Throw the Monarchies of the World Into the Dustbin of History? | The Olga S. Pérez Show Clips

[@theolgasperezshow]

Like, Comment, Share! ❤

[@AmberJays]

I think this is one of those things that's widely misunderstood across the pond, and I think Americans are taught that the monarchy resembles an absolute monarchy (where the monarch rules outright), but that's not the system today, rather it is a constitutional monarchy. The Monarch can't make any laws, but they can refuse royal ascent (required to make any law official) on parliament. So that means that those we elect into parliament (where the actual sleazeballs are, unfortunately), are sandwiched between having to do what they were voted for by the public (typically they follow their election manifesto), but in the rare circumstance if parliament were ever to go rogue and start trying to pass a bunch of insane laws, then it can be stopped by the Monarch with immediate effect and without the need for some sort of uprising by the public (instead we just vote them out of office in the next election while the Monarch deals with them in the immediate term). One example I can pin point in the UK where this happened was in the 90s, Parliament tried to pass a Bill that would allow them to take full control of the military and no longer require the Monarch's authorisation to drop bombs in air raids, but Queen Elizabeth put a stop to it (because there is never going to be public support in the UK to bomb a country where it is unnecessary, much to the displeasure of some warmongering parliamentarians I am sure). Even to this day, the biggest protest march ever to have happened in the UK was in protest to the Iraq war, but our then Prime Minister and the American then President lied to Congress and House of Commons to get them to approve of it with falsehoods of WMDs, all because they wanted to create terror in the middle east and swoop in to take economical control of those rich oil supplies. The Prime Minister wouldn't take notice of our biggest protest ever, but the Queen did, and that earns respect. On the point regarding money and taxes. Again this is a highly misunderstood factor, because the biggest tax payer in the UK is actually the Monarch. Yes, it is fair to say that they aren't legally compelled to pay taxes, but that's because it has become customary for the Monarch to do so voluntarily, so in that sense a law requiring it has never been needed. But for comparison sake, the public in the UK will pay anywhere between 19-45% tax depending on the income. Queen Elizabeth used to voluntarily pay 80% tax on her personal wealth. Then there is the Sovereign Grant, so instead of the Monarchy retaining 100% of funds generated from the Sovereign Estate, instead a fraction of that is used to cover expenses of official duties (hosting visiting heads of states, etc) and the rest and majority of it goes straight into the Treasury along with general taxes which are spent on public services, welfare, etc. Consequently because of the system we have in the UK, having a Monarchy actually means that the public pays less taxes because a chunk of the Treasury comes from the Sovereign Estate. But when the article suggests that Charles is the owner of 6.6 billion acres of land, that's not correct, because the Monarch doesn't own the Crown Estate, they are just a gatekeeper of it. Money from the Crown Estate goes into the Treasury, which is then spent on public services. Also, Charles never took money in suitcases from anyone, what happened is that a foreign diplomat wanted to make a donation to a charity, and it was referred to the Commons Committee so they could determine whether it can be accepted as is standard protocol and the full analysis report was published to the public at the time, so it's not new news to us in the UK, however desperately media may try to spin it. As for the comment on idolising the Royals, I wouldn't say that anybody idolises them, but there is an earned respect that has been fostered over decades that is certainly present. In the case of Queen Elizabeth, she was a Monarch who swore herself into public service and she remained dutiful up until the very end, with over 70 years of public service. Not only that, but she was one of our last World War 2 veterans. So pausing protests or rescheduling strikes wasn't because the public idolised the Monarch, but because whether you are a Royalist or not in the UK, we all commonly agree that the Queen had earned our respect for her devotion to duty and public service. 70 years is a long time to be head of state and barely put a foot wrong. As the saying goes, "don't fix that which is not broken".

[@neisjo]

I don’t know, maybe you should them handle it, American

[@theolgasperezshow]

🚨youtube has removed my last livestream and from YT; You won't be able to do things like upload, post, or live stream for 1 week (7 days left). You can watch the video on Rumble rumble.com/user/OlgaSPerez *read my comment in the ep. #31 because I can't say it here 😝