American Reacts To: The Difference between the UK, Great Britain & England Explained

Don't forget to LIKE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE :)

--- Send mail and snacks to ---
2500 Summer Lee Drive #147
Rockwall, TX 75032

We do not own the video or music we reacted to.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

[Bpat]

The advantage of a constitutional monarchy is knowing who our future Head of State is going to be is that we know these people and their personalities. It gives a sense of stability and confidence in the future of the country. That is why the UK (and other countries that have constitutional monarchies) to be the most stable countries in the world. And the stability is what attracts people and investment to the U.K.

In a Republic, you don’t know who you are going to get. That person could end up being a future Hitler or Putin or a Hugo Chavez. Britain tried being a Republic with Cromwell who beheaded the King and people were miserable and more unhappy than when they had a King. In the end, the people rose up and beheaded Cromwell and invited the exiled son of the beheaded King to return and take the throne again.

I once read this following paragraph somewhere.

We should all bear in mind the constitutional safeguards inherent in the Monarchy.
While the Monarch occupies the highest office of state, no one can take over the government.
While the Monarch is the head of law, no politician can take over the courts.
While the Monarch is untimely in command of the Armed Forces, no would-be dictator can take over the Army.

The Monarch’s only power, in short, is to deny power to anyone else.

I would much rather have someone I have seen growing up and know, (to some extent) who I feel can keep my country safe and secure than have an unknown person that who has the charm & charisma to spellbind people and entice his way into office but then ends up being someone like Hitler. 🤷🏽‍♀️

[MrBulky]

Just a few thoughts about monarchy.

Firstly, wasn't the issue in the Revolutionary War, "no taxation without representation"? At that time, Great Britain was a constitutional monarchy whose monarch's powers were severely limited and relied on the acquiescence of Parliament. If the American colonies had not been made to pay taxes to Britain (funds which contributed to their defence) or if they had sent elected representatives to the British Parliament with a say in taxation, things might have turned out differently, perhaps?

The US's ally in that war, France, was an absolute monarchy - a king with unlimited power! Strange friends! I believe George Washington was offered the position of king at the close of the War and refused it so there must have been some support for a continued monarchical system in American rebel colonies in the 1780s.

Am I not right in thinking that anyone running for the presidency in the US requires a vast amount of financial backing, not available to the man in the street?

Also, a number of your presidents were related by blood to one another: John Adams and John Quincy Adams, William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, the two George Bushes. Then we have presidential candidates related to former presidents such as Robert Kennedy, Edward Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

There's more than a suspicion of nepotism, I would suggest. How much "fairness" is in evidence there? Can anyone really become president as the "American Dream" might suggest?

Are the most recent presidents the best leaders available in your country or is something skewing everything - such as inherited wealth, power and influence? Is it the meritocracy it purports to be?

One advantage of a constitutional monarchy is that a figure who has no axe to grind and is above politics has some chance of being a unifying figure who can rally the nation in times good and bad.

If your head of state is the most powerful person in the land, holds controversial and divisive views and is elected by roughly only half the population, how can the other half who voted against him overcome their distaste in the cause of national unity?

Is it a coincidence that the countries of north-west Europe are mostly monarchies (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherland, Belgium, Luxembourg) and are also some of the most stable, long-lasting and prosperous?

[mikegarner]

Britain had a revolution against the crown before America we beheaded the king, but it wasn't much fun so the kings son was invited back from exile in main land Europe and Cromwell's head was put on a pike (this is just the jist of the story of the English civil war btw I've missed alot of facts out just an overview), even today the crown has an approval of 70%/80% and with the state of politicians these days I would hate them to have full control and power as the crown still keeps alot of powers including control of the military

[MrBulky]

Settlers in New England - the Pilgrim Fathers - in the early 17th Century did not make the journey across the Atlantic because of religious persecution: they came for the opposite reason - because they wanted their communities to live a stricter and more austere life in terms of religious observance and morals than was the norm in England at the time which they regarded as too lax and sinful. They were extreme puritans.

It may be that your own ancestors did make the journey for other reasons, of course. I think you said they were from Scotland.

[malcomflibbleghast]

"i just need to shut the hell up!" Finally! a yank who understands

[douglasmcclelland]

I understand your thoughts on a Monarchy and privilege of that group of people and all I can say is "it is what it is"... that's how a Monarchy works. Take away the rights of the inheritance of privilege within the Royal Family and the monarchy vanishes. I don't see how it can work any other way, thats what a monarchy is. They don't run the country any more and in that sense individuals can work their way up into the government to gain the rights and power to affect the country so there are opportunities there.

[isabellajones-hyde]

The most Stable countries in the world are monarchies, As Monarch they are above politics, so they don't divide nation on political issues. Germany has been a republic since 1918, so I don't get the German reference

[helenwood]

The advantage of a monarchy is that the monarch is trained all his/her life to do the job and has to leave something for their child to inherit. Your system is to let the mob pick their favourite crook and then give them infinite power and a limited time to steal all they can. Our way works better (and the monarch does absolutely run our country).

[PetesPopculture]

The problem with "getting rid of the monarchy" or something similar is how do you do it. Regardless of how they got their wealth and properties etc, you can't just take it off them. Same sort of thing with Billionairs/Millionairs, celebrity dynastys etc. They have more money than is fair but you can't do anything about it. At least most of their poperty has been opened up to the public and used for tourism, earning the UK billions of dollars. If you got rid of the monarchy, you'd lose all that.

[MrBulky]

If the Church of England is the state religion, what does that mean in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? As far as I am aware, its remit does not extend into those territories yet they are part of the "state". I have never seen a C of E cleric carry out any kind of state function outside of England.

The Queen's chaplains in Scotland are Church of Scotland ministers, are they not, belonging to a presbyterian church not affiliated in any way with the Church of England?

The Church of Wales (now known as the "Church in Wales") was disestablished in 1920.

The Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1869.

[Bill-]

I think one benefit of having a hereditary monarchy is that it brings heavy expectations on the monarch and these powers are Guaranteed so there isn’t a power hungry desire for more where as if the ruler was elected you are guaranteed to get those power hungry people try to be in power so I’d rather have a reluctant ruler than someone who really has their own selfish interests at heart

[johnkemp]

You occasionally see online questions about the Royal Family in which foreign sensation-seekers acting from ignorance and/or malice speculate on ‘power struggles’ within the family. This is clearly total twaddle because the line of succession is so clearly defined that I cannot see what such a struggle would be aiming at.

[Mugtree]

Absolutely support the monarchy 100%. Would hate a republic. No offence I look at the US government and I’m appalled. For us the monarchy works

[jackreilly]

Yeah great idea insulting the head of state of the brits on a reaction vid to Britain😂

[likklej]

Its England because we ain’t Taffs(Welsh) Jocks(Scottish) although quite a few of us have Irish ancestry again England was the first country to invent stuff, open Indian restaurants (Georgian times) and we invented football that you people call soccer. The legendary corner kick and offside was invented in Cambridge during a game on Parkers Peace many years ago. England is basically about lager beer sports and Indian curry.

[stuartfitch]

Trouble is your thinking is not wrong but it's just modern thinking.

The video hits the nail on the head. It's a 1000 year old monarchy system. 1000 years ago people didn't live how they do now. They wouldn't dare question things.

I'm not saying this is right, I'm just saying this is a consequence of history. It's part of history to which modern thinking can't really be applied without destroying the thing itself and the monarchy is the primary thing that binds the UK together.

It's like many people from the US will visit the UK and and say how wonderful all the old architecture is but then moan about their being two taps (faucets) instead of one mixer tap without realising this is a consequence of history, age, oldness. It's not my friend's faults, they just don't understand and find the whole long history thing hard to grasp.

I have to explain many thing to my friends from the US. Like they will think a house that's 20 years old in the US is an old house where here in the UK, my house that's 70 years old would be classed as fairly new by British people.

In these circumstances it may be nice to look at the old architecture but negative consequences are things like old fashioned plumbing systems are evident in many British homes because the homes are old, built of brick and stone which makes it both expensive and time consuming to adapt to new technologies whereas my friends in the US, after a tornado in which their wooden home is destroyed, just rebuild from scratch and when they do, they just incorporate all the new technologies into the construction of the new home.

I can explain that the church in my childhood village dates back to 1068 and my American friends will be amazed but they don't understand that means it's a cold, poorly heated place.

[pipercharms]

I mean I will say the majority of rich countries or well developed countries have rag to riches stories, plenty of average people if they figure out a good career path are able to make it big, just because its not the majority doesn't mean it doesn't happen, sure we have "it is what it is" attitudes but it doesn't mean that can't happen.

[aussietashreacts]

The royal family, where to start? The banter and riviarly between australia and great britian is very interesting. When it comes to sports, its ruthless. Watch some clips on "The Ashes"

[DaveBartlett]

"...and my Grandmother's name was 'King', so they're very white names" - What the hell is a "white name"? 'King'? What? As in 'Martin Luther King'? Americans above everyone should be aware that your surname stems from various places, and isn't always determined from who your parents were, or from what their surnames were!

[pipercharms]

We don't hate each other btw, people however do dislike how the UK goverment is running things, I honestly don't blame a lot of scottish people wanting to leave the UK with how shxt the UK goverment is. If a english, scottish, welsh and northern irish were in a room together we wouldn't care where each other came from.