Article 1 of the French constitution requires that le President keep a mistress

5th comment!

*Looks at Boris* Welp.

@@anttibjorklund1869 Sascha de Pfeffel has welped a half-dozen love children by this point, right?

@@alexandergangaware429 Who's Macron's mistress? If Le Pen wins next year, would she keep a mistress?

I think the position of Stadholder is best translated as Governor, but with William of Orange at this time basically being governor of most of the states of the Netherlands at the same time. It's like if Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor of California, Texas, New York and about 30 other states. He would not be president, but still very powerful.

@@rogerwilco2 That's actually a pretty excellent way of putting it

Psh. Nerd

@@rogerwilco2 you know what, the US should change its constitution just for that. We all need to see Stewart Schwarzenegger

No, I don't agree, he was appointed by the States, the parliaments of the Dutch provinces consisting of commoners. It was the States-general that paid for his invasion army and fleet, and the goal for both the States-General and William was not to annex England or have him rule like a medieval king, but to make England into a durable, stable protestant religious tolerant ally. That's why he asked to be invited and waged a propaganda war to get popular and nobility support. This was to prevent a catholic absolutist English king being treacherous again and teaming up in secret with catholic absolutist Louis XIV and German bishopries to annihilate the Dutch Republic like in 1672 when they came very close. He was somewhat king like because he was competent, had vision and had build a huge network in foreign relations, so the States let him. There also was no 'countercommoner' (William was a noble), a higly competent well respected figure leading the States like Stadtholder Maurits had decades before. The 'Statists' side with it's disregerad for heridatery posiitons had taken a heavy blow in 1672 because it made Holland to powerful over the other provinces and neglected land defenses there in the preceeding 'Stadtholderless Era'. William stepped in, took command of the army, flooded large parts of the country and kicked the French troops out, he saved the Dutch Republic from annihilation, catholic rule and mass murder of the protestants. The Stadtholder used to be the high command of the army and unifying force, while the commoners in charge of the Dutch Republic were all about Holland, trade and the navy. Holland was protected over land by the Hollandic waterline, a system of defenses by flooding area's. He was a rich man in an extremely rich Dutch Republic and showing off more than other rich Dutch people, in a royal style and he had a court like entourage. He once complained he felt like king of the Dutch Republic and Stadtholder of England because the English parliament was slowing his policies down while the Dutch States gave him more room to manouver. He might look like a king now, but that's because he changed what a king is through that glorious invasion, he created the constitutional monarchy. Back then, kings had the divine right of kings, denounce by the Dutch in their DOI more than a century before, they were king by birth and were absolute monarchs who decided on the religion of their people. Originally the Stadtholder was a steward to the king appointed by the king, and became a steward to the States appointed by the States once the king was declared to have left the throne for being a tyrant.

Same here, discovered the channel about a week ago, and already watched most of the videos on it (the one recommended to me was "The Graffiti that changed a city"). Great channel with a great style of content

Same

He reminds me of brain4breakfast but without countryballs

@@danielkrustev rip brain4breakfast

Yeah, this channel is going to blow up sometime soon

If a Range Rover can't do it, it's not worth it

In fact, the Darien Gap it's the only place in the Americas where the Panamerican Highway is interrupted,

If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus Is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. -Romans 10:9

From the POV of an American I hope you can answer my question. If the British constitution is not written in one place who determines which documents comprise it? When a disagreement arrises over some act of elected officials or perhaps some lower court judge, who decides which document determines what is permissible and what is not?

UK lawyer here. All lawyers, politicians, judges and royalty know which documents make up the constitution. There are A LOT so I hope you don't mind me not giving you a list. But in regards to disagreements, they're rare. If a lower court makes a wrong decision, it goes to the court of appeal, if they can't decide then it goes to our Supreme Court. And then, but rarely, the House of Lords. Our rules and guidelines for courts are set out in law and following the example of previous court cases. However these can be easily changed via new legislation (such as making homosexuality legal) or the making an old law more modern, hence why bicycle riders can be arrested for dangerous riding under a 1800's act.

Thanks. It now makes sense. You will forgive an American having the idea the House of Lords is a bridge club. Glad to know they have a real function.@@HomoLegalMedic

I always thought the House of Lords,the only Unelected Upper House in the World,was one of Review of Laws past in the Lower House.Its,when compared to Australia’s Preferentially Elected Upper House is about 125yrs out of date and should of been Reformed many years ago.Its kept the way it is because of its loosely bound constitution.

The English Constitution did not start with Magna Carta, Magna Carta came from earlier Constitutional documents such as the Constitutions of Clarendon 1164. I will repeat there is no such thing as a British Constitution England and Wales share the same Constitution and Scotland has its own Constitution hence why their legal system is different to ours.

When Scotland leaves and NI unites with Ireland there will be no Kingdom of Great Britain because there will be no Great Britain. All treaties, international agreements and most law will be null and invalid because a United Kingdom won't exist any more.CONSITUTIONAL states rarely break up

@@ausbrum That's not so clear. The resulting kingdom (consisting of England, Wales, and a few other parts) would probably be considered to be the successor state to the UK. By convention successor states inherit most rights and obligations under existing treaties (and thus you can't e.g. legally nullify government debt by a breakup). Admittedly, this convention isn't codified. Well, there is the Vienna Convention of 1978 but the UK isn't a signatory.

Yes, I too am glad to have been born on this island and/or one of the many small islands near it or far away from it and that one small part of a big island. Very proud.

I'm indifferent.

Someone has forgotten what they have done to the Welsh people...

I can't believe the noblemen laid siege on the king's castle and still made him king.

really glad! love this channel

Shame about the mukbang tho

did you

You’d need to openly live in that house for 10 to 20 years for it to become yours.

based

Check Somerset v Stewart on Wikipedia (or watch the part II now that it's out, I guess).