Why Did Monarchies Disappear?

Where did the monarchy go? We were ruled by kings, queens, emperors, and empresses but today almost every monarchy disappeared. This video answers what happened to monarchies. And why don't modern monarchies have any power? We will also talk a bit about the rise of democracy.

Credits
- Research: Mrs Scope
- Animation: Petra Lilla Marjai
- Audio: Seb. Soto

Social Media

Sources - Websites

Sources - Books
F. Fukuyama (1992) The End of History and The Last Man. The Free Press. New York
J. J. Rousseau (2004) The Social Contract. Penguin Books. London
W. Doyle (2019) The French Revolution. Oxford University Press. Oxford
A Brief History Of Spain (2019) J. Black. Robinson. Cornwall
Blood and Iron (2022) K. Hoyer. The History Press. Cheltenham
K. Ghattas (2020) Black Wave. Wildfire. Headline. London
Smith, S. A. (2002) The Russian Revolution – A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. Oxford

Sources - Journal Articles
Franz Michael (1955). State and Society in Nineteenth-Century China. World Politics, 7, pp 419-433 doi:10.2307/2009000

[IAsimov]

"If you and your family go hungry, see how long YOU remain a law-abiding citizen."

I think that's a quote we should all keep in mind...

[alehaim]

Funnily enough today some autocracies have in practice become monarchies. North Korea is famous with its absolute Kim family dynasty in charge, while in Turkmenistan the first president had his own son become the leader

[UnbekannterSoldat]

Your takes on feudalism are interestingly accurate. Most people simplify it to the point where it looks like a centralised monarchy while in fact feudalism was the opposite.

[isakferm]

Fun thing about constitutional monarchies. Even though the monarchs of those countries who is constitutional the monarchs can have influence on the country’s politics.

For example: before ww1, Sweden had a debate over rearmament where the parliament did not want to lay the budget on the military. The people however wanted it, so around 50, 000 people marched in Stockholm and went to the king, Gustav V, and he came in support of the people. The government resigned in protest and the king appointed a new prime minister. This he could do by the laws of the time, but by 1917 the king would return this responsibility to back to the parliament. Later in ww2, when the Germans wanted transit rights for their troops through Sweden. The parliament was going to refuse, however the King said that he would abdicate if this wasn’t accepted, so the parliament yielded. And even during the pandemic of 2020, where the current King, Carl XVI Gustaf, said in an interview that he weren’t happy about the government’s responses to the pandemic. I am not joking the government issued new restrictions immediately after this, Swedish citizens could not go to bars and restaurants by 20:00 in the evening.

Another example, when Germany invaded Norway the germans demanded that the King appointed a pro-german prime minister (Vidkun Quisling) but the King refused but if the Norwegian government wanted otherwise he would abdicate. The government sided with him and declared war on Germany the next day.

So the point is, a monarch in a constitutional monarchy can have influence over politics even if they don’t have power officially. However, in my point of view, these monarchs must be very consequential and careful over when they do this, otherwise the entire monarchy can be jeopardized.

[ShadowSkryba]

I think Morroco is an interesting example of a semi-constitutional monarchy. The King still has noticeable political power unlike the modern European monarchs, but has to respect his limits and democractic rule as well. At least that's how I understand it.

[nathanlevesque]

If Marx was proven right by the wave of revolutions then he was also proven wrong by the wave of democratization that kept communism on the fringes in most places...that and also the part where every attempt of communism has either imploded, stagnated (while being just as sabotaged as democracies that do better), or reformed towards social democracy.

[kuroblakka]

28:22 I want to add one thing to this part about Atatürk. It might be misunderstood in this part that he made himself the president, but no, an election was held and he was chosen.
Edit: I also want to add that women were allowed to vote and to be elected since the first ever election held in Turkey.

[briancox]

Fun fact, the King of England has less personal money and is a net positive to the Treasury bottom line because one of his ancestors in the 17th or 18th century went bankrupt, signed the rents from all his lands over to Parliament, and received an allowance instead. The practice continues to this day. The rents have increased faster then the allowance, meaning money goes into the UK Treasury for having a king. But the titles to the land continue to pass from monarch to monarch, so if Charles III is ever deposed and becomes Charles Windsor, he'd be the richest land lord in the new British Republic.

[falconJB]

Another interesting thing about the lists of Absolute vs Constitutional Monarchies is that the Absolute Monarchies are land powers and the Constitutional Monarchies are naval powers.

[liorcooper]

i feel like learning about history scope guy is a story into and of itself. when i started watching his vids a few years back, i didn’t know his name or where he came from or basically anything about him other than that he made videos about history that were super interesting. i love getting to know him as time progresses; it feels like character development or something

[saravananb]

India is a democracy where each political party is monarchy. Each political party has a key family & the leaders can be selected only from the key families - Example- Gandhi Family, Shiv Sena, NCP, Jegan Reddy, DMK etc., So, in essence Monarchy still exists in many democracies. India is an apt example as it is the most populated democracy

[TheLordZorga]

A monarchy and a democracy are not mutually exclusive, a monarchy is valid as long as the head of state is a monarch, but just because the prime minister of a country is elected does not make the monarchy disappear. While true that the monarch in most constitutional monarchies does not exert any political influence, they are still monarchs. A lot of countries that have constitutional monarchs are proud of the fact that they manage to have both a democratic government, while also having a direct connection to their country’s past. It’s not fair to disregard the monarchy just because it also happens to be a democracy.

[Magaboon]

France history is quite interesting because, in one century they went from a monarchy to a democracy, then to an empire, then an absolute monarchy again, then a constitutional monarchy, then a democracy again, then a empire again, then, at last, a democracy

[technicallyme]

The treaty of Versailles was very strict on the Austrian empire. In the end Austria still wanted to be part of Germany fearing they would be conquered by someone larger if they weren't. They were not allowed by the allies

[wackychicken]

This was so worth the wait. Explained in a super easy to understand way without being condescending

[Edmonton-ofec]

18:12 uh… despite some interregnums, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth did have a monarch, the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, the last of whom was Stanislaus II Augustus, deposed by Russia, Austria and Prussia in 1795

[snipertraderGBS]

I never commented on this channel before but I have been a fan for about one year and I really am glad you finally uploaded! Video is very interesting 💪

[harrisonbailey]

When you ask "What happened to the Monarchy?" I can simply answer nothing happened. Countries that are constitutional monarchies are not pretending to have a monarch they literally do. The monarchy in many many countries still holds significant influence and is culturally intertwined with their country. For example, the monarch of England isn't just the Monarch of england, They are also the Head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Papua new guinea. Which means that they still hold influence. And although in name they do not have power of politics it has been proven in the past that they can heavily influence politics. And although monarch's may be above the law they cannot simply do whatever they want.

[livethefuture]

Your videos are some of the best in depth explanation of complex topics ive ever seen.
I especialy love how you go in depth into the background and context behind why such systems existed in the first place and how they came to be.
This is in my opinion how history should be taught. And you do it great justice in your videos. Kudos to you man! Youve earned a new subscriber from me!

[PedroRodriguez-ovxw]

Yes. With this huge snowstorm I need this video. Thank you for the upload!!