I will not make arguments against any points in your or CGPGrey's videos against the taxes or revenues, as I do not feel knowledgeable or well versed enough in these areas to be more than just another YouTube Troll, I will however state that there is one "error" (more of a hope in mankind) in your video. You bring up that you can only think of 2 countries that do not have a separation of church and state, England being one and the other being Iran.
I will not make arguments against any points in your or CGPGrey's videos against the taxes or revenues, as I do not feel knowledgeable or well versed enough in these areas to be more than just another YouTube Troll, I will however state that there is one "error" (more of a hope in mankind) in your video. You bring up that you can only think of 2 countries that do not have a separation of church and state, England being one and the other being Iran.
I will not make arguments against any points in your or CGPGrey's videos against the taxes or revenues, as I do not feel knowledgeable or well versed enough in these areas to be more than just another YouTube Troll, I will however state that there is one "error" (more of a hope in mankind) in your video. You bring up that you can only think of 2 countries that do not have a separation of church and state, England being one and the other being Iran.
@thomasf8211 I found out it was Mont St michel, but I wasn't meaning to sound arrogant, and I respect that because I know that if a statement is written down, people can't distinguish what tone it was intended to be.
At 4:30 you imply that lost yield is a cost, which is incorrect. You cannot claim lower revenue as a cost. At 6:25 you talk about visitor figures. The Louvre is mainly visited because of the museum/gallery (one of if not the single most important in the world) so can't be compared to Buckingham Palace. Whilst I agree with some on your points (mainly the one about the land not actually belonging to the king in the first place) the video is no less misleading than the first one!.
@adamclancey lost yield is not a cost? If you believe that then feel free to transfer all your savings to me, I'll pay you 1% interest instead of what you're getting currently and get 3% myself. I'll earn 2% at your expense. I'd call that a cost, as would accountants when you had to write-down the lost income on your savings. The Louvre vs Buckingham Palace point is well covered in other comments. Thanks for watching and the comment. Let me know if you want me to look after your savings ;)
@thomasf2811 Okay so let's say I lend you £100k but instead of letting you get 3% I will only allow you to put it into a 2% account. Am I costing you £1000 or am I giving you £2000? I'm not COSTING you anything because you never would have had that in the first place (much the same as the govt with royal land), I'm merely restricing income.
You are implying that if you get £200m from the land but could have got £300m then you're losing £100m so actually only getting £100m. It's nonsensical.
@adamclancey I can see we're not going to agree on this and I agree that standards in accounting don't always seem to make sense on the surface. If you lent me £100k but also put a restriction on its investment then I would have to file my accounts with that asset value written-down to the income it could earn. As I said, I see we won't agree and I accept it's not clear cut.
5:36 it isn't French, it's St Michael's Mount, Penzance, Cornwall, ENGLAND. Although Mont. St. Michael and St. Michael's Mount look very similar and Mont. St. Michael translates into St. Michael's Mount, that is St. Michael's mount
@danAWESOMEcollier you might want to tell cgpgrey since even he admits he made a mistake in the original video and put a picture of the French one up instead of the English one.
More seriously, one of my biggest regrets in life was not realising earlier that many people appear confident in their position because their arrogance fools others. I have checked this many times, I am almost certain you're wrong, but I accept you might not be.
@thomasf2811 Voting for your leader doesn't work. Take America: they voted Obama as their leader. Or did they? In fact, only approx. 47% of Americans voted for him, making half of America hate their leader. They spend billions on their elections, more than we spend on our royal family. The Queen was not voted for. She has no political views and therefore only a few narrow-minded people such as yourself dislike her. Britain prefers running the country well, America prefers equality.
The Thomas Jefferson quote is made a little redundant by the fact that the United States made slaves of men for years, before, during, and after Thomas Jefferson's time. Black men in America had to wait for the whole country to go to war with itself before they got a break. And a lot of black people are still discriminated against to this day in the US, whether directly or indirectly (and before you mention Obama, I said "a lot" not "all").
@IAmCaptainMarvel That's true and I won't disagree with it, but it doesn't make the quote any less valid. Do as I say, not as I do, and all that. All men being created equal can still be a valid goal even if the person saying it is bad at doing it himself.
As an American, I'll admit, I've always been intrigued by the monarchy and am a bit of a sucker for the pomp and circumstance of it all. However, if people in Britain were to elect today to have the monarchy dissolved, I wouldn't feel terrible or anything.
When I was watching the original, I thought... "I'd still visit even without the monarchy." And I too thought of France and figured, "what would be the difference?" I haven't been to Britain or France, but I've been to Greece, Italy, Jordan, and Israel and loved the many castles I saw... but because they're not plastic (they're real) and because of the history of the reality to them... NOT because they still have monarchs (which they don't). You make very good points.
I too enjoyed CGPGrey's other videos but on the royals you do have him cornered with this well researched and well produced answer. I would say to both yourself and CGPGrey keep the the informitive and entertaining videos coming...Well done to the both of you.
Not a perfect video but I think Grey should do a reply.
Where does Grey have Citizemship? His accent is found in the U.S. and Canada but he doesn't have the tells that I usually use to see who's a yank and who is a member of our quaint little royal dominion over here. I disliked the ending of the vid the most, the idea of being a subject etc, where religion arguably has less of an effective(vs nominal) roll in the state in the UK than the US.
No need for a british royal family. 40 million that could go towards tax and not to mention the believe that you haave to earn your title. wether it works or not we have a parliament, we don't need royalty. even if some years it does make more in tourism, is that morally right. no, i don'' t think.
I have been a follower of CGPGrey for a while now, and I really enjoy his videos. However, I recognize he can't always be right and I appreciate the level of respect with which you approached this rebuttal (even though you did get a bit snarky at the end). Thanks so much for giving the thinkers and learners among us a different perspective to consider.
Luvr are you fucking kidding me? It isn't PALACE!!! It is museum of art, nothing royal there! So GTFO! Also I was thinking that you will say that Germans are #1 visitors in UK who they are. Then also Church really? And only Iran, almost all Muslim countries!!! Also Darwin fucking incest guy really showing our place in world is having sex with relatives!
Hang on a minute. I see the point of the castles, but both of you are forgetting that the travel is more important. It's simply cheaper to go to Paris from mainland Europe. Just take a train or a car. To go to Britain, take a boat/ Eurotunnel/ airplane on top of the costs of just simply reaching the port/airfield/Eurotunnel. Maybe it would be interesting to see the amount of Americans when comparing the countries. Then both capitals can simply be reached by plane.
Your points are very valid, the rating doesn't really do justice to the video reply. I think a big part of the negative votes are from fanboys, but also because of the unneeded sarcasm...
@Orestisc yeah, I think I overdid the sarcasm, but I was trying to respond in the same spirit as the original. The negative votes don't bother me, the majority like it and those who don't were at least not indifferent. Thanks for watching and for the comment.
I watched the original and had so many "hold on a second" moments, admittedly instigated by the accent of the narrator, that I had to click on your video response in the hope that it would be a well researched rebuttal. I'm glad that I did - really enjoyed the video.
@spectroparallax You are right about St.Michaels Mount it is not Mont St. Michael
However your comments on the narrative are just idiotic, the tone used is sarcasm and therefore spoken at the perfect speed for maximum effect. CGP Grey is a yank and although quite interesting in some of his videos, in this one he is simply unqualified.
The first video almost had me convinced I was wrong in my desire for a revolution and a Republic of England (given the current U.K. situ. there would probably not be a Rep. of Britain and N.I. would have been given its freedom too) but after seeing your response and thank you for the excellent sarcasm, I can clearly see I was right all along. I myself have chosen to leave England and live in la République française.
Thank you so much for your video, Vive la Révolution
@SpectroParallax actually, you're wrong. It IS the French castle "Mont st. Michel", not "St. Michael's Mount" in Cornwall.. trust me; I've seen both, and walked up Mont St. Michael (It's beautiful, you should go there sometime). St. Michael's Mount does not have the built up area all the way up the right, and does not have a tarmac road on the causeway - a quick google image search should clear things up for you if you are still in doubt as to the legitimacy of the claim. :)
Good video. I liked the video it criticises too. Yes, what he said was a simplification, but alas, so is what you say. Many people shout 'huzza!' when Prince Charles speaks up against bad architecture and developments. Inheritance tax is bad across the board - no one should have to pay it. Debts can be paid off, and were not the debts the King had mainly with British companies and subjects? Also, money spent on the royal family does not disappear. Generally it stays within Britain.
@86kingrat it's always nice to be adored, thank you, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I lived in the USA for two years so I may be slightly less naive than you think on the matter. Personally I prefer living in Europe, I recently turned down a job offer in the USA in large part because of that. You're correct that I do hold a certain "romanticism" towards the ideals of both the American and the French revolutions, but I am fully aware that those goals are far from being fully realised.
@elKuhnTucker I'm actually fine with it, but vielen Dank for the comment. In fact the Royal Family cost far more than 40m a year but that's a whole different debate.
@elKuhnTucker Theres nothing wrong with religion itself; the problem is mostly the corruption of the religious leaders. Religion evolved into science, while part of it retained its old views, and became corrupted as such, fueled moreso by greed.
@duo1666 "Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end." " I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world"
"If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it"
You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution. DAWKINS
Bad arguments. CGP Grey isn't saying the Monarchy is good, he is saying that people need to stop complaining about the Monarchy taking all the money. They make more money for UK that the prime minister ever has.
@sithlordsf I make the very same point in my video, money isn't the issue. But I also wanted to make very clear the cgpgrey's figures are highly misleading so that people wouldn't be left with the impression that they were correct.
The Prime Minister is the highest representative of democracy and that has provably made us extremely wealthy. I urge you to look again at the dividend that democracy pays us and reconsider your position on this.
7:49 I have to disagree with "But in the end, it is better to be right than it is to be good at making videos." As it is hard to comprehend a bad video, making it appear wrong. I personally do feel you are correct in this matter, however its hard to explain _why_ you are correct, as I don't feel like I have any legs to stand on in this matter.
@piemonkey321 I'd recommend going to republic(dot)org(dot)uk. I agree that presentation is extremely important and I'll work on it. Thanks for watching and commenting.
Now without actually doing the research to verify the figures both you and CGP Grey have quoted all I can really say to you that your video is well made and your point is valid, but rather than debating this you constantly refer to CGP Grey as talking rubbish and you badmouth him in such a way that I find your video sounding petty and snide. So good point but badly made. The way you put it across sounded childish.
@ThePlagueAngel thanks for watching, I see your point. My intention was always to reply in the same light-hearted manner that cgpgrey used in the original. I can assure you, because I've discussed this with him, that he himself takes no offence at my badmouthing.
I appreciate what you say about sounding childish but what I wanted most to avoid was replying to a video in good humour with one that was overly serious. I didn't get the balance right but I think I did okay.
The Palace of the Louvre is also a totally different point, it has the Mona Lisa in it, if you put it in the Buckingham Palace it would probably be the reverse. Thats a hugely stupid point for you to make.
@neddonovan this is a very weak argument. It's like saying, "there's famine in North Korea, why are you worried about making sure children in the UK aren't malnourished?". We don't have to make choices on which injustices we tackle when we can deal with both. As for the £200m being "paid off", it doesn't work like that. There are good economics courses on iTunes U if you want to learn why.
@thomasf2811 Have u ever thought that the Louvre is a Museum containing artefacts from Leonardo Da Vinci or hidden treasures of The Eyptian Pharaohs ?
I agree to the point made by GC1ID.
And for French castles out of Paris may still be attractive to tourist because they are not occupied by people who don't want to accept visitors.
Netherlands has a royal family too, and yet they are still one of the most liberal people in the world. Don't blame the crown for not being a "secular" state.
@BilginManchester Hi, yes I have thought about the Louvre housing great works. If the Mona Lisa were in Buckingham Palace people could still not go and see it because it belongs to a single family, not to the people.
As for the Dutch point, I've made this point in so many other posts, please read those comments.
using the Louvre as an example is cheating because it is a modern art gallery which hosts some of the most famous pieces of art also there are massive differences between Windsor and Versailles one is the oldest consistently inhabited castle in the world the other is the place where multiple revolutions took place and in which hundreds lost their lives building for a King that revolutionised the french monarchy and IMO and that of many historians caused the revolution
@GC1ID I should clarify the Louvre isn't an art gallery hosting modern art but rather an art gallery that holds some of the most famous pieces of art in history. It is modern because of the investment it is less of a royal palace and more of a world famous gallery
@GC1ID If the Mona Lisa were in Buckingham Palace people could still not go and see it because it belongs to a single family, not to the people. The full arguments around this are already on the comments, I don't have time to make them again.
@thomasf2811 I think comparing the Louvre museum to Buckingham is a little unfair, yes it is a palace, but surely it's more of a museum now? In that sense, it would be better to compare it to the British Museum (Louvre still has more visitors but there's not as much in it). Also, Buckingham is an active residence, whereas Louvre isn't Most people probably didn't know it was the home of France's royalty (I thought it was Versailles, but my French history is not very good).
@sthill1993 Not to metion the fact the Louvre has got the Mona Lisa (THE MOST FAMOUS PAINTING IN THE WORLD) probulbly the only reason why people visit the Louvre...
LOL "Oh no, wait, you're completely wrong again." Yes. CGPGrey is wrong about all the money tourists bring to the UK because you've compared Buckingham palace with another, entirely arbitrary place in France. When did CGPGrey make this comparison? When was he incorrect about it? I can't find it in the video. You are wrong because nobody cares how MANY people visit, it's how much MONEY they spend. Yes, his castle picture was wrong, but only someone as pedantic as you would miss the point entirely
Buckingham Palace is the UK Royal Family's residence in London, the country's de facto capital city.
The Louvre was the French Royal Family's residence in Paris, the country's de facto capital city.
That's a pretty good basis for comparison; you can agree with my choice or not, but you can't say it's arbitrary.
My point is that French example suggests that the UK would have just as many tourists spending just as much money without the Royal Family. Got some evidence that disagrees?
@thomasf2811 Actually St James Palace is the Royal Family's residence in London. You also forget there are more palaces in London in paris, gaining huge amounts of money, examples are as following:
I see where you are going. Trade in the Monarchial model of land accumulation (taking it from the previous "owners" -- or monarchies who had themselves taken it from previous "owners" by fair or fowl means) and adopt the republican model ... taking land from the previous "owners" -- or monarchies who had themselves taken it from previous "owners" by fair or fowl means and then saying it's all for the 'public' (democratic) good and still pocketting the cash.
@jabrett the key difference is that I think we should fully tax the use and transfer of land rather than give special legal dispensation to the royal family.
This is sedition. My argument for the continuance of Her Maj is simple: I don't trust our elected officials. The sovereign still has the power to dissolve parliament, call an election and a couple of other checks and balances. She did this in Oz in the 70's (for a recent example). Her Maj has never done anything other than serve this country without blemish. I simply don't fancy an impotent system of government like the Meerkans across the pond.
Sweden does a lot of these flaws in british politics better than both America (republic) and UK (constitutional monarchy), and we are a proud monarchy as well.
@ohedd I know quite a few Swedish people and many of them are not *proud* of their monarchy. Your point is otherwise good and I've made many of the same points in the comments. Of course Finland matches Sweden in almost every way and is a republic. The lesson, as I've said before, is that having a constitutional monarchy is only a minor problem, there are much more important things. But if we have a clear chance to improve why not do it? You don't have to prioritise when you can have both.
@thomasf2811 We have about 70% support for our head of state in Sweden, which is a lot more than the american head of state has. Therefore it wouldn't be better if we became a republic - it would lessen our social capital and people would become less satisfied.
@ohedd that's an interesting figure, I did some quick google searching but couldn't find the source, where should I look? I'm afraid my Swedish isn't great though I can manage (lived in Norway for two years). The USA comparison is poor because there are two question, "do you support Mr. Obama?" which scores low, and "do you support the institutino of the President" which I think would score very high. How does Sweden compare to more sensible equivalents like Ireland and Finland?
@thomasf2811 I'm sorry it's 75% in 2010. You can type in "75 % behålla monarki" or something. Swedish news paper "Aftonbladet" published the survey done by Swedish Institute of Public Opinion Research (SIFO). I'm sure the support of the institution of presidency itself is greater in USA than the support for monarchy is in Sweden, but the fact remains that we trust our head of state more than the amerians do. We still have a parlament with the usual trust issues and complaints.
@ohedd thanks, found it. It's a good point and I suspect that in the UK we have a similar level of support; though that will go down quickly once Charles becomes King.
Since a potential Swedish or British Republic would almost certainly adopt the Finnish/Irish model of presidency they seem fair for comparison. Tarja Halonen (Finland) had a peak approval rating of 88% whilst Mary McAleese (Ireland/Eire) peaked at 92%.
I think these two examples make a strong case for an elected Head of State.
@thomasf2811 If you look at monarchy as a culturally unifying institution, and the parlament as a legislative institution, then a country's pride, sense of unity and all that can remain intact during crisis and times when parlaments mess up, the same as it is a good idea to separate the church from the state. Constitutional monarchy might sound old fashion, but it's really an idea in accordance with Montesquieu's theory of "separation of powers".
@ohedd I think it's rare that a supporter of the monarchy has made such a consideration as you have. I doubt you'll convince me to change my mind; I always preferred Thomas Paine and Voltaire to Montesquieu but I respect your opinion on this.
Perhaps it is partly because I feel in no way "culturally unified", as you put it, with the British royal family that I object to their position. If you feel such a link with the Swedish monarchy then I can understand your support for it.
@thomasf2811 Sure, George W Bush peaked at 90% and left office at 30 or something. Though my point is that these numbers are tightly connected to economic and political situations. Bush's approval ratings reached 90 % during 9/11, and hit 30 % when the credit crisis hit. A monarch's ratings would probably be more consistent and would surely not drop 60 % in just 8 years. After all you can still go on and be proud of David Cameron if the royal family isn't doing the trick.
@overitjacob thank you. My fake British accent was helped enormously by being born in Britain to British parents and having lived in Britain for most of my life, including at present.
put her on benefits and give her an oyster card lmao. on a serious note, if we can live like that, im sure she can live without her horse and carriage and all the other fancy stuff.
Very interesting points. Not sure bringing in America at the end helps your cause, though. America has great inequality problems and no social net comparable to European countries (including, ironically, the Scandinavian countries.) I guess my point is the type of government does not necessarily indicate a certain level of freedom.
@qwe07 thanks for watching and commenting. I generally agree with you. These points have been thoroughly discussed in previous comments which I've replied to over the past 7 months. Thanks again, Tom.
@thomasf2811 Also thought I'd mention the criticisms the US has w/ its electoral college, which can also be considered undemocratic. But anyway, if the monarchy does go I would think Buck. would go to the new head of state and remain largely closed. Other London palaces may also go to gov't use. Balmoral and Sandringham I think are actually owned by the royal family. Windsor Castle may be the only major one open. It's also interesting no one here has really discussed reforming the monarchy.
@Sybok123 Call it what you will, some people find it invaluable while others obviously do not. Freedom comes in many degrees. There will never be a truly "free" form of government, except maybe in theory.
Part 2: Since we can't have you comparing apples and oranges, Visitors to the British Museum vs. Louvre: 5.5 vs. 8.5 or more than half of Louvre's total. But lets get back to castles. A quick look at a list of castles in France on Wikipedia shows that most of its castles are in ruins or privately owned. Adding another hickup to your argument is the existance of 8 castles/palaces in London including the tower of London which gets 1.7 million visitors per year.
Part 1: I could call bs on your landownership/inheritance tax argument but lets settle for the more subtle flaw in your tourism numbers. Total tourism to France in 2009: 76 million, Total tourism to Britain: 28 million. Different in size of tourism 2.7 times. Windsor vs. Versailles: 1 vs. 2.6 which leaves them preportionally the same (although Windsor wins by 0.01). 2nd comparison: Buck. vs. Louvre. First off the Louvre is an art museum so we are not on the face of it comparing castles...
@NoGoodHandlesLeft thanks for watching and commenting. I'm afraid all the points you're making have already been thoroughly discussed and answered. I made the video over half a year ago and did my utmost to respond to all reasonably made points but I just don't have time to do that any more. If any of your points are original then I will respond. Sorry to disappoint, all the best, Tom
I enjoyed this video, it raises some interesting points but I do question some of your arguments. Whilst I agree that the church has no place in politics, the crown has very little power in today's world. You must also remember that the queen is also the head of state for all commonwealth nations.
For me the royal family is also a reminder of our past (be it glorious or shameful) and the history of the UK and the British Empire.
5) You say that the social divide in the England is greater than any other country you know of. Do you know of many countries otehr than England? The GINI coefficient of income equality is 32% for the UK which is by no means the least but far less than Brazil (55%), China (46.9%) and of your beloved USA (45%). It's even slightly lower than that of France (32.7%) and Italy (34%).
200000 is far less than the 10 million tourists brought to the UK by the royal family each year (who are also far less likely to cause damage through hooliganism or drunk and disorederly behaviour). Also you say footballers and managers pay tax just like the rest of us. Wayne Rooney pays 4% tax, he dodges the full 50% he should be claiming most of his income as image rights. Tax avoidance is a far larger problem in the UK than royal family expenditure.
4) Football is not a significant stimulus for tourism. The World Cup reduces the number of tourists to the UK every four years. Ofiicial overseas broadcasters of the BPL are frequently undercut by illgeal broadcasters with little to no consequence so overseas revenues are minimal.
Considering there are 4 BPL teams in the Champions league every year, this gives probably just over 20 European games palyed in this country. 20 X 10000 foreign fans= 200000 tourists
@LlamaDub it's called the EPL not the BPL. Given that elementary mistake I doubt it's worth my time repeating the figures which there are already are on this comment thread to show that you're wrong.
3) Many of the royal family do important work for or with charities. A good example of this would be the Prince's Trust (which I personally have benefitted from and experienced first hand) which helps over 40000 young people make something more of their lives (either thorugh employment, further education or training schemes). Prince Charles' 'fame' (deserved or not) has helped raise funds for this charity and help thousands of young people across the UK.
2) The Palace of Versailles is considerably larger and far more accessible than Windsor castle and also carries further historical significance given that the peace treaties of WW1 were drawn up there. To compare the two would be pointless.
The Louvre is also obviously one of the most famous art galleries in the world housing probably the most famous painting in the world (the Mona Lisa). I would therefore also say to compare this to Buckingham Palace is quite unfair.
1) You talk about the crown estates being managed inefficiently and compare their profit margins of 3.5% with an avergae of 5%. Considering that the crown estates are more traditional businesses that are less likely to be profitable in the high tec services absed economy we live in today, the average profit margin for such businesses is in fact around 3% (in the UK).
@LlamaDub your GINI figures were wrong, you called the EPL the BPL, and you couldn't write your points in less than 5 full comments. I simply don't trust your figures here. Lots of people are making comments and I don't have time to thoroughly investigate all five of yours and reply. I will have a look at this if I get time.
@thomasf2811 nah thats fine, yeah i can imagine. I think trolling is pointless; people should learn to respect the opinions of others. I for instance disagree with you on this issue, but i completey respect your opinion and think this video was very well made by putting forward some good arguments. For this you should be applauded
@MaxIngramRedmayne fully agree with you, she does an amazing job. We may find less room for agreement once her eldest son takes over. Thanks for watching, Tom
A republic would also be vastly more expensive than the monarchy. Having a head of state that is elected will have to be paid more because they are accountable and there is no way that any politician as we can see with recent history that will want to earn the same wage as the previously unaccountable. Campaigns for a president would also be at the tax payers expense and all employees will be at the expense of the tax payers too where as the royal employees are paid for by the crown.
@fdmarminy again, you have a lovely opinion. But opinions need to be backed up by facts. The Irish president costs one tenth as much as the UK monarchy, the French republic costs half as much as the UK monarchy.
I say this all the time but it never stops being true. Your opinion sound very believable, they sound sensible. But if you go and look up the facts I'm pretty sure you'll find that you're wrong.
That is only the simple monetary cost for a president. The cost of an entire republic is more expensive as it would mean more elections, mid terms and because of a republic a fully elected second chamber all of which will hinder politics and increase the cost to maintain. Facts are pretty hard to find as like with all comments made by both sides it is just speculation. Who's to say that those who produced the facts were't employed to benefit the views of the paymaster.
@fdmarminy I think if you go to republic's web page you'll find some well costed figures. You can dismiss them because you don't agree with them if you want but until you have something better you'll just look silly. If you're sure that the UK Monarchy is really cost effective, go find the figures and show it. Your opponents have already made a strong argument against you.
I've been on their web page and they make the same simplified drivel that you've mentioned. They dislike the monarchy and will only broadcast supposed facts which will only support their own conclusions hence why they are a pressure group and not really a party. The monarchy will benefit the country more than a republic could. A president will also not solve the declining participation rates in elections either. The elected head of state would just make the whole idiocy official.
@fdmarminy you say it's drivel but at least it's there with some evidence, some references and some reasoning. You on the other make your arguments without any facts to back you up whatsoever. You just say it's hard to find facts so you won't bother trying. You're just making pronouncements, at least I try, and republic try, to back them up with some substance.
We can't well and truly on this matter state what is fact because depending on the scenario of which you picture a republic. Also democracy will go down because the constitutional monarch recognises that they are unelected and will not obstruct any law that is passed by the democratically elected. whereas an elected president will obstruct bills that do not match their political preference. This happens all the time in America and as we know that politicians can't be trusted...
@fdmarminy the comparison with the American system is ridiculous. With our history of parliamentary democracy I'm sure the UK would choose a President like Ireland, Greece, Italy and Germany. Even in extremely difficult times for those countries I've not seen the President obstruct any bills.
in short it's nice to have a dream that is so simple but when you look at it and how a republic works and a lot of republics fail is because they are simply impractical. The UK and other commonwealth realms are considered the best democracy and the most stable form of government. The UN lists the top ten most stable governments and 7 out of 10 are constitutional monarchies so what's the point of changing a system that works so well?
@fdmarminy I can't find this UN list of top ten most stable governments anywhere on the internet? Could you post the name of the report so I can find it easily?
they get tax free inheritance because as a nation as you saw in greys video that the mounting profits we make from the royal family including tourism and diplomacy means the royal family give us a lot of money both directly and indirectly so what is the point of squeezing even more money from them. By imposing a tax on their land of which their profits are surrendered then the royal family will have to give away land and then by that you lose money going into public expenditure.
@fdmarminy where is your evidence that they bring in money in tourism? I think I showed clearly that more people visit royal history in France than visit living royalty in the UK so that evidence is out. If you read the newspapers and the reports from the ONS you'll see that the extra day off for the Royal Wedding cost us far more than the added tourism. The added tourism and diplomacy sounds absolutely great. Problem is, there's precisely no evidence to back up your argument.
@thomasf2811 you "show clearly" with stitlted evidence. At 6.14 you claim that windsor castle is the equivalent to the palace of versailles and that the french therefore receive more tourists than us. But surely buckingham palace, also in london, and the principal home of our monarchs would be a more accurate comparison. or would the fact that it attracts around 15 million tourists a year not quite fit.
@1scrilley you "reply clearly" with statements that aren't true and for which you have no evidence.
The Louvre was the French Royal Family's Paris residence and so is comparable to Buckingham Palace. Versailles is not in Paris, similarly Windsor is not in London. My comparisons are the sensible ones.
As for "the fact" that Buckingham Palace attracts around 15 million a year. The 2010 official figure was 413000, show me an official figure that says otherwise and I'll look at this again.
enslaving a nation? I'm sorry but I laughed so hard then. The monarch of the UK at the beginnings of a constitutional monarchy respects the foundation of parliament. You know that democracy that the UK has that you republicans are woefully ignorant about? Also when you mentioned the 200 million pound debt you have not done any maths. Year one: -200 million + 160 million profit = -40 million - 40 million (civil list) = -80 million.
It was Cromwell's revolution that lay the foundation for the constitutional monarchy that respects parliament. I don't know everything mate but I don't go around calling other ignorant with such gaps in my own knowledge.
As for my maths, there are simplifications but on a much higher level than your sum is at. Many other comments on this, please read them and be a bit more pleasant in future if you want to have a constructive discussion.
Hang on your big republican argument at the beginning is that the monarchy didn't own huge tracts of land? You are creating a dangerous statement that the constitutional monarch, hence the word constitutional, stole land from the people. Can you actually name any constitutional monarch since the glorious revolution that has stolen land from the people in the UK? The truth is they haven't stolen any. If they bought the land as you're suggesting then it's a legal transaction... No problem there.
@fdmarminy First of all thanks for watching, there are loads and loads of comments and replies about this already so sorry if this one is quick. My issue, and I say so in the video but perhaps not clearly enough, is not that the monarchy own the land. I explicitly say I'm not going to touch that issue, it's far too complex. My issue is that they don't pay inheritance or full income tax on it. If they do that a big part of the problem is gone. They didn't buy it, but that's not my issue. Tom
well tough crap no one ever said they got the land fairly and you can say all you like about old fashioned ways but there is a reason why we're so high on the charts when it comes to the quality of living per average person and I'm pretty damm sure our rich history has A LOT to do with it.
Well not all men are created equal. Especially Thomas Jefferson who was born into wealth. Even if the royalty lost it's prerogatives, they'd still be rich as fuck and their children would grow up spoiled. And people would probably still be stupid enough to love them just for being born rich, if your fellow U.K. subjects share some stupidity that many of my fellow U.S. citizens have that is.
I actually think he should have owned the lands he and his ancestry conquered and here's why: It would be a nightmare trying to reverse back through history and see who would own what if everything was fair. If that was the case there would be no United States since we took all of our land from Native Americans. Take away royal and religious prerogatives but leave them with the land they still own and let's make all of our present and future dealings better, because that is all we can do.
@pizwoggins I kind of find it annoying although as an American scum bag I find many European accents annoying. But I hope this is an ad hominem attack rather than an ad hominem argument if you disagree with the message since he did just pwn CGPGrey
@TheRepublicOfUngeria well it's certainly not an argument lol! just a petulant outburst. re ownage of Grey - nah. i agree with optimus, the only argument of merit is the philosophical oppression of being a subject rather than a citizen. all the money stuff hinges on more a more complex understanding of the relationship between crown and state - this is way simplistic.
@pizwoggins it's a reply not an argument in its own right, that's why I address the money issues. I agree it's much too simple, I assume you also think cgpgrey's line of argument is also far too simple?
For plenty of arguments of merit you should look up the group 'republic' and see what they have to say.
skip to 7:55 for the only merit of this video. you also circumvent most of the author's successful efforts at being unbearably condescending and patronising .
@optimuskgb point taken. Like I've said in other comments I did actually have a decent conversation with cgpgrey on this and it was never my intention to be condescending or patronising. I know that he did not take this reply as such. My aim was to reply in the same manner as the original, I'm nowhere near as good, I know that. I'm trying to get better. Thanks for watching and the feedback, all the best, Tom.
@thomasf2811 ah - I've just realised that at 7:55 the screen is your apology for the video. that was not what i hoped to highlight; it is from roughly 7:55 that you begin talking about the philosophical oppression of being a subject rather than a citizen (which I believe to be a meritorious argument - not that I agree with it). my first comment was not a back-handed compliment (suggesting the only merit of the video is that it acknowledges its own limitations). ciao, Optimuskgb
I support the British monarchy but I think this is a really good reply to CGP. When you say we end up paying their share of inheritance tax, surely you just mean it's technically due, but they're exempt, so it just doesn't get paid. It's not like we have to pay it on their behalf.
@Vnam72 fair point, although if I didn't pay my taxes I suspect HMRC might not consider it a technicality. Of course I would be breaking the law, the royal family are not. I'd just like the law changed. Thanks for the feedback, really appreciated.
4. The debt of George III. Although I've no exact information about it, so it could've been privy expenses or a mixture with other things, under the legal system of the time, it was still classified as 'government debt,' because there was little distinction between the Crown in different roles. So the current UK govt would be paying it off anyway.
Thus, your sum is even more far fetched, and only works if one imports non-existent norms (like that you don't think monarchy should exist).
1. Your problem with them owning the land is fine... except that the way land law works means that all freehold land in the UK is derived from the same source, and if you say that source is invalid... well, then, *nobody* owns any land.
2. Lost yield through inflexibility - this is money that *could* be gained, but isn't being. It's not a loss, it's an unrealised gain. So it doesn't belong in your sum at all.
3. Lancaster and Cornwall... uh, failing to see this point?
Fuck you bitch! The Queen ROCKS MY WORLD!!!!!
mryoheylol 1 week ago
Bravo, thanks for the more thorough explanation that seems to never reach us through the mainstream media.
ZaphodBeeblebro 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I will not make arguments against any points in your or CGPGrey's videos against the taxes or revenues, as I do not feel knowledgeable or well versed enough in these areas to be more than just another YouTube Troll, I will however state that there is one "error" (more of a hope in mankind) in your video. You bring up that you can only think of 2 countries that do not have a separation of church and state, England being one and the other being Iran.
djigsup 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I will not make arguments against any points in your or CGPGrey's videos against the taxes or revenues, as I do not feel knowledgeable or well versed enough in these areas to be more than just another YouTube Troll, I will however state that there is one "error" (more of a hope in mankind) in your video. You bring up that you can only think of 2 countries that do not have a separation of church and state, England being one and the other being Iran.
djigsup 1 week ago
I will not make arguments against any points in your or CGPGrey's videos against the taxes or revenues, as I do not feel knowledgeable or well versed enough in these areas to be more than just another YouTube Troll, I will however state that there is one "error" (more of a hope in mankind) in your video. You bring up that you can only think of 2 countries that do not have a separation of church and state, England being one and the other being Iran.
djigsup 1 week ago
@thomasf8211 I found out it was Mont St michel, but I wasn't meaning to sound arrogant, and I respect that because I know that if a statement is written down, people can't distinguish what tone it was intended to be.
danAWESOMEcollier 1 week ago
At 4:30 you imply that lost yield is a cost, which is incorrect. You cannot claim lower revenue as a cost. At 6:25 you talk about visitor figures. The Louvre is mainly visited because of the museum/gallery (one of if not the single most important in the world) so can't be compared to Buckingham Palace. Whilst I agree with some on your points (mainly the one about the land not actually belonging to the king in the first place) the video is no less misleading than the first one!.
adamclancey 1 week ago
@adamclancey lost yield is not a cost? If you believe that then feel free to transfer all your savings to me, I'll pay you 1% interest instead of what you're getting currently and get 3% myself. I'll earn 2% at your expense. I'd call that a cost, as would accountants when you had to write-down the lost income on your savings. The Louvre vs Buckingham Palace point is well covered in other comments. Thanks for watching and the comment. Let me know if you want me to look after your savings ;)
thomasf2811 1 week ago
@thomasf2811 Okay so let's say I lend you £100k but instead of letting you get 3% I will only allow you to put it into a 2% account. Am I costing you £1000 or am I giving you £2000? I'm not COSTING you anything because you never would have had that in the first place (much the same as the govt with royal land), I'm merely restricing income.
You are implying that if you get £200m from the land but could have got £300m then you're losing £100m so actually only getting £100m. It's nonsensical.
adamclancey 1 week ago
@adamclancey I can see we're not going to agree on this and I agree that standards in accounting don't always seem to make sense on the surface. If you lent me £100k but also put a restriction on its investment then I would have to file my accounts with that asset value written-down to the income it could earn. As I said, I see we won't agree and I accept it's not clear cut.
thomasf2811 1 week ago
The Queen is a shrewd business woman. Her family is "the firm" and she has nasty piggy little eyes.
Read Rothbard "Anatomy of the State".
02Blackbeard 1 week ago
5:36 it isn't French, it's St Michael's Mount, Penzance, Cornwall, ENGLAND. Although Mont. St. Michael and St. Michael's Mount look very similar and Mont. St. Michael translates into St. Michael's Mount, that is St. Michael's mount
danAWESOMEcollier 1 week ago
@danAWESOMEcollier you might want to tell cgpgrey since even he admits he made a mistake in the original video and put a picture of the French one up instead of the English one.
More seriously, one of my biggest regrets in life was not realising earlier that many people appear confident in their position because their arrogance fools others. I have checked this many times, I am almost certain you're wrong, but I accept you might not be.
thomasf2811 1 week ago
@thomasf2811 Voting for your leader doesn't work. Take America: they voted Obama as their leader. Or did they? In fact, only approx. 47% of Americans voted for him, making half of America hate their leader. They spend billions on their elections, more than we spend on our royal family. The Queen was not voted for. She has no political views and therefore only a few narrow-minded people such as yourself dislike her. Britain prefers running the country well, America prefers equality.
TheFizzyPig 1 week ago
@thomasf2811
The Thomas Jefferson quote is made a little redundant by the fact that the United States made slaves of men for years, before, during, and after Thomas Jefferson's time. Black men in America had to wait for the whole country to go to war with itself before they got a break. And a lot of black people are still discriminated against to this day in the US, whether directly or indirectly (and before you mention Obama, I said "a lot" not "all").
IAmCaptainMarvel 1 week ago
@IAmCaptainMarvel That's true and I won't disagree with it, but it doesn't make the quote any less valid. Do as I say, not as I do, and all that. All men being created equal can still be a valid goal even if the person saying it is bad at doing it himself.
DamienGranz 18 hours ago
@danAWESOMEcollier 5:36 The island is indeed Mont St Michel in France, NOT St Michael's Mount in Cornwall. Similar, but not the same.
SocialBuffalo 1 week ago
As an American, I'll admit, I've always been intrigued by the monarchy and am a bit of a sucker for the pomp and circumstance of it all. However, if people in Britain were to elect today to have the monarchy dissolved, I wouldn't feel terrible or anything.
markheithaus 2 weeks ago
When I was watching the original, I thought... "I'd still visit even without the monarchy." And I too thought of France and figured, "what would be the difference?" I haven't been to Britain or France, but I've been to Greece, Italy, Jordan, and Israel and loved the many castles I saw... but because they're not plastic (they're real) and because of the history of the reality to them... NOT because they still have monarchs (which they don't). You make very good points.
markheithaus 2 weeks ago
I too enjoyed CGPGrey's other videos but on the royals you do have him cornered with this well researched and well produced answer. I would say to both yourself and CGPGrey keep the the informitive and entertaining videos coming...Well done to the both of you.
haggisman11 2 weeks ago
Not a perfect video but I think Grey should do a reply.
Where does Grey have Citizemship? His accent is found in the U.S. and Canada but he doesn't have the tells that I usually use to see who's a yank and who is a member of our quaint little royal dominion over here. I disliked the ending of the vid the most, the idea of being a subject etc, where religion arguably has less of an effective(vs nominal) roll in the state in the UK than the US.
MacGyverinSpace 2 weeks ago
@MacGyverinSpace CGPGrey is one of that rare and dying species, an educated American
haggisman11 2 weeks ago
No need for a british royal family. 40 million that could go towards tax and not to mention the believe that you haave to earn your title. wether it works or not we have a parliament, we don't need royalty. even if some years it does make more in tourism, is that morally right. no, i don'' t think.
HewyFiesta 2 weeks ago
@HewyFiesta If the Royal Family did not donate all the profits, it would end up in the pockets of people who are already minted.
sthill1993 1 week ago
dislikes from the dailymail crowd
robdoubler1 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
I have been a follower of CGPGrey for a while now, and I really enjoy his videos. However, I recognize he can't always be right and I appreciate the level of respect with which you approached this rebuttal (even though you did get a bit snarky at the end). Thanks so much for giving the thinkers and learners among us a different perspective to consider.
WheelingFool 3 weeks ago
Luvr are you fucking kidding me? It isn't PALACE!!! It is museum of art, nothing royal there! So GTFO! Also I was thinking that you will say that Germans are #1 visitors in UK who they are. Then also Church really? And only Iran, almost all Muslim countries!!! Also Darwin fucking incest guy really showing our place in world is having sex with relatives!
Aleksa21111 3 weeks ago
Superb well said :)
cultofmao 3 weeks ago
Hang on a minute. I see the point of the castles, but both of you are forgetting that the travel is more important. It's simply cheaper to go to Paris from mainland Europe. Just take a train or a car. To go to Britain, take a boat/ Eurotunnel/ airplane on top of the costs of just simply reaching the port/airfield/Eurotunnel. Maybe it would be interesting to see the amount of Americans when comparing the countries. Then both capitals can simply be reached by plane.
JB24971 3 weeks ago
Your points are very valid, the rating doesn't really do justice to the video reply. I think a big part of the negative votes are from fanboys, but also because of the unneeded sarcasm...
Orestisc 3 weeks ago 3
@Orestisc yeah, I think I overdid the sarcasm, but I was trying to respond in the same spirit as the original. The negative votes don't bother me, the majority like it and those who don't were at least not indifferent. Thanks for watching and for the comment.
thomasf2811 3 weeks ago 6
@thomasf2811 When a ridiculous statement is made, with only a slapped together explanation for it, you approach it any damn way you see fit.
DimmedDiamond 3 weeks ago
I watched the original and had so many "hold on a second" moments, admittedly instigated by the accent of the narrator, that I had to click on your video response in the hope that it would be a well researched rebuttal. I'm glad that I did - really enjoyed the video.
Robandall 3 weeks ago
From the Windsor.gov.uk website - In total 6.9M visitors come to the Royal Borough each year
ErikDeBoscherville 4 weeks ago
Great video my friend, will you be at the jubilee protest in London?
323157 4 weeks ago
I'm writing an English essay tommorow based mainly of the stuff in this video :D
2011BoNeY 4 weeks ago
@spectroparallax You are right about St.Michaels Mount it is not Mont St. Michael
However your comments on the narrative are just idiotic, the tone used is sarcasm and therefore spoken at the perfect speed for maximum effect. CGP Grey is a yank and although quite interesting in some of his videos, in this one he is simply unqualified.
PapaMaurice1 1 month ago
The first video almost had me convinced I was wrong in my desire for a revolution and a Republic of England (given the current U.K. situ. there would probably not be a Rep. of Britain and N.I. would have been given its freedom too) but after seeing your response and thank you for the excellent sarcasm, I can clearly see I was right all along. I myself have chosen to leave England and live in la République française.
Thank you so much for your video, Vive la Révolution
PapaMaurice1 1 month ago
yeah, when Thomas Jefferson said "all men are created equal" he really only meant WHITE MEN that owned land.
TacticalShroomz 1 month ago
5:41 is the english st michaels mount, not the french one. Hypocrite
SpectroParallax 1 month ago
@SpectroParallax actually, you're wrong. It IS the French castle "Mont st. Michel", not "St. Michael's Mount" in Cornwall.. trust me; I've seen both, and walked up Mont St. Michael (It's beautiful, you should go there sometime). St. Michael's Mount does not have the built up area all the way up the right, and does not have a tarmac road on the causeway - a quick google image search should clear things up for you if you are still in doubt as to the legitimacy of the claim. :)
timkellyvideos 3 weeks ago
the main difference between cgp grey and you is that he talks at a perfect speed, but you are as slow as a snail.
SpectroParallax 1 month ago
Good video. I liked the video it criticises too. Yes, what he said was a simplification, but alas, so is what you say. Many people shout 'huzza!' when Prince Charles speaks up against bad architecture and developments. Inheritance tax is bad across the board - no one should have to pay it. Debts can be paid off, and were not the debts the King had mainly with British companies and subjects? Also, money spent on the royal family does not disappear. Generally it stays within Britain.
lindybeige 1 month ago
@lindybeige Thanks so much for watching. I think you're right, there are good points and bad points in both videos.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
I find your american romanticism adorable, if a little naive.
86kingrat 1 month ago
@86kingrat it's always nice to be adored, thank you, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I lived in the USA for two years so I may be slightly less naive than you think on the matter. Personally I prefer living in Europe, I recently turned down a job offer in the USA in large part because of that. You're correct that I do hold a certain "romanticism" towards the ideals of both the American and the French revolutions, but I am fully aware that those goals are far from being fully realised.
thomasf2811 1 month ago 4
Great video. Finally and englishman who sees sense. the guy you were proving wrong is a joke.
fallschirmjager0000 1 month ago
Sucks to be you, living in Theocracy ruled by useless Fatcats who costs 40 millions a year. Greetings from Germany.
elKuhnTucker 1 month ago 5
@elKuhnTucker I'm actually fine with it, but vielen Dank for the comment. In fact the Royal Family cost far more than 40m a year but that's a whole different debate.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
@elKuhnTucker Theres nothing wrong with religion itself; the problem is mostly the corruption of the religious leaders. Religion evolved into science, while part of it retained its old views, and became corrupted as such, fueled moreso by greed.
duo1666 3 weeks ago
@duo1666 "Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end." " I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world"
"If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it"
You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution. DAWKINS
haggisman11 2 weeks ago
@elKuhnTucker
That poor ol' Kaiser of yours.
IAmCaptainMarvel 1 week ago
Bad arguments. CGP Grey isn't saying the Monarchy is good, he is saying that people need to stop complaining about the Monarchy taking all the money. They make more money for UK that the prime minister ever has.
sithlordsf 1 month ago
@sithlordsf I make the very same point in my video, money isn't the issue. But I also wanted to make very clear the cgpgrey's figures are highly misleading so that people wouldn't be left with the impression that they were correct.
The Prime Minister is the highest representative of democracy and that has provably made us extremely wealthy. I urge you to look again at the dividend that democracy pays us and reconsider your position on this.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
7:49 I have to disagree with "But in the end, it is better to be right than it is to be good at making videos." As it is hard to comprehend a bad video, making it appear wrong. I personally do feel you are correct in this matter, however its hard to explain _why_ you are correct, as I don't feel like I have any legs to stand on in this matter.
piemonkey321 1 month ago
@piemonkey321 I'd recommend going to republic(dot)org(dot)uk. I agree that presentation is extremely important and I'll work on it. Thanks for watching and commenting.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
Now without actually doing the research to verify the figures both you and CGP Grey have quoted all I can really say to you that your video is well made and your point is valid, but rather than debating this you constantly refer to CGP Grey as talking rubbish and you badmouth him in such a way that I find your video sounding petty and snide. So good point but badly made. The way you put it across sounded childish.
ThePlagueAngel 1 month ago
@ThePlagueAngel thanks for watching, I see your point. My intention was always to reply in the same light-hearted manner that cgpgrey used in the original. I can assure you, because I've discussed this with him, that he himself takes no offence at my badmouthing.
I appreciate what you say about sounding childish but what I wanted most to avoid was replying to a video in good humour with one that was overly serious. I didn't get the balance right but I think I did okay.
thomasf2811 1 month ago 2
The Palace of the Louvre is also a totally different point, it has the Mona Lisa in it, if you put it in the Buckingham Palace it would probably be the reverse. Thats a hugely stupid point for you to make.
neddonovan 1 month ago
Isn't the British Government's debt in the tens of billions? Yet you get angry over 200 million which is likely to have been paid off by now.
neddonovan 1 month ago
@neddonovan this is a very weak argument. It's like saying, "there's famine in North Korea, why are you worried about making sure children in the UK aren't malnourished?". We don't have to make choices on which injustices we tackle when we can deal with both. As for the £200m being "paid off", it doesn't work like that. There are good economics courses on iTunes U if you want to learn why.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
@thomasf2811 Have u ever thought that the Louvre is a Museum containing artefacts from Leonardo Da Vinci or hidden treasures of The Eyptian Pharaohs ?
I agree to the point made by GC1ID.
And for French castles out of Paris may still be attractive to tourist because they are not occupied by people who don't want to accept visitors.
Netherlands has a royal family too, and yet they are still one of the most liberal people in the world. Don't blame the crown for not being a "secular" state.
BilginManchester 1 month ago
@BilginManchester Hi, yes I have thought about the Louvre housing great works. If the Mona Lisa were in Buckingham Palace people could still not go and see it because it belongs to a single family, not to the people.
As for the Dutch point, I've made this point in so many other posts, please read those comments.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
Comment removed
BilginManchester 1 month ago
using the Louvre as an example is cheating because it is a modern art gallery which hosts some of the most famous pieces of art also there are massive differences between Windsor and Versailles one is the oldest consistently inhabited castle in the world the other is the place where multiple revolutions took place and in which hundreds lost their lives building for a King that revolutionised the french monarchy and IMO and that of many historians caused the revolution
GC1ID 1 month ago
@GC1ID I should clarify the Louvre isn't an art gallery hosting modern art but rather an art gallery that holds some of the most famous pieces of art in history. It is modern because of the investment it is less of a royal palace and more of a world famous gallery
GC1ID 1 month ago
@GC1ID If the Mona Lisa were in Buckingham Palace people could still not go and see it because it belongs to a single family, not to the people. The full arguments around this are already on the comments, I don't have time to make them again.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
@thomasf2811 I think comparing the Louvre museum to Buckingham is a little unfair, yes it is a palace, but surely it's more of a museum now? In that sense, it would be better to compare it to the British Museum (Louvre still has more visitors but there's not as much in it). Also, Buckingham is an active residence, whereas Louvre isn't Most people probably didn't know it was the home of France's royalty (I thought it was Versailles, but my French history is not very good).
sthill1993 2 weeks ago
@sthill1993 Not to metion the fact the Louvre has got the Mona Lisa (THE MOST FAMOUS PAINTING IN THE WORLD) probulbly the only reason why people visit the Louvre...
KingofNewAnglia 1 week ago
@KingofNewAnglia Well there is that! It might also be because it is near the Eiffel Tower, (I would go to see both if I were to go to Paris)
sthill1993 1 week ago
LOL "Oh no, wait, you're completely wrong again." Yes. CGPGrey is wrong about all the money tourists bring to the UK because you've compared Buckingham palace with another, entirely arbitrary place in France. When did CGPGrey make this comparison? When was he incorrect about it? I can't find it in the video. You are wrong because nobody cares how MANY people visit, it's how much MONEY they spend. Yes, his castle picture was wrong, but only someone as pedantic as you would miss the point entirely
klakkaros 1 month ago
@klakkaros
Buckingham Palace is the UK Royal Family's residence in London, the country's de facto capital city.
The Louvre was the French Royal Family's residence in Paris, the country's de facto capital city.
That's a pretty good basis for comparison; you can agree with my choice or not, but you can't say it's arbitrary.
My point is that French example suggests that the UK would have just as many tourists spending just as much money without the Royal Family. Got some evidence that disagrees?
thomasf2811 1 month ago 2
@thomasf2811 Actually St James Palace is the Royal Family's residence in London. You also forget there are more palaces in London in paris, gaining huge amounts of money, examples are as following:
-Parliament
-Tower of London
-Buckingham Palace
-Clarence House
-St James Palace
And so on
neddonovan 1 month ago
I see where you are going. Trade in the Monarchial model of land accumulation (taking it from the previous "owners" -- or monarchies who had themselves taken it from previous "owners" by fair or fowl means) and adopt the republican model ... taking land from the previous "owners" -- or monarchies who had themselves taken it from previous "owners" by fair or fowl means and then saying it's all for the 'public' (democratic) good and still pocketting the cash.
jabrett 1 month ago
@jabrett the key difference is that I think we should fully tax the use and transfer of land rather than give special legal dispensation to the royal family.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
This is sedition. My argument for the continuance of Her Maj is simple: I don't trust our elected officials. The sovereign still has the power to dissolve parliament, call an election and a couple of other checks and balances. She did this in Oz in the 70's (for a recent example). Her Maj has never done anything other than serve this country without blemish. I simply don't fancy an impotent system of government like the Meerkans across the pond.
jacksawild 1 month ago
Sweden does a lot of these flaws in british politics better than both America (republic) and UK (constitutional monarchy), and we are a proud monarchy as well.
ohedd 1 month ago
@ohedd I know quite a few Swedish people and many of them are not *proud* of their monarchy. Your point is otherwise good and I've made many of the same points in the comments. Of course Finland matches Sweden in almost every way and is a republic. The lesson, as I've said before, is that having a constitutional monarchy is only a minor problem, there are much more important things. But if we have a clear chance to improve why not do it? You don't have to prioritise when you can have both.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
@thomasf2811 We have about 70% support for our head of state in Sweden, which is a lot more than the american head of state has. Therefore it wouldn't be better if we became a republic - it would lessen our social capital and people would become less satisfied.
ohedd 1 month ago
@ohedd that's an interesting figure, I did some quick google searching but couldn't find the source, where should I look? I'm afraid my Swedish isn't great though I can manage (lived in Norway for two years). The USA comparison is poor because there are two question, "do you support Mr. Obama?" which scores low, and "do you support the institutino of the President" which I think would score very high. How does Sweden compare to more sensible equivalents like Ireland and Finland?
thomasf2811 1 month ago 2
@thomasf2811 I'm sorry it's 75% in 2010. You can type in "75 % behålla monarki" or something. Swedish news paper "Aftonbladet" published the survey done by Swedish Institute of Public Opinion Research (SIFO). I'm sure the support of the institution of presidency itself is greater in USA than the support for monarchy is in Sweden, but the fact remains that we trust our head of state more than the amerians do. We still have a parlament with the usual trust issues and complaints.
ohedd 1 month ago
@ohedd thanks, found it. It's a good point and I suspect that in the UK we have a similar level of support; though that will go down quickly once Charles becomes King.
Since a potential Swedish or British Republic would almost certainly adopt the Finnish/Irish model of presidency they seem fair for comparison. Tarja Halonen (Finland) had a peak approval rating of 88% whilst Mary McAleese (Ireland/Eire) peaked at 92%.
I think these two examples make a strong case for an elected Head of State.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
@thomasf2811 If you look at monarchy as a culturally unifying institution, and the parlament as a legislative institution, then a country's pride, sense of unity and all that can remain intact during crisis and times when parlaments mess up, the same as it is a good idea to separate the church from the state. Constitutional monarchy might sound old fashion, but it's really an idea in accordance with Montesquieu's theory of "separation of powers".
ohedd 1 month ago
@ohedd I think it's rare that a supporter of the monarchy has made such a consideration as you have. I doubt you'll convince me to change my mind; I always preferred Thomas Paine and Voltaire to Montesquieu but I respect your opinion on this.
Perhaps it is partly because I feel in no way "culturally unified", as you put it, with the British royal family that I object to their position. If you feel such a link with the Swedish monarchy then I can understand your support for it.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
@thomasf2811 Sure, George W Bush peaked at 90% and left office at 30 or something. Though my point is that these numbers are tightly connected to economic and political situations. Bush's approval ratings reached 90 % during 9/11, and hit 30 % when the credit crisis hit. A monarch's ratings would probably be more consistent and would surely not drop 60 % in just 8 years. After all you can still go on and be proud of David Cameron if the royal family isn't doing the trick.
ohedd 1 month ago
@thomasf2811 What's wrong with Charles? I think monarchy will strengthen its position in Sweden when crown princess Victoria becomes queen.
ohedd 1 month ago
Comment removed
ohedd 1 month ago
Nice fake British accent. Very authoritative.
overitjacob 1 month ago
@overitjacob thank you. My fake British accent was helped enormously by being born in Britain to British parents and having lived in Britain for most of my life, including at present.
thomasf2811 1 month ago 19
put the queen in a council flat in tower hamlets.
25alo2514m 1 month ago
@25alo2514m I used to live in an ex-council flat in Peckham, I really enjoyed it. I'm sure the Queen would do just fine in Tower Hamlets.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
@thomasf2811
put her on benefits and give her an oyster card lmao. on a serious note, if we can live like that, im sure she can live without her horse and carriage and all the other fancy stuff.
25alo2514m 1 month ago
There are so many fundamental flaws with your video, that my answer would not be able to be contained within the 500 character limit of this comment.
stokeysk8ter 1 month ago
you could make a video response.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
Comment removed
KingofNewAnglia 1 month ago
An excellent video. I would definately welcome more videos like this.
flyingphantom1988 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheAliceAnachronism 2 months ago
lol
eragon98031 2 months ago
Very interesting points. Not sure bringing in America at the end helps your cause, though. America has great inequality problems and no social net comparable to European countries (including, ironically, the Scandinavian countries.) I guess my point is the type of government does not necessarily indicate a certain level of freedom.
qwe07 2 months ago
@qwe07 thanks for watching and commenting. I generally agree with you. These points have been thoroughly discussed in previous comments which I've replied to over the past 7 months. Thanks again, Tom.
thomasf2811 2 months ago
@thomasf2811 Also thought I'd mention the criticisms the US has w/ its electoral college, which can also be considered undemocratic. But anyway, if the monarchy does go I would think Buck. would go to the new head of state and remain largely closed. Other London palaces may also go to gov't use. Balmoral and Sandringham I think are actually owned by the royal family. Windsor Castle may be the only major one open. It's also interesting no one here has really discussed reforming the monarchy.
qwe07 2 months ago
@qwe07
'Social net' == theft == incompatible with freedom. There is some obvious cognitive dissonance here.
Sybok123 1 month ago
@Sybok123 Call it what you will, some people find it invaluable while others obviously do not. Freedom comes in many degrees. There will never be a truly "free" form of government, except maybe in theory.
qwe07 1 month ago
Part 2: Since we can't have you comparing apples and oranges, Visitors to the British Museum vs. Louvre: 5.5 vs. 8.5 or more than half of Louvre's total. But lets get back to castles. A quick look at a list of castles in France on Wikipedia shows that most of its castles are in ruins or privately owned. Adding another hickup to your argument is the existance of 8 castles/palaces in London including the tower of London which gets 1.7 million visitors per year.
NoGoodHandlesLeft 2 months ago
Part 1: I could call bs on your landownership/inheritance tax argument but lets settle for the more subtle flaw in your tourism numbers. Total tourism to France in 2009: 76 million, Total tourism to Britain: 28 million. Different in size of tourism 2.7 times. Windsor vs. Versailles: 1 vs. 2.6 which leaves them preportionally the same (although Windsor wins by 0.01). 2nd comparison: Buck. vs. Louvre. First off the Louvre is an art museum so we are not on the face of it comparing castles...
NoGoodHandlesLeft 2 months ago
@NoGoodHandlesLeft thanks for watching and commenting. I'm afraid all the points you're making have already been thoroughly discussed and answered. I made the video over half a year ago and did my utmost to respond to all reasonably made points but I just don't have time to do that any more. If any of your points are original then I will respond. Sorry to disappoint, all the best, Tom
thomasf2811 2 months ago
Glad for this repsonse video. Mr. Grey's Monarchy video was a disappointing lapse in an otherwise decent string of videos.
DimmedDiamond 2 months ago
I enjoyed this video, it raises some interesting points but I do question some of your arguments. Whilst I agree that the church has no place in politics, the crown has very little power in today's world. You must also remember that the queen is also the head of state for all commonwealth nations.
For me the royal family is also a reminder of our past (be it glorious or shameful) and the history of the UK and the British Empire.
LlamaDub 3 months ago
5) You say that the social divide in the England is greater than any other country you know of. Do you know of many countries otehr than England? The GINI coefficient of income equality is 32% for the UK which is by no means the least but far less than Brazil (55%), China (46.9%) and of your beloved USA (45%). It's even slightly lower than that of France (32.7%) and Italy (34%).
LlamaDub 3 months ago
@LlamaDub just looked up gini coefficients on wikipedia. UK = 41, France = 28.9, Italy =32. If those numbers are wrong, please correct them.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
200000 is far less than the 10 million tourists brought to the UK by the royal family each year (who are also far less likely to cause damage through hooliganism or drunk and disorederly behaviour). Also you say footballers and managers pay tax just like the rest of us. Wayne Rooney pays 4% tax, he dodges the full 50% he should be claiming most of his income as image rights. Tax avoidance is a far larger problem in the UK than royal family expenditure.
LlamaDub 3 months ago
4) Football is not a significant stimulus for tourism. The World Cup reduces the number of tourists to the UK every four years. Ofiicial overseas broadcasters of the BPL are frequently undercut by illgeal broadcasters with little to no consequence so overseas revenues are minimal.
Considering there are 4 BPL teams in the Champions league every year, this gives probably just over 20 European games palyed in this country. 20 X 10000 foreign fans= 200000 tourists
LlamaDub 3 months ago
@LlamaDub it's called the EPL not the BPL. Given that elementary mistake I doubt it's worth my time repeating the figures which there are already are on this comment thread to show that you're wrong.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
3) Many of the royal family do important work for or with charities. A good example of this would be the Prince's Trust (which I personally have benefitted from and experienced first hand) which helps over 40000 young people make something more of their lives (either thorugh employment, further education or training schemes). Prince Charles' 'fame' (deserved or not) has helped raise funds for this charity and help thousands of young people across the UK.
LlamaDub 3 months ago
2) The Palace of Versailles is considerably larger and far more accessible than Windsor castle and also carries further historical significance given that the peace treaties of WW1 were drawn up there. To compare the two would be pointless.
The Louvre is also obviously one of the most famous art galleries in the world housing probably the most famous painting in the world (the Mona Lisa). I would therefore also say to compare this to Buckingham Palace is quite unfair.
LlamaDub 3 months ago
Just a few possible problems with your arguments:
1) You talk about the crown estates being managed inefficiently and compare their profit margins of 3.5% with an avergae of 5%. Considering that the crown estates are more traditional businesses that are less likely to be profitable in the high tec services absed economy we live in today, the average profit margin for such businesses is in fact around 3% (in the UK).
LlamaDub 3 months ago
@LlamaDub your GINI figures were wrong, you called the EPL the BPL, and you couldn't write your points in less than 5 full comments. I simply don't trust your figures here. Lots of people are making comments and I don't have time to thoroughly investigate all five of yours and reply. I will have a look at this if I get time.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
@thomasf2811 I said BPL as in Barclays Premier League which is just another way of saying EPL.
LlamaDub 1 month ago
@LlamaDub ah I see, fair enough. Sorry if I was a bit harsh, you get so much trolling on youtube that sometimes you snap at sensible comments.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
@thomasf2811 nah thats fine, yeah i can imagine. I think trolling is pointless; people should learn to respect the opinions of others. I for instance disagree with you on this issue, but i completey respect your opinion and think this video was very well made by putting forward some good arguments. For this you should be applauded
LlamaDub 1 month ago
The queen is brilliant fullstop
MaxIngramRedmayne 3 months ago
@MaxIngramRedmayne fully agree with you, she does an amazing job. We may find less room for agreement once her eldest son takes over. Thanks for watching, Tom
thomasf2811 3 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
either way: why are u british so obsessed with ur stupid queen ? 21st century says hellooo
mauritianbeachboy 3 months ago
Comment removed
mauritianbeachboy 3 months ago
A republic would also be vastly more expensive than the monarchy. Having a head of state that is elected will have to be paid more because they are accountable and there is no way that any politician as we can see with recent history that will want to earn the same wage as the previously unaccountable. Campaigns for a president would also be at the tax payers expense and all employees will be at the expense of the tax payers too where as the royal employees are paid for by the crown.
fdmarminy 3 months ago
@fdmarminy again, you have a lovely opinion. But opinions need to be backed up by facts. The Irish president costs one tenth as much as the UK monarchy, the French republic costs half as much as the UK monarchy.
I say this all the time but it never stops being true. Your opinion sound very believable, they sound sensible. But if you go and look up the facts I'm pretty sure you'll find that you're wrong.
thomasf2811 3 months ago
@thomasf2811
That is only the simple monetary cost for a president. The cost of an entire republic is more expensive as it would mean more elections, mid terms and because of a republic a fully elected second chamber all of which will hinder politics and increase the cost to maintain. Facts are pretty hard to find as like with all comments made by both sides it is just speculation. Who's to say that those who produced the facts were't employed to benefit the views of the paymaster.
fdmarminy 3 months ago
@fdmarminy I think if you go to republic's web page you'll find some well costed figures. You can dismiss them because you don't agree with them if you want but until you have something better you'll just look silly. If you're sure that the UK Monarchy is really cost effective, go find the figures and show it. Your opponents have already made a strong argument against you.
thomasf2811 3 months ago
@thomasf2811
I've been on their web page and they make the same simplified drivel that you've mentioned. They dislike the monarchy and will only broadcast supposed facts which will only support their own conclusions hence why they are a pressure group and not really a party. The monarchy will benefit the country more than a republic could. A president will also not solve the declining participation rates in elections either. The elected head of state would just make the whole idiocy official.
fdmarminy 3 months ago
@fdmarminy you say it's drivel but at least it's there with some evidence, some references and some reasoning. You on the other make your arguments without any facts to back you up whatsoever. You just say it's hard to find facts so you won't bother trying. You're just making pronouncements, at least I try, and republic try, to back them up with some substance.
thomasf2811 3 months ago
@thomasf2811
We can't well and truly on this matter state what is fact because depending on the scenario of which you picture a republic. Also democracy will go down because the constitutional monarch recognises that they are unelected and will not obstruct any law that is passed by the democratically elected. whereas an elected president will obstruct bills that do not match their political preference. This happens all the time in America and as we know that politicians can't be trusted...
fdmarminy 3 months ago
@fdmarminy the comparison with the American system is ridiculous. With our history of parliamentary democracy I'm sure the UK would choose a President like Ireland, Greece, Italy and Germany. Even in extremely difficult times for those countries I've not seen the President obstruct any bills.
thomasf2811 3 months ago
@thomasf2811
with the money of the tax payers so what makes you think that a president will be as beneficial as the monarchy currently is to us?
fdmarminy 3 months ago
in short it's nice to have a dream that is so simple but when you look at it and how a republic works and a lot of republics fail is because they are simply impractical. The UK and other commonwealth realms are considered the best democracy and the most stable form of government. The UN lists the top ten most stable governments and 7 out of 10 are constitutional monarchies so what's the point of changing a system that works so well?
fdmarminy 3 months ago
@fdmarminy I can't find this UN list of top ten most stable governments anywhere on the internet? Could you post the name of the report so I can find it easily?
thomasf2811 3 months ago
they get tax free inheritance because as a nation as you saw in greys video that the mounting profits we make from the royal family including tourism and diplomacy means the royal family give us a lot of money both directly and indirectly so what is the point of squeezing even more money from them. By imposing a tax on their land of which their profits are surrendered then the royal family will have to give away land and then by that you lose money going into public expenditure.
fdmarminy 3 months ago
@fdmarminy where is your evidence that they bring in money in tourism? I think I showed clearly that more people visit royal history in France than visit living royalty in the UK so that evidence is out. If you read the newspapers and the reports from the ONS you'll see that the extra day off for the Royal Wedding cost us far more than the added tourism. The added tourism and diplomacy sounds absolutely great. Problem is, there's precisely no evidence to back up your argument.
thomasf2811 3 months ago
@thomasf2811 you "show clearly" with stitlted evidence. At 6.14 you claim that windsor castle is the equivalent to the palace of versailles and that the french therefore receive more tourists than us. But surely buckingham palace, also in london, and the principal home of our monarchs would be a more accurate comparison. or would the fact that it attracts around 15 million tourists a year not quite fit.
1scrilley 1 month ago
@1scrilley you "reply clearly" with statements that aren't true and for which you have no evidence.
The Louvre was the French Royal Family's Paris residence and so is comparable to Buckingham Palace. Versailles is not in Paris, similarly Windsor is not in London. My comparisons are the sensible ones.
As for "the fact" that Buckingham Palace attracts around 15 million a year. The 2010 official figure was 413000, show me an official figure that says otherwise and I'll look at this again.
thomasf2811 1 month ago
Year two: -80 million - 40 million (civil list) = -120 million + 160 million profit = 40 million profit.
year three: 40 million profit - 40 million (civil list) = zero + 160 million profit = 160 million.
year four: 160 million - 40 million (civil list) = 120 million + 160 million profit = 280 million.
It goes up and up from there and Grey was talking about direct profits which I concede is simple.
fdmarminy 3 months ago
@fdmarminy I'll try make time to try and understand and go over these numbers if I get some time this week and see whether I agree with them. Tom
thomasf2811 3 months ago
enslaving a nation? I'm sorry but I laughed so hard then. The monarch of the UK at the beginnings of a constitutional monarchy respects the foundation of parliament. You know that democracy that the UK has that you republicans are woefully ignorant about? Also when you mentioned the 200 million pound debt you have not done any maths. Year one: -200 million + 160 million profit = -40 million - 40 million (civil list) = -80 million.
fdmarminy 3 months ago
@fdmarminy "woefully ignorant"?
It was Cromwell's revolution that lay the foundation for the constitutional monarchy that respects parliament. I don't know everything mate but I don't go around calling other ignorant with such gaps in my own knowledge.
As for my maths, there are simplifications but on a much higher level than your sum is at. Many other comments on this, please read them and be a bit more pleasant in future if you want to have a constructive discussion.
thomasf2811 3 months ago
Hang on your big republican argument at the beginning is that the monarchy didn't own huge tracts of land? You are creating a dangerous statement that the constitutional monarch, hence the word constitutional, stole land from the people. Can you actually name any constitutional monarch since the glorious revolution that has stolen land from the people in the UK? The truth is they haven't stolen any. If they bought the land as you're suggesting then it's a legal transaction... No problem there.
fdmarminy 3 months ago
@fdmarminy First of all thanks for watching, there are loads and loads of comments and replies about this already so sorry if this one is quick. My issue, and I say so in the video but perhaps not clearly enough, is not that the monarchy own the land. I explicitly say I'm not going to touch that issue, it's far too complex. My issue is that they don't pay inheritance or full income tax on it. If they do that a big part of the problem is gone. They didn't buy it, but that's not my issue. Tom
thomasf2811 3 months ago
Fantastic presentation, very educational.
AndrewDangerously 3 months ago
well tough crap no one ever said they got the land fairly and you can say all you like about old fashioned ways but there is a reason why we're so high on the charts when it comes to the quality of living per average person and I'm pretty damm sure our rich history has A LOT to do with it.
EnordAreven 4 months ago
Well not all men are created equal. Especially Thomas Jefferson who was born into wealth. Even if the royalty lost it's prerogatives, they'd still be rich as fuck and their children would grow up spoiled. And people would probably still be stupid enough to love them just for being born rich, if your fellow U.K. subjects share some stupidity that many of my fellow U.S. citizens have that is.
TheRepublicOfUngeria 4 months ago
I actually think he should have owned the lands he and his ancestry conquered and here's why: It would be a nightmare trying to reverse back through history and see who would own what if everything was fair. If that was the case there would be no United States since we took all of our land from Native Americans. Take away royal and religious prerogatives but leave them with the land they still own and let's make all of our present and future dealings better, because that is all we can do.
TheRepublicOfUngeria 4 months ago
am i the only one who finds this guy's voice really annoying?
pizwoggins 4 months ago 4
@pizwoggins not alone. Honestly mate, sometimes I listen to myself and get annoyed. ;)
thomasf2811 4 months ago
@pizwoggins I kind of find it annoying although as an American scum bag I find many European accents annoying. But I hope this is an ad hominem attack rather than an ad hominem argument if you disagree with the message since he did just pwn CGPGrey
TheRepublicOfUngeria 4 months ago
@TheRepublicOfUngeria well it's certainly not an argument lol! just a petulant outburst. re ownage of Grey - nah. i agree with optimus, the only argument of merit is the philosophical oppression of being a subject rather than a citizen. all the money stuff hinges on more a more complex understanding of the relationship between crown and state - this is way simplistic.
pizwoggins 4 months ago
@pizwoggins it's a reply not an argument in its own right, that's why I address the money issues. I agree it's much too simple, I assume you also think cgpgrey's line of argument is also far too simple?
For plenty of arguments of merit you should look up the group 'republic' and see what they have to say.
Thanks for watching and all the best, Tom
thomasf2811 3 months ago
skip to 7:55 for the only merit of this video. you also circumvent most of the author's successful efforts at being unbearably condescending and patronising .
optimuskgb 4 months ago 13
@optimuskgb point taken. Like I've said in other comments I did actually have a decent conversation with cgpgrey on this and it was never my intention to be condescending or patronising. I know that he did not take this reply as such. My aim was to reply in the same manner as the original, I'm nowhere near as good, I know that. I'm trying to get better. Thanks for watching and the feedback, all the best, Tom.
thomasf2811 4 months ago
@thomasf2811 ah - I've just realised that at 7:55 the screen is your apology for the video. that was not what i hoped to highlight; it is from roughly 7:55 that you begin talking about the philosophical oppression of being a subject rather than a citizen (which I believe to be a meritorious argument - not that I agree with it). my first comment was not a back-handed compliment (suggesting the only merit of the video is that it acknowledges its own limitations). ciao, Optimuskgb
optimuskgb 4 months ago
I support the British monarchy but I think this is a really good reply to CGP. When you say we end up paying their share of inheritance tax, surely you just mean it's technically due, but they're exempt, so it just doesn't get paid. It's not like we have to pay it on their behalf.
Vnam72 4 months ago
@Vnam72 fair point, although if I didn't pay my taxes I suspect HMRC might not consider it a technicality. Of course I would be breaking the law, the royal family are not. I'd just like the law changed. Thanks for the feedback, really appreciated.
thomasf2811 4 months ago
Comment removed
Vnam72 4 months ago
(cont.)
4. The debt of George III. Although I've no exact information about it, so it could've been privy expenses or a mixture with other things, under the legal system of the time, it was still classified as 'government debt,' because there was little distinction between the Crown in different roles. So the current UK govt would be paying it off anyway.
Thus, your sum is even more far fetched, and only works if one imports non-existent norms (like that you don't think monarchy should exist).
Virini 4 months ago
1. Your problem with them owning the land is fine... except that the way land law works means that all freehold land in the UK is derived from the same source, and if you say that source is invalid... well, then, *nobody* owns any land.
2. Lost yield through inflexibility - this is money that *could* be gained, but isn't being. It's not a loss, it's an unrealised gain. So it doesn't belong in your sum at all.
3. Lancaster and Cornwall... uh, failing to see this point?
(tbc)
Virini 4 months ago