abolish the monarchy, but not the guys that stand there with the fuzzy hats. they can stay

Why do Americans visit England more than France? Oh boy, I sure do wonder what language most Americans speak

Americans typically go to England rather than France because they prefer to go to other English speaking countries (also including: Ireland, Scotland, Australia, New Zealand).

Nothing that Shaun said, is changed by the Queen's death, except that maybe the monarchy will have a harder time keeping itself together without her.

Shaun being outraged: *stern face and slightly elevated tone of voice* "This is quite bad"

Wow and I thought "welfare queens" were a myth

Shaun: Abolish the royals because *gives real facts and evidence* Me: Abolish the royal family because I'm tired of hearing about them in the press

Well we fired the Queen the other day. So that's something

"hard work is rewarded" *the crowd snickers, the queen struggles to keep a straight face* "shut up you guys shut up i'm reading..."

Oh man, but I like the royals, I think they're cute. "That's a clip from the state opening of parliament 2016, where the queen read out a pro-austerity speech while sitting in a golden throne and wearing a hat with 2,900 precious gems in it." Ok, you convinced me.

It's really interesting to see the American obsession with the royal family. Go to any American supermarket and look at the celebrity magazines they put up near the checkout counter, and you'll likely see pictures of the royal family. Americans literally fought a war to escape the influence of the British monarchy, and now we idolize that same monarchy. It's bizarre. I've even gotten into arguments with Americans about the British monarchy. You'd be surprised how many Americans will respond to criticism of the monarchy with the "tourism" argument.

Living in Denmark, another constitutional monarchy, I used to be ambivalent about maintaining the monarchy but not long ago she stated in an interview that we shouldn't panic about climate change and generally questioned whether it is anthropogenic. This isn't surprising since she is old and out of touch with the real world but I foolishly thought that there was an unspoken rule that the royals shouldn't share politically loaded opinions She is highly regarded by a large portion of the population and these statements does sway opinions. In my opinion this negates all the minimal good she might have done through out her rule.

As a French person, just pausing the video to comment on the tourism and Versaille, one of the point of not having royalty anymore is that people can actually visit the palace ! Not just stand outside and watching the royal guard making their show... well for free ^^ Getting back to the video now !

Saying we shouldn't reduce fossil fuels because people will lose jobs is like saying we should keep on having wars so soldiers aren't out of work.

One of my biggest questions with that CGP Grey video had been "why would anti-monarchists feel obligated to honor the property rights of the people they want to depose," and I greatly appreciate you addressing that. It's also been a while since I watched Grey's video, but seeing the clips you shared about tourism, I got a strong sense of "yes, make all of your decisions based on the whims of American tourists, that's a sound strategy. Now, tear down that historically significant ruin to put in a McDonald's!"

Some majority percentage of Canada is classified as crown land. (Golly gee, colonialism is alive and thriving.) I'd love to see the power or 'ownership' of this crown land transferred back to Canada's indigenous peoples. Would be really great for reconciliation.

it just struck me that this is the first time i've heard the queens voice....

Nah, the tower of london isn’t cool bc of the the queen, it’s cool bc of the guys in hats

"reality is not turn-based" is such a hilarious refutation of the way some people "debate" these kinds of topics. They treat complicated and nuanced modern problems like a high school debate club

I'm still shocked how CGP messed up so bad and presented Ile Mont Saint Michel as a British Castle😂😂

As somebody who has been a tourist in the UK, I can say I'd be way more likely to come again if I could actually see the many buildings the royals own from the inside, even more so if they'd be turned into cool museums.

Also.... I am pretty sure americans come to the uk more than france because the uk is primarily english speaking and france is not. Also a lot of americans would have english, scottish or irish heritage.

The monarchy situation overall reminds me of that one american newspaper comic that goes something like: Monopoly man: Hey you! Straggler get off my land! Straggler: why is it your land? MM: Because I got it from my father S: well where'd he get it from MM: From his father S: and where'd he get it from MM: Well he fought for it S: I'll fight you for it

Regardless of the financial calculus, “the monarchy is a tourist attraction” has always seemed a bizarre argument, because the people making it are then venerating that person they’ve themselves described as a tourist attraction

"reality is not turn based" i swear some people genuinely think it is

Imagine if the monarchy is abolished right as Charles becomes king.

As an American it’s pretty obvious why more Americans visit England: they speak English! Relatively few Americans speak a second language (compared to our OECD peers), so visiting England means being able to fluently communicate with locals on your vacation.

Making a response video 7 years later is the level of pettiness I can truly admire.

Hearing Shaun read “they’ll see. they’ll all see.” In his trademark monotone is humor in and of itself.

i luv the royal family of france they are so quiet i never c them on tv or anywhere

As an American who has visited London, I can honestly say that the royal family had nothing to do with my visit. Sure, we took the time to see the "changing of the guard". But we saw it because it was there. We didn't go there to see it. Also, I didn't really consider anything I saw in England to be a castle. I much preferred the castles in Germany and France and Austria. The city of London itself is amazing. It's maybe the most opulent place I've ever seen. The Parliament building in particular left me literally speechless. We were driving by in a cab having a conversation and we all just stopped talking and stared, because it's that amazing. The pictures just don't do it justice. But none of that has anything to do with the royal family.

I'm Dutch and the thing that got me off the proverbial fence is that there was an article on how our king turned one of his properties into a national park, but he didn't actually have to follow the rules of national parks. It's that utterly casual corruption born from extreme power and privilige that I oppose.

Also, Queen Elizabeth, no matter if she’s Queen of England, is still head of the Anglican Church. So if the monarchy was abolished, Old Bess would be downgraded from figurehead of a sovereign nation to...head of a major world religion

Abolish the Monarchy and make a TV show "Keeping up with the Windsor's" and everyone can stay happy.

As an American tourist and later part time resident in the UK I really resent my money being lumped in with "people who wanted to see a real queen" I'm cerian the Tower of London and the raven would be just fine without her.

"UK castles are so awesome" *shows a picture of Mont Saint-Michel... in France*

It's simple: Reinterpret "Crown" to mean the crown itself, not the one wearing it. I swore loyalty to the shiny hat.

"They inherited it from someone who inherited it from someone who claimed ownership by killing anyone who disagreed with them." So, a fairly typical private property chain of ownership.

When a percentage of a country's money is spent effectively on nostalgia, especially when such money could go to education, healthcare and public utility, arguing that they "bring in the tourists" sounds like keeping the tapeworm in your gut cos you've gotten "attached" to the little fella, and that you sometimes wave around the tapeworm's ultrasound to start a conversation.

10:39 as an American i feel you just described fox news’ entire argument and strategy against renewable energy. That was not an exaggeration, not even a slight exaggeration.

Shaun and Contrapoints on the same day?? Right after Lindsay Ellis and Dan Olson?? Come on HBomb where ya at

and france got "all choppy with their royal family" lmao

The nasty bit of racism when describing Americans visiting Mexico didn’t win any points for CGP Grey with me

The queens been real quite since this dropped

But if we don't have the Monarchy then who will build the roads?

I'm so glad you posted this!!!

I was going to compare the English monarchy to the Kardashians (rich people whose high school drama people care about for some reason), but then I realized the Kardashians are actually funding their own. The English monarchy is like if Americans collectively decided we were going to pay for the Kardashians.

Here to rewatch this after Twitter made Shaun remove an anti-monarchist tweet

“It’s not a lame historical re-enactment” Alright... but isn’t it though?

Prince Andrew kinda just made the argument for itself

Heard the same argument made by CGP Grey on a French public radio today, with that same condescending tone to it. I also learned that everybody, even the most fervent republican, loved the queen. I hate that this stupid admiration and nostalgia for monarchs is so contagious. Came back to listen to this. Have a good one Shaun!

I'm French, and I find laughable the popular belief that our country is not attractive to tourism. And... in France, we're not exactly ... confortable, I will say, with the monarchy ideology. We look at it with interest sometimes cause it's like fairy tale but it's not like we visit the castle, or the museum, or any monument, places or spectacles with an ardent desire to see the Queen.

*is holding a leash, barely able to control my guillotine* "woah, woah! easy girl, easy"

"If tomorrow all the royals fell off the Earth or something, the land would still exist." I don't think you can count on land existing from one moment to the next if people start suddenly falling off the Earth.

Now that the whole queen's consent thing has come out the royals *do* have political power

LIZZIE'S IN A BOX LIZZIE'S IN A BOX LIZZIE'S IN A BOX LIZZIE'S IN A BOX

What about the corgis?! Would you damn Communists think of the corgis?!!! Excellent video as always. Shame this needed to be said in the first place though.

Apparently state-controlled redistribution of wealth stops being socialism when you give it to the rich. (Yes, I know that's not what socialism actually is.)

That tourism bit was really shameful of Grey. He purposefully only talked about American tourism in order to trick people into agreeing with him.

I really wonder why this video appeared on my KZfaq homepage, on 12 September 2022. Such a conundrum

>Reality isn't turn based however we can support and do multiple things at the same time You and I both know that the english government can only ever do 1/10th of something at a time, come on.

"Reality isn't turn based" aww but I bought so many card games on the assumption

I'm watching this in preparation for the one thousand arguments im gonna have to have today

Now is a good time to rewatch this content.

"Reality isn't turn based" Fantastic. I'm going to have to remember that one

1:55 Isn't that "Kohinoor" diamond that those people stole from India lol "Where work is rewarded" ok lmao

absolutely HILARIOUS that there are people in this comment section telling you to watch the video you're talking about

As an Austrian, the "tourism needs a living monarch" argument is pretty ridiculous to me 😂

Hmmm I wonder why an English-speaking society would prefer to visit a European country that primarily speaks English over one that primarily speaks French.

If the royal family didn't live in the Buckingham Palace anymore, than tourists would be able to visit that place even more ... or am I not getting something

"reality isn't turn based, however" lmao who is this guy 😂😂😂😂 subscribed

As an American who has been to France and the UK, France was cooler mostly because there weren't royals, and we could actually go inside the palaces and look around. In London we could just stand outside and watch the changing of the guard and,,, that's it

The royal family it’s the worlds most expensive and boring sitcom.

Also, I’m pretty sure Americans are tourists to the Uk more than France because they speak English in the UK officially. I’m pretty sure that draws more people than the queen

The royal family: A failure waiting to come (very long but thoughtful post) The royal family is completely dependent on the approval of the British public. If most of the British public decided that they don’t want a royal family, the royal family would be voted out. The royal family has no shortage of terrible monarchs and royals, this is also without dispute. Whether it be King John or George IV, Henry VIII or Edward VIII, William Rufus II or James II etc. In old times and modern times, terrible royals exist and will continue to exist. Question is, what would happen if a terrible royal became a modern monarch, where the monarchy is completely dependent on the favor of the British people. The British people simply wouldn’t accept it. Given that there are already worries about the royal family when the Queen eventually dies and Charles becomes king (since he isn’t as popular as the Queen), it doesn’t take a lot to the imagination what the state of the family would be in if a truly idiotic and terrible royal (like the ones listed before) came in. And the modern royal family still isn’t somehow above having terrible royals. Prince Andrew for example, has been reported to have been on convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein ’s private island and was too part in a nine girl orgy. This is only one of many allegations involving Prince Andrew. A photograph exists of him having his arm around the waist of the 17 year old Virginia Giuffre waist in 2001 at London. Of course, he denied the evidence. A reason he said why it was not evidence was that "I don't believe it's a picture of me in London because... when I go out in London, I wear a suit and a tie," Fortunately for us and unfortunately for him, multiple newspapers have photographs of him wearing no blazer nor a tie in London having a night out. He was reported to have had a sexual contact with Giuffre during the time of the photograph, in New York and in 2002 in Jeffrey Epstein ’s private island. Another account says another sexual contact happed in an alleged sexual in a bathtub. Could you imagine the uproar if he was king or second or third in line to the throne? This has not occurred since the 1936 abdication of Edward VIII where anyone from the royal family has let go of their royal duties. Edward VIII who was only king for less than a year, was and still is understood for being sympathetic to the regime of the Nazis, so much so that politicians had serious concerns about him as monarch. In 1937, Edward and Willis Simpson went to Nazi Germany, which caused the complete and utter disgust from the British government, and even went against the smart advice from said government. If this wasn’t bad enough, they greeted Adolf Hitler himself, as well as even doing full Nazi salutes. After Edward’s abdication, Hitler was reported to have discussed about having the United Kingdom Edward again if the United Kingdom fell to Nazi hands, because of said support from Edward VIII. “[the Duke] is well-known to be pro-Nazi and he may become a centre of intrigue.” Was the warning Winston Churchill received. That warning was later backed up by Edward’s interview of defeat and submission, where Edward VIII wanted Britain to surrender to Germany. The prime minster and the government was furious, they convinced the begrudging Edward to go the Bahamas, and became Governor (he was the first royal to have a civilian job). This proves the huge amount of actual disorder Edward made because parliament needed to have him as far away from Britain as humanly possible. "Rocky throne" was what George VI said what he had inherited. The public were openly and seriously thinking about whether or not to continue the monarchy. Keep in mind, this was caused by one king who only lasted less than a year and who didn’t continue to reign after WW2. An obvious question comes up: If Edward didn’t abdicate would the British Monarchy have survived? Would the British public, after WW2, accepted a royal family who had a pro-fascist and Nazi sympathizer as it’s monarch? Edward VIII was abdicated because of him wanting to marry Willis Simpson, not because of his political sympathies. Edward was determined to marry her no matter what and wouldn’t take no for an answer. The marriage would of gone completely against every bit of precedence regarding status, class, and her having two divorces. So Edward VIII being abdicated was more a matter of luck rather than a wise decision. Queen Victoria, while not as bad as the monarchs mentioned, would still struggle if she existed in today’s world. She was abusive and very controlling to her children. She wasn’t quite an ideal mother: She forbid her children (when they lived with her and after the death of her husband) from giggling or making positive remarks years after Albert’s death, blamed prince Albert for the death of his father for all of her life, naming one of her cows after her daughter because she decided to breast fed her children, Leopold caused his Victoria’s disgust for him for simply being a vulnerable and sickly child etc. Imagine how the modern press and social media would of reacted to this. Her extreme control and abuse of her children was not down the age she lived in, but rather due to her obsession with her dead husband Prince Albert and the extreme grief of his death, and the abuse she got from her mother and John Conroy when she was growing up. The Queen has many powers than can be abused by any future monarch. The powers include and not limited to the power of veto (to refuse a bill to be implemented), the power to completely dissolve parliament, the power of pardon (the ability to pardon anyone from a crime), the power to command the armed forces and the power to make a declaration of war to any country. The inevitability of a terrible royal being crowned is even more problematic for the longevity of the royal family because of these powers and other such powers. The Queen actually carried out the power of pardon twice before. All this reveals the fragile state of the royal family and the inevitable outcome of the public deciding that the royal family isn’t suitable and taking on a republican sentiment because of a truly incompetent and terrible monarch or royal which the royal family has had before, and will inevitably have. Even more so because of social media and journalists, and the royal family treated pretty much as modern day celebrities. Every event involving the royal family, major or minor, is now hot news. At least Edward VIII didn’t have social media constantly on his back when he was briefly king. In 1969, the Queen came to the choice of making the affairs of the Royal Family more public and the media more involved than ever. The tiniest act is now worldwide news, meaning any controversial acts (especially those done by a hugely incompetent monarch or royal) is and will continue to be hot news, within and outside of the UK. In summary, the royal family is a failure waiting to happen because we are bound to get an idiot (like the many from history) who will ruin the popularity of the royal family. Even regardless of whether monarchism is right or wrong, the eventual outcome is inevitably the same.

Check out the Guardian's article "Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent" (Feb 2021). They have more than just symbolic power.

As an American, I found Versailles to be way cooler than places like Buckingham or Windsor

"The more I see of the moneyed classes, the more I understand the guillotine." - George Bernard Shaw, Letter, 25 Sept. 1899, in Collected Letters, vol.2, in The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations, p. 791

The “reality isn’t turned based” line gets me every time I watch this

rewatching gang where ya at? 💯

I find CGP's American argument specious anyway, considering there are indeed other sitting monarchs in Europe who also have palaces and parks and whatnot. I would posit that Americans go to Britain more due to language than anything else. We Yanks can actually mostly understand you Brits when you speak. Most Americans (not including myself) don't speak French or German or Italian.

I like the fact that you also criticize people who aren't complete shitbags. All of us are silly from time to time, and it's great to have a man with a dry British accent telling us to check our shit.

Phase one of the plan has been completed moving on successfully to phase 1.5

Whom else has returned after the death of Lizzy?

There's a comic idea that Americans visit the UK more than France because we care about the monarchy. We care because its extremely hard to go on vacation to a foreign country for Americans, and we generally don't get time off, and we tend to, shockingly, go to places which speak English or are nearby. Mexico, then Canada, because they're next door (and Mexico shares a boarder with two of our most populous regions) and then as a far off distant third, clustered together numberwise with three other countries is... The UK, because the UK speaks English. Next up on that list is the Dominican Republic and France, which are barely below that and have, in some years, exceeded it in tourist numbers. Honestly what surprises me is England doesn't get ~more~ tourists.

The greatest thing about Patreon, besides the whole our-fav-creators-get-to-eat part is that the end of every month becomes lefty Christmas.

'They'd be "forced" to take all the revenue from the crown lands',, or they could get a real job ffs

Sucks that this is still relevant in 2021. The purpose that the monarchy serves is to say "this is what Britishness is".

The UK should just make a Robo-Queen for the tourists.

Still find it hilarious that he mistook Mont Saint-Michel for St. Michael's Mount

always a good time to revisit this video, especially now the queen has promised to pay for prince andrew's defence in his child sexual assault lawsuit

interesting day to have this video in my recommended.

The fact that there are still monarchies around feels kinda ridiculous. Every time I see clips of kings or queens, it feels like they're just a bunch of weird old people cosplaying.

Haha, what? You know when CGP Grey mentioned that "French castles sucked, while English are good"? The picture he used of a good ENGLISH castle is, in fact, French. It's Mont St-Michel. That is hilarious. Edit: Dammit Shaun, gotta steal my thunder like that.

Congratulations to Madame Tussauds, the queen’s statue now also matches the temperature of the original.

Bonus point you didn't make - abolishing the monarchy would actually increase tourism, because now tourists can actually go inside the (former) queen's palaces and castles. I've been to both England and France as a tourist, Versailles and the Louvre (also a former royal palace) were lovely; standing outside Buckingham wondering if the queen was even there or not, not so much. Now get with the choppy choppy already.

Shaun wants to cancel Netflix's The Crown lol

Prince Andrew just made an amazing argument for abolishing the monarchy...

Its funny how they use the 'tourism' argument. Apparently people don't want to visit a palace unless they know there's an actual monarch in it. Or at least that's how its argued here.

Great video. I agree with 99% of your arguments. I just disagree that if the monarchy goes away the royal family would still be "famous". Well, perhaps for, say, a generation. After that, I don't think so. I've lived in two former monarchies for good part of my life and the "monarchs" (given the system was still a monarchy) are absolutely ignored. I'd describe them as subcelebrities that sometimes appear in a talk show to remember people they exist. Maybe like a shitty football player from the 90's or something. It's funny and depressing at the same time.