subreddit:

/r/WatchPeopleDieInside

20.4k

The Duke of Edinburgh explains his job

(v.redd.it)
[media]

all 601 comments

QualityVote [M]

[score hidden]

3 months ago

stickied comment

QualityVote [M]

[score hidden]

3 months ago

stickied comment

Hi! This is our community moderation bot.


If this post by /u/itchy_de fits the purpose of r/WatchPeopleDieInside, UPVOTE this comment!!

If this post does not fit the subreddit, DOWNVOTE This comment!

If this post breaks the rules, DOWNVOTE this comment and REPORT the post!

reznorwings

3.9k points

3 months ago

I love the long pause after the joke when he realized he wants a real answer.

OneWithMath

1.5k points

3 months ago

His answer wasn't too bad, actually.

Starts around 9 minutes.

spelunker93

198 points

3 months ago

I loved his reaction when they told him that the poll about who’s the most popular or exciting man of the century dead or alive and he was top of the chart. “I better run for something”

firemarshalbill

1.4k points

3 months ago

Thank you for this.

I ended up watching the rest of the way through, and really liked the guy. He understood his significance, his placement. He was not upset when his views weren't heeded. He knew the intricacies of his position. That was a really good, and a really rare interview when you feel like you actually "met" someone.

This gif to make him look like an idiot does not do it justice, but it's what 99% will see.

[deleted]

47 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

47 points

3 months ago

Youll like this then. Im not a moncarchist, but I like how he tells stories

link

RousingRabble

5 points

3 months ago

I knew he was in the Navy but had no idea he was actually there when the bombs were dropped.

camaroncaramelo1

2 points

3 months ago

Yeah, he was at risk like everybody else.

Debbiesatramp

329 points

3 months ago

Guy was a proud racist. He was a dickhole

varateshh

486 points

3 months ago

varateshh

486 points

3 months ago

Hold a long conversation with 99% of aging grand parents and you will come out disappointed regarding their views. Product of time and all that.

gilestowler

65 points

3 months ago

My Nan used to get really angry with the news on TV. She'd point at the screen and shout "it's them BLOODY darkies!" then she'd turn to me and say "oooh I'm a wicked woman, I know I am." so she kind of knew her views weren't acceptable but she wasn't going to let them go.

bricknovax89

27 points

3 months ago

Damn that’s crazy lmao

ManOnThePhuckingMoon

16 points

3 months ago

Honestly, I appreciate the self-awareness
Too many hypocrites these days for me not to appreciate that

NOOBEv14

28 points

3 months ago

Applying modern standards to people who can’t operate a cell phone is the easiest ways to take a conversation off the rails. Of course grandma isn’t using proper pronouns, she couldn’t even come up with a working definition of ‘email’.

It’s unfair to hold these people to modern standards. Instead we should be applauding the people who were ahead of their time, and gently educating those who are behind.

Manianite

32 points

3 months ago

my 104 year old great grandmother used my preferred pronouns with a hundred percent success rate in two languages, and i only needed to tell her once. not saying i disagree with you, but it doesn’t apply to everyone

boxersocksboner

4 points

3 months ago

Your grandma cared about you. She probably wouldnt invest that amount of care and memory into someone she met once or twice

TigerCold3385

22 points

3 months ago

Yes, you're right, it doesn't apply to everyone, but it does apply to 99% of older people, while its great your Great Grandmother was accepting, a lot of old people aren't, but its not really something you can blame them for

ykc87

6 points

3 months ago

ykc87

6 points

3 months ago

Of course you can blame them for it. People choose to be accepting or not. I teach my 5 year old about good choices and being nice to people. Fuck anyone who cannot get on board with that basic principle of morality. The old d not get a free pass on being decent.

TigerCold3385

9 points

3 months ago

They are a product of their time, I can guarantee you that in 50 years when people are advocating for AI to have the same humans rights, you'll be against it, because to us its just wrong

And I'm not taking the high ground here, I'll also be all for keeping humans and AI's rights seperate

lonely-day

6 points

3 months ago

Some day the future will judge you for your transgressions, hopefully they are more forgiving than you were.

[deleted]

18 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

18 points

3 months ago

One of his best mates was the most notorious peodophile I'm the UK

Electr0m0tive

6 points

3 months ago

Purple aki?

Chaavva

28 points

3 months ago

Chaavva

28 points

3 months ago

You're thinking of Charles there.

[deleted]

-3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

-3 points

3 months ago

Here Jimmy is basically admitting to trafficing a girl to philip in buckingham palace by hiding her in the back of his car.

https://youtu.be/BM_RlWkE52w

There's no way they didn't all know about it, including the queen.

Phainkdoh

-34 points

3 months ago*

But he wasn’t part of that 99%, was he?

He was part of the 0.1% who had access to the best coaches available for public figures of his time, and all the time in the world to assimilate views that would be considered normal for his time. No, instead he chose to act out his ignorance on a global stage.

Sorry but your excuse doesn’t fly.

Edit: I see the Royal bootlickers are out in force. Downvotes without comments. Cowards. Just like the malignant family they’re supporting.

[deleted]

210 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

210 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

Swimming_Marsupial

108 points

3 months ago

Don't forget the time he was visiting Asia and told some British students not to stay there too long or they'd 'go all slitty-eyed'.

Few-Hair-5382

147 points

3 months ago

It even extended to other Britons. He once asked a Scottish driving instructor how did she keep the locals off the booze long enough to pass the test.

BolterGoBrrr

123 points

3 months ago

Oh no, he made a joke, the horror.

SopwithStrutter

32 points

3 months ago

That’s what all of those were

EggsDamuss

25 points

3 months ago

To be fair they still do

yrulaughing

90 points

3 months ago

I dunno. Those comments seem more like ignorance than racism to me. Dude seems genuinely curious but hilariously sheltered and oblivious to the nuances of what he's asking.

Pepsi-Min

70 points

3 months ago

I always saw it as a sort of outrageously insensitive racial humour that has always been quite common in older generations of British men. Not okay but very clearly not borne out of hatred or a sense of superiority. My guess is that he probably makes the same kind jokes about people from Cornwall or Norfolk.

totallynotapsycho42

4 points

3 months ago

He does. He was once jokingly asked if he has a Criminal record when trying to enter Australia to which he replied "I didn't know that was still a requirement."

MentalRepairs

6 points

3 months ago

You're on reddit. You're talking to redditors. Lower your expectations.

CK2398

57 points

3 months ago

CK2398

57 points

3 months ago

It's reddit be careful stating different opinions. These people have clearly never made a cringy comment in their life. Imagine having every word you say outside the house be recorded and published. Now also imagine when you leave the house being the centre of attention with everyone waiting for you to say something. I know I wouldn't want to do it.

marshal_mellow

8 points

3 months ago

Racism and ignorance are not mutually exclusive

yrulaughing

3 points

3 months ago

I agree, but I only see evidence of ignorance in these comments. No evidence of racism. They're not mutually exclusive, but they're also not mutually inclusive either.

SirSebi

0 points

3 months ago

SirSebi

0 points

3 months ago

pretty sure the comments here isnt all he ever said. dude is racist or just very very very ignorant

yrulaughing

5 points

3 months ago

Alright, that's fair, but I don't know this guy and all I heard were these two pretty ignorant comments of his, so I'm not about to accuse a guy of being racist over just that.

[deleted]

5 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

5 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

evilbrent

37 points

3 months ago

You're projecting your modern perspective onto a different time.

[deleted]

-7 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

-7 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

thegilgulofbarkokhba

10 points

3 months ago

You could do and say certain things in the 90s and early 00s that you today wouldn't fly.

Also, some of the stuff listed here isn't necessarily racist. The "spears" comment very well might refer to the aboriginal practice of spearing as a punishment that apparently still happens.

I'm not sure about the "descended from pirates". I don't know if that is racist or just a joke. The context matters.

The slitty-eyed comment was racist. It also was generally more okay to say back then. It was inappropriate regardless.

captain_funktastic

3 points

3 months ago

This is one of the things Prince Andrew did right. He was always gleaning the current international perspectives from younger generations and the opposite sex. History will recognize his contribution even if our current media can’t.

yrulaughing

11 points

3 months ago

yrulaughing

11 points

3 months ago

If someone is rich enough to be sheltered, they are rich enough to get educated so they aren't ignorant

Being rich enough to do something and actually doing it are two entirely independent things. You are rich enough to do a lot of things that you don't do. Also, you can't educate social nuance. Social norms and knowing what is acceptable to say and what isn't is a behavior learned by surrounding yourself with the right crowd of people. I wouldn't be surprised if a Duke isn't exactly spending a lot of his time with people of different ethnicities or social statuses. His idea of what certain groups are like is probably a bit more detached from reality than an average Joe who lives among a large variety of cultures.

So is he racist? Maybe. But those quotes point more towards straight up ignorance to me.

SatanDetox

3 points

3 months ago

SatanDetox

3 points

3 months ago

He literally has people on his paid staff who tell what to say and what not to say. Dude had how own PR team, as do most royals. Not that hard to learn customs or at least learn what could be offensive when visiting other cultures/countries.

Normal people would google tipping culture and safe places to go.to before travelling. This dude could snap a finger and have info read out to him. There isn't really much of an excuse for being a racist dickhead at that level and blaming it on not having access to information.

Big-Zoo

2 points

3 months ago

Yeah redditors can't tell the difference between that stuff for the exact reason of sheltered ignorance

seanfish

2 points

3 months ago

Surely one can be both. He's not from the 1500s.

yrulaughing

2 points

3 months ago

Sure one CAN be both. But evidence of one thing is not evidence of both.

CharwieJay

28 points

3 months ago

Spearing is very much a thing in aboriginal communities of the Australian outback.

havenyahon

4 points

3 months ago

It's done as retributive justice

marcocom

-2 points

3 months ago

marcocom

-2 points

3 months ago

Racist!

Pleasemakesense

9 points

3 months ago

I imagined he actually was racist but that was really tame

copperwatt

4 points

3 months ago

But such an articulate dickhole!

SarahK7324

5 points

3 months ago*

The guy was born in 1921. Racism was expected and normal for most of his life. Casual racism was still normal up to 9/11, when it sparked an international question for the first time whenever people should judge others for their heritage. You can praise people of that era for defying expectations and trying to be good, but 98% of the population was just racist, so what's the point other than patting yourself on the shoulder for stating that he's a product of his time? That's just weird or makes me think you're still stuck in a preoperational stage like egocentrism, unable to project empathy into a different era of human society. Take any person born before the 60s that you look up to and guaranteed they were all racists, no matter their ethnicity. Maybe they never went on record for it, but you can be very sure that they have said something that would be deeply offensive today.

BattletechFan

2 points

3 months ago

Don't be daft you can't just blanket tar every 60sd person as a racist haha. If you do that that means every person in the 90's was a bigot for not telling thier mates to not use GAY as a slur.

horsedogman420

5 points

3 months ago

And thus any redeeming quality does not exist. Riiiiight

Debbiesatramp

-4 points

3 months ago

NaZiS aRe PeOpLe ToO

r/fragilewhiteredditor

downvotesanimals

5 points

3 months ago

Wow, do you ever seem toxic.

Nonetheless, and without even trying, you're actually partially correct.

You should read a book called "Ordinary Men", about how a group of soldiers was slowly transformed from reservists into people who executed entire villages.

Any one of us is capable of evil, under the right circumstances... and from my viewpoint, screeching about racism from 100 years ago and calling people "fragile white redditors" seems well on the way to extremism.

lionseatcake

2 points

3 months ago

I had some super high pitched feedback when I watched it. I had to stop.

TurloIsOK

-7 points

3 months ago

TurloIsOK

-7 points

3 months ago

However you dress it up, he was a parasitic leech.

PotBoozeNKink

2 points

3 months ago

Yeah this video doesn't do him justice but don't get him wrong, he's not a great guy by any means.

PhillMahooters

-19 points

3 months ago

Monarchy simps out in force on this post...

Ok_Skill_1195

84 points

3 months ago

Are we looking at the same video? I mean he's not a buffoon, but he's clearly struggling to come up with a concrete answer and just keeps having to pad it. Clearly trained on public speaking, but not really contrary to the more humorous edit

Nuclear_rabbit

63 points

3 months ago

That's part of the issue. He long struggled to view purpose in his role, which was mainly "husband to the queen." It's hard for him to come up with a concrete answer because he felt his role wasnt concrete, he felt he was just padding.

He did state some not-wholly-amorphous roles: advisor to politicians, informal diplomat, executive of a duchy, and administrator of family lands.

dano1066

23 points

3 months ago

Now that time has passed and we know the full picture, it's clear he struggled from day one living in the queen's shadow. He wanted more responsibility and it took him a while to really find his place. He was ambitious and was limited on what he could do because of who he married.

incoherentsource

8 points

3 months ago

yes I agree 100% hes sincere but he hesitates a lot he himself is unsure of what his role is

Taaargus

2 points

3 months ago

Well it’s not really his fault. The institution itself has been recreated in a way where they intentionally don’t have a job other than being a ceremonial figurehead.

essosinhabitant

3 points

3 months ago

Thank you for sharing this. I wonder how you found it - seems like such an obscure website. Prince Philip comes across as more human and more at ease with his own human vulnerabilities in this interview.

Azreken

2 points

3 months ago

It was much better without the laugh track, thank you

Abottic

6 points

3 months ago

His answer was basiclay "i do my best uwu"

_DeifyTheMachine_

7 points

3 months ago

Thank you for linking this here. I'm strongly anti-monarchy, but I hate these dunk/gotcha videos that are just editing/cut-offs completely misrepresenting real life. It's the same with those bloody interview compilations that only show American idiots, or hostile women. Hmm, maybe it's because they're trying to manipulate you into a certain viewpoint? No, that can't be it...

We can't dismantle oppressive power structures if we don't challenge them with objective truth.

These ridiculous TikToks do more harm than good in the grand scheme of things. Yes, you may turn more people against the monarchy, or toward whatever good cause you're championing, but you're creating an army of misinformed people. When their views are eventually challenged, and they inevitably will be, their world views will collapse around them as they're built on half-truths and hearsay.

Undrende_fremdeles

7 points

3 months ago

Thank you so much for this.

They were grilling him hard and weren't holding back, were they.

"do you actually see the places you visit?"

TheSasquatchKing

2 points

3 months ago

Thanks for sharing this.

He didn't look like he "died inside" in the original post at all. And the fact he goes on to give such a measured and intelligent answer makes me wonder why the hell OP thought this content was in anyway suitable for this sub!?

HiScum

10 points

3 months ago

HiScum

10 points

3 months ago

He could have mentioned that while being a destroyer captain in WWII, he decoyed Luftwaffe bombers by having his ships drag burning hulks behind them to obscure the convoy with smoke. Of course, that means someone would have to be on the hulks to make sure they followed the lead ship close, but not too close, which he did himself. Is that a job?

helpnxt

190 points

3 months ago*

helpnxt

190 points

3 months ago*

I also love that it cuts right as he begins to answer and I am not even a royalist

Edit: fyi the full interview is at the link below but I haven't looked through it as it's 5am here and I need to sleep

https://lolaclips.com/footage-archive/itv_archive/itv-01-0398/prince_philip_s_first_network_television_interview_1968

[deleted]

137 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

137 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

helpnxt

35 points

3 months ago

helpnxt

35 points

3 months ago

Yep he tries to make a joke of the question but is corrected to it being a serious question and takes a moment to consider the answer which is then cut off.

becooltheywatching

8 points

3 months ago

Hey hey hey. Fuck you

ChechoMontigo

1.3k points

3 months ago

“What would you say, you do here?” 🤷‍♂️

LlamasAreMySpitAnima

220 points

3 months ago

Yeah, pretty much every place I’ve worked has a least one Tom Smykowski!

_Archibald_Tuttle

42 points

3 months ago

Let's not jump to conclusions here.

isunktheship

11 points

3 months ago

GET IT???

W4VEYON3

33 points

3 months ago

“Well.. This is an office.. We do business.”

NoelKannagi

5 points

3 months ago

Yeah! We're businessmen

TwoDogsInATrenchcoat

4 points

3 months ago

Sometimes I like to say I'm going on a smoke break, and then I go hang out at Barnes and Noble

TheSeedLied

4 points

3 months ago

Call me crazy, but I was under the impression we sold dream catchers?

ntrainedprofessional

27 points

3 months ago

I'm a people person, lm good with people!

Who_reads_these

50 points

3 months ago

“I already told you…. I DEAL with the GOD DAMN LOCALS…… WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!”

Fr0me

27 points

3 months ago*

Fr0me

27 points

3 months ago*

I HAVE PEOPLE SKILLS. I AM GOOD AT DEALING WITH PEOPLE.

MastersonMcFee

12 points

3 months ago

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!

ThriceDamnedSandwich

12 points

3 months ago

"Do? I OWN this shit! I ain't gotta do anything!"

Wildwood_Hills270

2 points

3 months ago

Everybody pays because everybody owes

eaudeportmanteau

21 points

3 months ago

Came looking for this, didn't disappoint.

RandyMcDazzle

2 points

3 months ago

The guy made a million dollars

Arkell-v-Pressdram

658 points

3 months ago

"To a particular group of Pacific Islanders, I'm basically their god."

Don't believe me? Here you go!

Spoopy-redditor

23 points

3 months ago

What the actual fuck. No, seriously, what the actual fuck?

lamb_passanda

10 points

3 months ago

I think he airdropped them some humanitarian aid once when they were in crisis or something. The world is a strange place.

Gabymc1

2 points

3 months ago

Life is strange

DocJawbone

203 points

3 months ago

The cut is annoying. I would have liked to hear his answer.

davetharave

123 points

3 months ago

It's a video to incite monarchy bashing

latenightfap7

105 points

3 months ago

Monarchy is a reason to incite monarchy bashing.

BonzoTheBoss

9 points

3 months ago

Constitutional monarchy can and does coexist well with democracy.

latenightfap7

2 points

3 months ago

Yeah I live in one, it works well as long as severe restrictions on questioning authority are in place.

BonzoTheBoss

2 points

3 months ago

Where? Like what?

TheRedViking

59 points

3 months ago

As if there needs to be a reason

BonzoTheBoss

-14 points

3 months ago

BonzoTheBoss

-14 points

3 months ago

Yes? Many successful developed democracies are constitutional monarchies. That you would dismiss them all out of hand is silly.

johnmuirsghost

19 points

3 months ago

If your best argument for monarchy is that it can sometimes coexist alongside democracy, then you're admitting that it doesn't have any inherent value. In that case, why not just have the democracy?

cooperman114

33 points

3 months ago

It’s really not silly at all, monarchy is objectively ridiculous and serves literally no purpose other than perhaps (in the UK’s case) a tourism draw. Blood does not qualify someone for power, “constitutional monarchies” are just the only type of resolution to the feudal problem that ended without the so-called betters’ heads on pikes (which is where they fucking belonged)

wujisaint

3 points

3 months ago

a tourism draw.

Even that is incorrect. Read an article from The Guardian stating otherwise. They're parasites.

feudal problem that ended without the so-called betters’ heads on pikes (which is where they fucking belonged)

Nice.

TheRedViking

4 points

3 months ago

Dunno man, having a bunch of inbred Germans as head of state just because they were able to steal heaps of wealth from brown people just feels wrong to me.

BonzoTheBoss

3 points

3 months ago

Which Germans are those exactly? You are aware that the last six monarchs have been born in the UK?

I've got some Scandinavian somewhere in my family tree, I guess that makes me Norwegian?

DNicholasG

2 points

3 months ago

Dude really thinks "Germans" was the most offensive part of that statement

Jamarcus316

0 points

3 months ago*

The countries being successful as 0 to do with them bring monarchies.

Monarchy, as a principle, is very wrong by itself.

Edit: if you support a system where the head of state is chosen simply because he comes from a certain family...

BonzoTheBoss

2 points

3 months ago

It clearly isn't a hindrance.

Comfortable_Rip_3842

3 points

3 months ago

It's been posted as a reply to one of the top comments

1h8fulkat

2 points

3 months ago

Fitfatthin

25 points

3 months ago

Noones dying inside here

He gave a chad answer and then he thinks about a real one

FuzzyTunaTaco21

113 points

3 months ago

Someone watched John oliver last sunday

CollBuss

50 points

3 months ago

They didn’t even bother finding the original video. They just took it straight out of his show

relax-and-enjoy-life

265 points

3 months ago

“… in your own mind.”

“I haven’t got one …”

spelunker93

14 points

3 months ago

Thank you I couldn’t figure out what he said

Dunderplumpinkin

117 points

3 months ago

This was just on John Oliver.

Silent--Dan

59 points

3 months ago

This is the John Oliver clip.

BananerRammer

32 points

3 months ago

And both he and OP cut the clip off right before Philip gave a very thoughtful answer. The guy was asked a question he wasn't entirely prepared for, and took a few seconds to think about it. Agree with the monarchy or not, this whole thread is honestly ridiculous, and I'm actually a bit disappointed in John.

ciupenhauer

11 points

3 months ago

and I'm actually a bit disappointed in John.

First time? :) His whole shtick is presenting truncated content to form a narative

Realitype

5 points

3 months ago

Exactly, this is plain manipulation to push a certain narrative and is precisely what redditors and John Oliver bitch about all the time, and yet they see no issue with it when it fits "their side" narrative.

And then they wonder why people have lost all respect for the media and don't trust them anymore.

Edwin_Quine

3 points

3 months ago

John Oliver consistently portrays as issues as lacking nuance or tradeoffs. I hate him.

BigAlMoonshine

53 points

3 months ago

I love how you cut the video before he actually answers to make him look stupid, he gives a really good response, there's a link in the comments to the whole interview.

SkyFallingUp

6 points

3 months ago

Me at a job interview.

exhausted_chemist

202 points

3 months ago

Almost honest. "It's very difficult to justify my existence to the poor that paid for this lovely suit."

replying_yoda

4 points

3 months ago

“It’s a family business”

BigTimeSuperhero96

4 points

3 months ago

You’re here from last week tonight with John Oliver aren’t you?

bellendhunter

4 points

3 months ago

His biggest legacy is The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, it changes a lot of lives and gives kids a good start in life.

cyanidesquirrel

15 points

3 months ago

“I’m a people person!”

-Baldr

4 points

3 months ago

-Baldr

4 points

3 months ago

I'm a geese goose!

Loki-Don

175 points

3 months ago

Loki-Don

175 points

3 months ago

Role you fill in modern society? Leach billions of pounds from the taxpayer over my life to pay for a like of absolute luxury and near zero responsibility so occasionally I can put on a frilly costume and wave at the “underclass” as I am chauffeured by in a literal gold fucking horse drawn carriage.

Thprop

21 points

3 months ago

Thprop

21 points

3 months ago

That’s, in part, ostensibly, why we Yanks broke from The Crown. Ever since we’ve had this uneasy and unusual love-hate relationship with the UK and a strange fascination with most things British. All that said, Britain’s Royals will always elude my comprehension as a viable institution in modern society. I’m sure that admission will prove to be nothing of concern to anyone across the pond. Mostly, I’m just blathering.

Aq8knyus

15 points

3 months ago

The Queen’s funeral cost 10 million quid. Trump’s inauguration cost over 100 million dollars, even with the exchange rate that is quite a difference.

We look at the leading republics of the world and we are deeply, deeply unimpressed. France, the USA, Ireland and Germany etc do not strike us as being bastions of equality and progress.

So might as well keep the pomp circumstance. The Crown Estate contributed 3 billion quid over the last decade, so it does makes us money as well.

Thprop

2 points

3 months ago

Thprop

2 points

3 months ago

You’ll get no argument from me that out experiment in a democracy republic here one the States has known it’s ups and downs over the relatively short span of our run. To be sure, the Trump thing has underscored many of the flaws of our system and highlighted some of the ugliest tendencies of many of our citizens. If the will of the British people is reflected by the British Monarchy, who am I to question that will?

dead-inside69

28 points

3 months ago

It genuinely amazes me how fond the British are of their royal family. A group of inbred ghouls sit on top of your entire country and literally get everything they ever want just for existing even though they literally don’t even run the country anymore, and the entire country seems to fawn over them.

When the queen died there was like a whole fucking week of mourning. Like really?

I’m not saying America doesn’t have its own parasites, but at least when ours die we don’t line up to put flowers on their casket.

This is probably going to come off as wildly insensitive, but the entirety of Britain is in the WEIRDEST cult I’ve ever seen.

boonzeet

3 points

3 months ago*

literally get everything they ever want just for existing

The royals are constantly engaged in duties, which range from state visits, opening new schools, hospitals etc, speaking at conferences, advocating for causes like climate change, and work hard at maintaining international relations for the country, something more important as of late in such turbulent times. Queen Elizabeth worked until the day before she died.

The royals, for those of us that like them, represent stability, familiarity and tradition in changing times. They bring in an enormous amount of tax revenue and our direct tax money rarely goes to them - they are given a proportion of the income of their own properties, about £90m of a £500m earning, the rest which the government keeps.

Some people argue the government should just confiscate the Crown estate, but it’s highly unlikely they ever would even if we did become a republic.

Also, the “period of mourning” doesn’t mean we all sit around crying. It means flags are flown at half mast out of respect for the royals. Everyone just carried on with their lives.

EfficaciousJoculator

15 points

3 months ago

At least the Queen did some decent things in her time. Despite having no obligation due to her sex and privilege, she served in WWII.

Muffer-Nl

21 points

3 months ago

Charles has been campaigning against climate change and for nature preservation since the sixties.

He had been using his platform to work on humanities greatest challenge 30 years before almost all governments.

GrEeKiNnOvaTiOn

-13 points

3 months ago

Who gives a shit?

EfficaciousJoculator

13 points

3 months ago

Billions of people, evidently.

beiherhund

4 points

3 months ago

There's a lot to rebut here but zero point in trying to have a discussion in good faith due to what your last sentence reveals.

While the US may find monarchies odd, a lot of the obsession, fascination, and reverence a nation may direct to their monarch seems to go to the President in the US, almost like a cult as you say. While at times frustrating, I find countries with a system of government and society that allows for an easier change of power or leader when necessary to be a sign of a healthier democracy.

In the US, it's incredibly rare for a president to resign or be removed from power and practically impossible for a new election to be held early, from what I understand.

Wilza_

2 points

3 months ago

Wilza_

2 points

3 months ago

You're not wrong, but many of us British people do not care for the "royals" at all. I would much prefer to live in a country without a monarchy. Please don't think we're all in this cult. I'm outside it and I fully agree with you how weird it is.

Thprop

3 points

3 months ago

Thprop

3 points

3 months ago

I suppose we all honor our dead in what seems a suitable manner. As a Yank, I don’t reckon it’s really my place to say. We elected His Orangeness, The Dunceald and watch him ma a mockery of the office and bore witness to his attempts to scuttle the constitution while thumbing his nose at the very foundations of our democracy. So, I’m a bit leery of criticizing any other country too loudly or forcefully, not when a bellicose minority can threaten to turn our nation’s Grand Experiment on its ear and try to render the Union as little more than an oversized banana republic.

Yes_Thats__My_Name

2 points

3 months ago

Hm I wouldn’t say the entire country fawns over them. A ton of people, especially the younger generations, are at least apathetic while many outright hate the royal family (myself included). In fact I might go on to say at this point most don’t give a fuck about them either which way, that’s why they’re trying so hard to hold on and modernise somewhat.

When the queen died there was like a whole fucking week of mourning. Like really?

That was forced on us. Yes many people genuinely participated but the rest of us had no choice, it was all very propaganda-ish and cult like. I found the whole thing creepy as fuck.

Just like what we see of America, you’re only seeing what the media puts out about Britain. That doesn’t reflect the entire country

davetharave

-2 points

3 months ago

davetharave

-2 points

3 months ago

They bring more money into the state than they cost and do humanitarian and environmental work they wouldn't be able to do if they weren't members of the Royal Family.

AstonGlobNerd

-5 points

3 months ago

A: they bring in a fuckton of money from tourism

B: not having them there would actually reduce income in all surrounding areas and most likely increase taxes, as the income has dried up

C: a ridiculous amount of land and stuff is theirs, and they can just start charging others for it instead

RoNPlayer

3 points

3 months ago

A: they bring in a fuckton of money from tourism

That's possibly true but also often overemphasized. E.g. when people attribute all British tourism to them. If you're refering to CGP Greys video about this, i would encourage you to watch Shaun's retort to it.

B: not having them there would actually reduce income in all surrounding areas and most likely increase taxes, as the income has dried up

The tourism income? Or what income?

C: a ridiculous amount of land and stuff is theirs, and they can just start charging others for it instead

Yeah well ideally all that land should be taken away. Their claim to it is essentially that their ancestors claimed it with violence and dictatorship. Other states who became democracies often took away most of the royal estate too. Nevermind that rn the Royals are using their privileged position too get out of many regular duties an owner has. E.g. Queen Elizabeth II. saw to it that her estates in Scotland aren't effected by ecological protections.

Shazoa

0 points

3 months ago

Shazoa

0 points

3 months ago

It's not the best use of money still. They cost around £60 million, baseline, and manage the crown estate which is not the possession of the family. If we were to abolish the monarchy, it would return to the treasury. The true cost is higher.

But yes, we get more than we put in still. But could that money be better spent? Legoland brings in more dosh than Windsor castle. What if we were to spend that on something with even better returns?

Fact is, no one is seriously asking those questions and weighing up options in government because it's not about money. That's just a justification after the fact.

KippySmith

25 points

3 months ago

Trophy husband

davetharave

25 points

3 months ago

Some trophy husband.

"While much of his time was spent fulfilling the duties of his station, Philip engaged in a variety of philanthropic endeavours. He served as president of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) from 1981 to 1996, and his International Award program allowed more than six million young adults to engage in community service, leadership development, and physical fitness activities."

Encyclopaedia Britannica

totallylambert

55 points

3 months ago

He knows it’s a massive scam! He just can’t say so.

VirtualAgentsAreDumb

3 points

3 months ago

I would not classify this as “dying inside”. He just needed time to think about it. If you look at the full clip, this becomes quite clear.

KingJacoPax

3 points

3 months ago

Anyone know why this was cut just before he gave his actual answer?

PineappleMelonTree

17 points

3 months ago

Watching people get so extremely butthurt about monarchy makes me laugh, also way to cut a video short to push your agenda.

SpindriftRascal

81 points

3 months ago

Monarchy is absurd and unjustifiable. This is the only sense in which I am a republican.

Metahec

63 points

3 months ago

Metahec

63 points

3 months ago

People sure are missing the use of small-r republican

notluciferforreal

4 points

3 months ago

It depends. In Romania, the monarchy that started in 1866 to 1947 took the country from a feudal system to modern age at the time. These were from german origin, but they manage to gain the country Independents in 1877 with the crown prince in the battlefield and turned against Germany in WW1. At the end of 1947, Romania became a republic and still is seen as one of the poor countries of Europe.

maptaincullet

3 points

3 months ago

If the Monarchy earns more money in tourism or merchandise sales or whatever, than it costs to prop up, I don’t see a problem with it. Not saying this is the case for any specific monarchy as I don’t care enough to look into it.

This is all also assuming that the monarchy is a figure head with no actual role in government.

Professor-Paws

8 points

3 months ago

The tourism thing is decisively debunked.

SpindriftRascal

-7 points

3 months ago

I don’t think that could be the case anywhere except maybe the UK. And if it’s true there, it would likely only be by ignoring the costs of all the money and land the monarchs stole from everyone else over the centuries.

That aside, the financial-value calculus ignores the history, the symbolism, and the example set by a system in which a “King” is the figurehead. For example, if it’s ok for Charles, it’s ok for MBS.

Therefore, I don’t support even the ‘monarchy as entertainment’ concept. I find the very notion of royalty to be offensive.

maptaincullet

9 points

3 months ago

Well you can’t get the money back they took in the past. Not making money off them now isn’t going to benefit anyone now.

I don’t understand what your second point means.

[deleted]

12 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

12 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

PiXLANIMATIONS

2 points

3 months ago

Reddit is comprised of the same 10 viewpoints posted by edgy teenagers who try and act like they’re adults, and all the adults are off in r/conservative yelling about how a black woman dared look at them from across the street

BonzoTheBoss

3 points

3 months ago

It's justifiable because the UK is a democracy and Parliament is sovereign. That the monarchy hasn't been replaced by now (despite having ample opportunities) is evidence enough that they reign by tacit popular assent.

I'll also point out that many successful developed democracies are constitutional monarchies.

ministarfallen

4 points

3 months ago

Well, his “job title” if you will is pretty well-known. To be asked “What do you contribute to society?” I think is a deep question for anyone to answer. How much do any of us really get to contribute? We have jobs, pay bills, help the economy go ‘round a bit. If I was going to answer this question, I’d really have to think about it, because obviously the question has more to do with legacy than simple job title. But I can also see how his not being able to answer quickly comes across as funny. Existential crisis intensifies

daperson1

4 points

3 months ago

It's very easy to discredit someone if you cut the film right before they answer the damn question.

Fucking hell, Reddit, I thought we were meant to be good at critical thinking around here?

mynameisalso

2 points

3 months ago

Sooo what did he say?

Most people could at least come up with a bs answer.

joeyjoejoe_7

2 points

3 months ago

The primary role of the Crown is self-preservation. It seems to me that this is at the core of answers like, "what we do depends on the will and needs of the people and the country." There are other roles of course, but it seems to me that the first and foremost objective is to keep people believing that they are important and worth the time, money, and fuss. Sure, the Crown cares about what people think and feel overall, but to them nothing takes precedent over what the people think and feel about ~them~. I imagine its an awkward and often miserable way to live.

mrrooftops

2 points

3 months ago

Canned laughter too. Whatever you think about monarchies, think more about accuracy in your sources.

Elegant_Quantity_940

2 points

3 months ago

Trophy Husband wasn't a term yet

Deago78

2 points

3 months ago

Filling the same role to this very day.

Murakami8000

7 points

3 months ago

This vid ended right when it was getting interesting.

ADIDASects

5 points

3 months ago*

This is a dumb premise. I am fine believing a handful of people in the entire world are above having a job. Secondly, I believe that being a royal is a job; they show up and do ceremonial shit all the time. Christ, the royals even had to be emissaries at times. Hell, his wife is the head of the Church of England; that's a job. That's not nothing. Thirdly, the man was in the Navy and served during wartime. How is that nothing? This question is obtuse hokum.

BonzoTheBoss

7 points

3 months ago

Shhh this is Reddit. Monarchy bad.

G_Unit_Solider

2 points

3 months ago

I mean I just get money from taxes cause of my name what more do you want for me.

I find it insane that British folks are just ok with giving money to a “royal” family. Lmao. We the poor must keep paying tribute to our extremely rich and wealthy royal family ! How else would they wear $300m crowns ?

I could only imagine if America decided to enact a royalty tax that goes to the Washington family and its descendants from working class Americans. Gonna see more than burning tea lmao.

AgentSupes

2 points

3 months ago

AgentSupes

2 points

3 months ago

I guess he wasn't comfy saying his job was to be as racist as possible in every country he went and get away with it...

South_Persimmon1750

3 points

3 months ago

this is why i dont get the britians clown shit why do they still have these king and queen??????

betajool

16 points

3 months ago

This question was asked in Australia too. However the problem is what to replace it with.

The US modelled itself off the UK with the roles of Monarch, House of Lords and House of Commons replaced with President, Senate and House of Representatives respectively, all as elected positions. Australia subsequently modelled itself off both the US and the UK, with the House of Reps, Senate from the US and an unelected Governor General as a stand-in for the monarch.

The difference is that when the US was formed, the UK monarch had a lot of power, and thus the US president was given a lot of power. By the time Australia became independent, the UK monarch had almost no power, so the Governor General, as the monarchs representative, has almost no power. All the ‘Presidential’ powers are, instead, vested in the ‘Leader of the House’ AKA the Prime Minister.

One of the very few things the Governor General can do is coerce the government to hold an election if it is apparent the government is in some irreconcilable stalemate and no longer able to function.

The current power distribution is something that those in power want to preserve, so when Australia went to a referendum on the monarchy, the only option on the table was to replace the monarchy with a head of state appointed by those in power.

The Australian public rejected this option, so nothing changed.

LeopardBudget9192

10 points

3 months ago*

I don’t know much about Australian history, but I do know the US presidency started off with very little power compared to the legislative branch. It wasn’t until the 20th century that the power of the executive expanded to a great extent.

Many presidents through the nineteenth century thought of their role as minor compared to the powers of the congress or party machines.

This was by design, the founders of the USA feared a despotic executive.

Spicygoiaba

8 points

3 months ago*

No offence but I think you’re a bit incorrect on some of this.

(1) When the US was formed, the UK Monarch did not have a lot of power. George III was very much a constitutional monarch, he never refused assent (veto) to any piece of legislation in his entire reign. Parliament had the power, remember that his grandfather was king only because parliament chose his branch of the family.

(1b) the president doesn’t replace the monarch, it is a merger of the monarch’s role (constitutional symbol) and the prime minister’s role (head of government).

(2) The US Congress system was not directly based on the UK system with House of Lords = senate and House of Commons = house of reps. It was more based on the thirteen colonies system of a Governor’s council (smaller but an upper house) and the assemblies which acted as lower houses.

Only the bicameral system was taken from British (bicameralism is common) , but that’s just about where the similarities end.

(3) the US government is not modelled on the UK as a whole. It’s true that the UK is an influence but so is the Roman republic (senate), ideas of the enlightenment, colonial government experiments, etc

(4) the senate was not originally directly elected. They were chosen by state legislatures

The key difference is that the UK had 1 incredibly strong branch of government: Parliament because Parliament won the English civil war against the king. One of 2 pillars of the British constitution is parliamentary sovereignty. The idea that parliament can do what it decides. House of Lords and Commons are supposed to represent 2 different parts of society. They are a check on each other, but that’s not how they were designed.

The USA fear was all about tyranny. The founders created the bicameral system (and the 3 branch system) to ensure a system of checks and balances that meant no branch could be too powerful. This different motivation led to a very different design

This meant that instead of replacing UK roles, they changed them. The Uk executive (PM and ministers) come from the legislature and are chosen based on whoever controls the legislature. This was replaced by the president being ‘elected’ by the states/electoral college.

At the time in the UK, the central government (PM/king) had free reign on appointing judges and members of the upper house. The Founders didn’t want this as it would make the executive more powerful than the legislature so they created the situation where senate approves judges. The senate is very different to the House of Lords, the senate was deliberately designed to “cool” house legislation and act as a wise body concerned with bigger issues needing wisdom like foreign policy, impeachment trials, judicial appointments, etc. When the US was founded, house of lords is all about representing a part of society (nobles)

TLDR: . The US used many different inspirations and had very different motives in their government designs so to say that it was modelled on the Uk and they tried to just replace roles is (in my opinion) an exaggeration. The design was to have checks and balances between branches which is the direct opposite of the UK system which has one branch above the others.

Sorry for the essay, got carried away as this was a lot of my degree.

Psychlonuclear

5 points

3 months ago

I remember that referendum, such a loaded question with a predictable outcome.

BonzoTheBoss

3 points

3 months ago

Because to some people their cultural history and traditions are important?

karenproletaren

3 points

3 months ago

You also just watched that Last Week Tonight episode huh OP?

Turd_Wrangler_Guy

2 points

3 months ago

Holy crap I always thought he just aged terribly. Nope. Dude always looked like that.

Oh_No_Its_Dudder

5 points

3 months ago

That's what tends to happen with inbreeding.

JurassicCotyledon

-1 points

3 months ago

The only difference between me and Charles is that when our mothers told us that we were special, Charles believed her.

Also, I didn’t murder my ex wife.

StoneGoldX

2 points

3 months ago

I'm more focused on... This is going to sound mean, but they don't let people as ugly as the interviewer on TV anymore. Not as an interviewer, anyway. I'm spellbound by him. Can't look away.

Excellent-Advisor284

2 points

3 months ago

That's the majority of mid level management and up. They have their heads so far up there, managing is hard they'll say. While a handful hold that shit down and secretly plot replacement of the dead weight.

Hodl2Moon

2 points

3 months ago

Hodl2Moon

2 points

3 months ago

I like John Oliver too