add that when I was in elementary school being taught about systems of government, the word "constitutional monarchy" was used to literally just be "what Britain has". I did a whole project on it and everything, that's just what they said. Though I also got shit from the teacher for saying "elected dictator" at one point so it's not like I'm too surprised.

[@justaguy6216]

I think he was just being trolled so fucking hard.

[@MisterRorschach90]

Vaush the queen has every right to take complete control of government at any time. She is the head of the entire commonwealth and merely allows it to govern itself Democratically. She may not have power per say, but that power ultimately rests with her and her unending supply of tweed dresses and hats.

[@Eunacis]

It's a Westminster system.

[@pwesiti]

Better title: “Vaush has an aneurysm U.K. Edition.”

[@moxleyproductions]

Where was Magna Carta signed? Runnymede or the bottom?