The Royal Edge: Why Monarchs Are More Responsible With Power

Power inevitably leads to corruption...Or that is what we have always been told. In this video I delve into the topic of the dynamics of power, specifically how they differentiate depending on what kind of Leader is in power. I make the argument that Monarchs are, in almost every scenario, more responsible with wielding and holding power than typical Dictators or Presidents. Join me in uncovering the enigmatic truths behind royal power and its impact on governance.

0:00 - Introduction
2:41 - The Theory Of Power
7:33 - Difference Of Execution
14:50 - The Responsibility Of Power
22:01 - Conclusion

------------------
Sources Used:

"The Kaiser and his Times" by Michael Balfour

"The Russian Revolution" by Sean McMeekin

"On Power: The Natural History of Its Growth" by Bertrand de Jouvenel

------------------
Music used:

Ergo Phizmiz - Open Your Head

------------------

Tags:

history documentary, ancient history, ancient rome, power, monarchism, monarchy, dictatorship, germany, joseph stalin, stalin, mao zedong, mao, lavader, romania, yugoslavia, history, politics, republic, republicanism, queen elizabeth ii, elizabeth ii, royal family, the royal family, charles iii, king charles iii

[DjDeadpig]

Just a reminder that voting for someone doesn’t dictate how they’ll act after they’ve been voted in.

[Somewhat-Evil]

Monarchs "own" their office whereas Presidents are tenants inhabiting an office. Monarchs must think long term because in 10 years they'll still be the one in office. A president can follow policies that reap short term gains and leave the problems it creates for the next guy or the one after him to deal with.

[pedrocastro]

An interesting monarchy to look at is the Brazilian one. The emperor could dissolve the parlament but it was never commited and people could openly attack the goverment but emperor Pedro II encouraged that saying that "Propaganda is fougth with more propaganda" and was generaly speaking an well beloved figure in the Empire

But the moment the country turned into an Republic it was a military dictatorship, that became an oligarchy later on, wich was really corrupt and opressive unlike the Emperor

[wildfiregaming]

10:24
In 1920 the german monarchy had been abolished, and replaced with the Weimar republic .
Wilhelm had gone into exile a year earlier.

[Saffi____]

I've heard some people bring up the Bourbon monarchy, the one that was destroyed during the French Revolution, as an example of a failed or corrupt monarchy, however, I have always seen it as that King Louis simply wasn't prepared for the role and much of the corruption came from the power hungry people around him and he was more influencible and his wife didn't have much influence. Those who brought this up usually forget that the "superior" republic system that came afterwards completely failed and led to the deaths of thousands of innocents. I also kinda find it funny that Napoleon who is famous for aiding in destoying the monarchy and being pro republic, yet he ended up creating a monarchy.

[ViriatoII]

Bad rulers loose the "mandate of heaven", as the Chinese say. It means more than loosing power, it might mean the extirpation of the kings bloodline, or at least big difficulties for the sons and grandsons. It is thus biologically smart to yield power responsibly, for the sake of your descendants

[charmyzard]

Power does not corrupt, it only reveals the true intentions of the wielder.

[cultural-and-historical]

The Carol II thing is BS. The guy basically played all the factions off each other until he could assume absolute power

[KamiTenchi]

"Power doesn't corrupt. It enables." - Omni-Man

[HawkThunder]

If a King attacks and supresses his own people, its like a man destroying his own Home.

[maroindefinitlyhuman]

Moral of the story: no matter the system, it's people who will always be the ones to create problems.

[lintrichards]

Another thing (somewhat unrelated though getting closer as time goes on...) is that in a Monarchy the ruler knows that they will have to deal with the consequences of their actions rather than being able to pawn it off on the next person voted into that position.

[ChristianCollins-uxzr]

The phrase “absolute power corrupts absolutely, ” is something of a truism, I think a more appropriate phrase would be something like “absolute power enables absolute corruption, ” power itself does not cause corruption, it’s the traits exposed that leads to corruption.
Also power, like most significant things can have an effect like a drug, so someone who’s never had power even if they spent their whole lives working to get it, will be overwhelmed and consumed by it since it would happen in one massive event, on the other hand monarchs from a young age are periodically exposed to power in ever increasing amounts (i.e. a prince or princess getting more responsibilities like working as either a military officer or government administrator) and since their exposure is more controlled and more importantly over a greater length of time they’re more likely to not let it consume their thinking may indeed even allow them the chance the gain wisdom that they could pass on to the next generation.

[ghostleemann]

a monarch is tied to the land, a dictator is tied to the government
if a monarch fails, they fail their family, their legacy, their people and their history.
if a dictator fails, they fail themselves, and their ambitions.

[Coolbeansoooo]

It must be realised, that this monarch must come from somewhere, a monarchy must start somehow, and it almost always comes from a form of dictator. So for a monarchy to even exists, a dictator type figure must initiate its procession.

[paladinslash]

Really puts in perspective the meritocracy meme as those who have the most “merit” were the ones who connived and back stabbed the best.

[osmaniesquijarosa]

The problem with Monarchy has never been corruption, but rather, the incompetence of incompetent monarchs.

[tcironbear]

I would recommend watching ccp Gray's "Rules for Rulers"

The reason the Kaiser tolerated the democratic socialists is because the wealth of his state arose from the people.

The king of Belgium is a perfect example of how a king will act reasonable when the people have leverage over him and monster when they don't.

[AryanSinghRathore-pige]

In India there is the ancient concept of Rajdharma, which means duties of kings according to it the king must always treat his people as his own family and must do anything which is in the interest of the kingdom and it's people (including war when necessary). This concept was taught to princes by their gurus, for their entire youth. This practice led to the belief among the masses that a king is the incarnation of God Vishnu (lord and preserver of the world).

[Hardistul]

By far, the best system was employed by the Romans, namely the Julio-Claudian and the Nerva–Antonine dynasties. The ruling Emperor would adopt what he believed to be his most able general or statesman as his son and named his as successor. This avoided the possible issues that would occur if the biological sons grew up spoiled and/nor not in touch with reality (as it happed rather often in bloodline dynasties).