“Not My King”: A Qualitative Examination of Anti-Monarchist Movement via YouTube

Abstract

Periods of major technological transformation have historically coincided with the emergence of political movements. The current Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution, alongside the expansion of platform-based media, has reshaped how political dissent is produced, circulated, and normalized. This study examines contemporary anti-monarchist discourse associated with the UK-based Republic movement, focusing on how opposition to constitutional monarchy is articulated on YouTube within an environment shaped by profit-driven goals. Using NVivo 14, this qualitative study analyzes 62 publicly available YouTube videos published over a twelve-month period from January 2025 to January 2026, employing a hybrid inductive–deductive thematic analysis supported by Large Language Models. Findings identify three interrelated discursive themes: monarchy framed as legalized theft and extraction of public wealth; monarchical authority depicted as undemocratic and constitutionally manipulative; and the reproduction of colonial, elite, and mythic power through mediated narratives of tradition and national identity. Rather than evaluating the factual accuracy of anti-monarchist claims, the analysis treats this content as a mediated cultural practice through which broader socio-economic anxieties—such as inequality, democratic distrust, and fears of technological displacement—are symbolically organized. Digital platforms, such as the Republic Campaign YouTube channel, thus enable political discourse to gain visibility and resonance.

1. Introduction

Constitutional monarchy remains a distinctive and highly visible feature of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s (UK) political and cultural landscape. Beyond its formal constitutional role, the Crown operates as a powerful symbolic institution whose meanings are continuously produced and contested through media representation. Royal ceremonies, opening of parliament/throne speech, coronations, marriages, jubilees, funerals, scandals, and moments of succession attract sustained attention across legacy and digital media, embedding the monarchy within everyday mediated life and positioning it as a focal point for broader debates about national identity, legitimacy, and continuity (Vašková, 2025). Recent scholarship emphasizes that the monarchy’s endurance depends less on formal political power than on its capacity for symbolic reinvention within changing media environments (Palade, 2024).

Comparative and historical analyses often portray constitutional monarchies as stabilizing arrangements that coexist with democratic governance while remaining symbolically distinct from partisan politics (Jozaghi & Jozaghi, 2024; Jozaghi & Jozaghi, 2026; Markovich, 2022). This symbolic separation allows the Crown to serve as a repository of ideas about tradition, unity, and continuity during periods of social or political instability (Farmer, 2024; Obradović et al., 2025). Yet precisely because of this symbolic prominence, the monarchy also becomes an especially visible object of critique when trust in political, economic, and media institutions is strained. Periods of social and economic change have historically been associated with renewed critical attention toward symbolic institutions such as the monarchy. Taylor (2024) demonstrates that anti-monarchism in Britain has historically extended beyond formal republicanism, encompassing recurring cultural critiques that frame the monarchy as morally compromised, financially unjustifiable, or socially anachronistic. These critiques are intensified and amplified by profit-driven amplification during periods of social change and heightened media scrutiny.

Public opinion research suggests that while support for the monarchy remains substantial, contemporary digital media environments provide new spaces for critical and oppositional interpretations to be articulated and circulated (Eldridge, 2019; Hanusch & Löhmann, 2023; Castells, 2015). Rather than assuming the presence of misinformation, disinformation, or conspiracy theories, this study focuses on how such narratives are constructed and presented within specific media contexts. Palade (2024) argues that public support for the monarchy often functions in quasi-religious terms—sustained by ritual, mystique, and mediated reverence—while republican critiques are positioned as heretical challenges to an entrenched civic belief system. Digital platforms may play a role in reshaping how these competing interpretations are expressed, though their effects require empirical specification. Digital profit-driven artificial intelligence (AI) platforms and new profit-driven media disrupt this dynamic by weakening traditional media gatekeeping and amplifying dissenting frames that contest the monarchy’s symbolic authority and continuity (Eldridge, 2019; Hanusch & Löhmann, 2023; Castells, 2015; Jozaghi, 2026).

Shifts in media systems have long influenced how political ideas are communicated and interpreted (Castells, 2015; Jozaghi, 2025a). The Industrial Revolution, for example, expanded print culture and facilitated the diffusion of utopian, revolutionary, and conspiratorial ideologies grounded in amplification during periods of labour disruption and inequality (Jozaghi, 2025a, 2025b). While contemporary scholarship increasingly discusses the implications of emerging technologies, including AI-driven platforms, for media and communication, this study does not attempt to directly measure or operationalize these macro-level transformations. Instead, it treats the current media environment as a contextual backdrop rather than a primary explanatory variable.

In this context, profit-driven digital platforms—particularly YouTube—have become central arenas for political storytelling, affective narration, and symbolic scapegoating (Burgess & Green, 2018; Papacharissi, 2015; Jozaghi, 2026). Long-form commentary, influencer-style performances, and profit-driven incentives are examples of emotionally charged content that reframes complex structural transformations as the product of identifiable elites or institutions (Bucher, 2018; Ribeiro et al., 2020; Munger & Phillips, 2019; Gillespie, 2018). Such YouTube media channels often conceive an avenue with audiences where they “perceive themselves less as observers and more as participants […] rebels against [… existing political structures] […] while paradoxically portraying themselves as defenders of everyday people’s interests, free expression, and authentic democracy to generate more profits on the platforms or invite more donations” (Tuters & Burton, 2021, p. 759).

Within these platformed environments, symbolic institutions such as the monarchy can become focal points for critique and reinterpretation. Against this backdrop, the growing visibility of anti-monarchist and republican discourse on platforms commonly associated with social media in the UK and around the world warrants closer scholarly attention, not as evidence of broad societal transformation, but as an indicator of how platformed media reshape the cultural terrain of political dissent. Accordingly, this study adopts a more focused qualitative approach. Rather than attempting to explain macro-level phenomena such as technological displacement (e.g., Industrial or AI revolutions), misinformation, conspiracy theories, or the normalization of anti-monarchist discourse that previously helped bring the Bolsheviks and the Khominists to power, this study examines how a Republic-campaign-associated YouTube channel constructs and communicates anti-monarchist narratives (Jozaghi, 2025a, 2025b).

Focusing on the UK-based Republic campaign as a case study, this analysis examines how republican ideas are articulated, narrativized, and framed within YouTube content. Rather than evaluating the normative merits of monarchy or republicanism, the analysis treats anti-monarchist content as a mediated cultural practice shaped by storytelling techniques, framing strategies, and platform-specific communication styles. In doing so, the article offers a bounded, empirically grounded account of how anti-monarchist narratives are constructed in a specific digital context, avoiding broader causal claims that exceed the scope of the data.

1.1. The Republic Movement

The contemporary UK anti-monarchist movement is most visibly represented by the Republic campaign, which advocates abolishing the monarchy and establishing an elected head of state. Republic frames the monarchy as fundamentally incompatible with democratic accountability, political equality, and modern constitutional governance, arguing that inherited power undermines the principles of popular sovereignty, civic consent, and democracy (Republic, 2026a, 2026b). While republicanism has historically occupied a marginal position within British political culture, scholars aligned with the republican movement note that the absence of a codified constitution that has been obtained through an evolutionary legal process has allowed monarchical power—symbolic and procedural—to persist in ways that remain insulated from systematic democratic scrutiny and accountability (Bogdanor, 2023; Republic, 2026a, 2026b).

In contemporary digital media environments driven by generating profits and donations, Republic’s critique is articulated not only as a constitutional argument but also as a broader moral and political indictment of “elite” power. High-quality campaign materials and affiliated online content frequently portray the monarchy as emblematic of unearned privilege, financial opacity, and structural inequality, emphasizing public expenditure, secrecy, and ceremonial authority as evidence of democratic deficit and elitist rule (Republic, 2026a, 2026b). These frames resonate with longer-standing British anti-monarchist traditions that focus less on formal republican blueprints and more on exposing the symbolic and material injustices associated with hereditary rule.

Within platform-profit-driven media, particularly YouTube, these constitutional critiques are often embedded within affective and populist narratives that draw on profit goals and visibility reasoning. Complex socio-economic processes—such as economic precarity, political alienation, and technological displacement associated with the AI revolution—are often reduced to simplified causal explanations in which the monarchy serves as a visible and emotionally resonant scapegoat. In this framing, wrapped in a profit-driven visibility, the Crown is presented not merely as an outdated institution but as a protective mechanism for entrenched elites, shielded from democratic accountability (Republic, 2026a, 2026b; Bogdanor, 2023).

YouTube’s platform and other social media platforms further shape the visibility and appeal of these narratives. The movement of the Republic campaign, in the UK alone, has generated a royal following on social media, since joining YouTube in 2019, and many other platforms such as X, BlueSky, Meta [Instagram & Facebook], TikTok, podcast (Spotify), and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the movement’s X account. As the movement’s full-time CEO, Mr. Graham Smith, and many other full-time staff members at the Republic Campaign UK are paid salaries, the movement is a non-profit organization supported by donations and potentially by monetary incentives from social media companies for original content creation on their accounts.

Thus, Republic Campaign social media accounts driven by AI platforms, influencer-style performances, monetized outrage via hackling, and disruptive protest content incentivize frames that emphasize conflict, moral polarization, and symbolic transgression (Lewis, 2020; Bucher, 2018; Burgess & Green, 2018; Papacharissi, 2015). As a result, republican discourse that once circulated primarily within activist or intellectual circles through non-mainstream newspapers, pamphlets, books, brochure, and posters can now be amplified and propagated and normalized within unregulated digitally mediated publics—not through institutional endorsement and traditional media gatekeepers, but through repetition, emotional resonance, hackling at royal events, and on the ground story telling where observers view themselves more as the actual participants and less as observants (Lewis, 2020; Bucher, 2018; Burgess & Green, 2018; Papacharissi, 2015). The Republic’s strategic use of digital platforms reflects an effort to bypass traditional media gatekeepers and reframe constitutional debate in accessible, morally charged terms aligned with contemporary distrust of political institutions (Republic, 2026a, 2026b).

Examining the Republic campaign within this platformed context illustrates how contemporary anti-monarchist ideologies are culturally produced and sustained in the digital age through on-the-ground storytelling and visibility driven by profit. Rather than signalling an imminent constitutional rupture, the movement’s growing online visibility and growing profit generation as a non-profit corporation with an appointed CEO highlight how symbolic institutions such as the monarchy become focal points for broader anxieties during periods of rapid technological, economic, and political transformation, directly linked to polarization of mass and social media. In this sense, contemporary republicanism functions less as a narrowly procedural reform movement and more as a mediated cultural response to inequality, institutional opacity, and perceived democratic stagnation within the UK’s uncodified constitutional order, seeking to fundamentally revamp the political system (Bogdanor, 2023; Republic, 2026a).

Despite its contemporary digital articulation, anti-monarchism in the UK has deep historical roots, most notably emerging as a significant political force during the execution of Charles I in 1649, when republican ideals were explicitly institutionalized, albeit briefly (Worden, 2009; Scott, 2000). While such sentiments have since remained politically marginal, they have persisted as a recurring undercurrent within British political culture, resurfacing during periods of institutional crisis and social change (Taylor, 2024; Bogdanor, 2023). In the contemporary context, the Republic campaign represents one of the most organized and visible anti-monarchist movements in Europe and across Commonwealth nations, combining sustained offline activism with a strategically developed digital media presence that has become a source of inspiration for similar activism throughout the world (Republic, 2026a, 2026b; Jozaghi & Jozaghi, 2024; Jozaghi & Jozaghi, 2026). As such, the @RepublicCampaign YouTube channel provides a theoretically and empirically appropriate case for examining how anti-monarchist discourse is constructed, amplified, and situated within the broader field of republican and anti-monarchical narratives.

1.2. Research Rationale and Research Questions

While a substantial body of scholarship has examined the constitutional role, symbolic power, and media representation of the UK monarchy, little research has examined how opposition to the monarchy is articulated and normalized within contemporary profit-driven digital media environments (Vašková, 2025; Vashchenko, 2017). There remains a lack of qualitative research examining how marginal anti-monarchist movements mobilize platform-based media, such as YouTube, to construct meaning, articulate grievances, and frame the monarchy as a focal point for broader socio-economic and political discontent. This scholarly focus is especially salient in the current phase of the AI revolution, in which profit-driven platforms, influencer cultures, and monetized attention economies actively shape the production, circulation, and visibility of political narratives (Couldry & Hepp, 2018; Gillespie, 2018; van Dijck et al., 2018). Media and communication scholars emphasize that digital stands are not simply channels for conveying political ideas; they also shape and influence how those ideas are formed, interpreted, and circulated, amplifying and legitimizing them by privileging affective, polarizing, and narratively simplified content (Couldry & Hepp, 2018; Gillespie, 2018; Papacharissi, 2015; Jozaghi, 2026). Within this context, YouTube functions as a key site where alternative political discourses are constructed through emotional storytelling, selective evidence, and conspiratorial framing (Burgess & Green, 2018; Papacharissi, 2015; Jozaghi, 2026).

As economic uncertainty, fears of AI-driven displacement, and distrust in political institutions intensify, symbolic institutions such as the monarchy may be discursively positioned as convenient targets for exploitation in complex structural transformations. Understanding how these narratives are culturally produced—rather than evaluating their factual accuracy or constitutional feasibility—is essential for explaining how alternative political positions can acquire broader resonance within contemporary media ecosystems (Couldry & Hepp, 2018). Grounded in a cultural–sociological approach, this study treats anti-monarchist YouTube content as a form of mediated cultural practice shaped by platform logics, ideological repertoires, and shared meanings. Focusing on a YouTube channel associated with the Republic campaign, the analysis examines how opposition to the monarchy is narrativized, moralized, and emotionally framed. Guided by this rationale, the manuscript examines the following research inquiries:

• RQ1: How is the UK monarchy discursively represented within anti-monarchist YouTube content associated with the Republic movement?
• RQ2: What dominant themes, frames, and narrative strategies characterize anti-monarchist discourse on YouTube?

By addressing these questions, the study contributes a qualitative, culturally grounded account of how platformed media environments reshape political meaning, legitimacy, and dissent during periods of rapid technological and economic transformation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Source and Ethical Considerations

This qualitative inquiry draws on publicly available YouTube video content and thus did not need institutional ethics review, a statement of consent, or privacy protections. Consistent with established ethical guidance for digital media research, the analysis relied exclusively on openly accessible, publicly produced material that was not subject to access restrictions or privacy controls. No interactions occurred with content creators or audiences, and no personal data beyond what creators voluntarily disclosed in their videos was collected or analyzed (e.g., data and code availability statements are provided at the end of this study).

However, the use of identifiable public speech and transcripts in this study is grounded in established legal and ethical frameworks governing the research use of publicly available content. In both the UK and Canada, copyright exceptions permit limited use of protected material for research, criticism, and review under “fair dealing” provisions, provided use is proportionate and properly attributed. In Canada, fair dealing has been recognized as a user right and interpreted broadly for research purposes under the common law (CCH Canadian Ltd. v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004). Similarly, UK copyright law allows non-commercial research and criticism of publicly available works (Bently et al., 2022).

In this study, transcripts of publicly accessible YouTube content were used solely for qualitative analysis. Extracts were limited, contextualized, and did not substitute for the original material, consistent with fair dealing principles and digital research ethics (Townsend & Wallace, 2016; Zimmer, 2020). Visual material (e.g., screenshots) was handled more cautiously due to the potential for reproducing substantial portions of audiovisual works. Thus, screenshots were omitted in the manuscript or Appendix A, with preference given to descriptive or paraphrased representations to minimize copyright reproduction.

Ethically, all content analyzed was produced by public-facing actors for mass dissemination. Consistent with digital media research standards, such material is considered appropriate for analysis without anonymization if representation is accurate, contextualized, and non-exploitative (Markham & Buchanan, 2012; Franzke et al., 2020). The empirical focus of the study is a YouTube channel (@RepublicCampaign) associated with the UK-based anti-monarchist organization Republic, which advocates for the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of an elected head of state. The channel functions as a central digital communication outlet through which the movement disseminates commentary, political critique, and campaign messaging. YouTube was selected as the primary data source because of its central role in contemporary political communication, its capacity to amplify alternative narratives, and its importance in shaping political meaning within platformed media environments.

2.2. Data Collection

The dataset consisted of 62 videos (2 were excluded because they were event music performances) published on the Republic-associated YouTube channel over a continuous 12-month period from 2025 to January 2026, as shown in Appendix A.

All YouTube transcripts were downloaded, compiled into a Microsoft document, and later imported into qualitative software for analysis. This temporal window (8 January 2025 to 7 January 2026) was selected to capture routine, sustained patterns of content production rather than episodic spikes linked to major events. The specific download dates, video period, number of social media reactions (e.g., comments, likes, and viewership) and video links are provided in Appendix A. Such an approach allows for the examination of discursive regularities and narrative strategies as they develop over time, a practice commonly employed in qualitative media studies.

The YouTube account has generated over 365,128 views ($\overline{\mathrm{X}}$ = 5889.16; σ = 10,628.72), 24,599 likes ($\overline{\mathrm{X}}$ = 396.76; σ = 594.38), and 9368 comments ($\overline{\mathrm{X}}$ = 151.10; σ = 302.50) in a single year. The YouTube content examined has also generated over 28 h of video ($\overline{\mathrm{X}}$ = 23.83; σ = 27.36). All materials were in English. In addition to textual transcripts, videos were viewed in full to situate spoken content within its broader visual, tonal, and performative context. During viewing, analytic memos were maintained, and screenshots were captured to document recurring frames, symbolic references, and moments of heightened affect, supporting interpretive triangulation across data sources (Rodgers & Cowles, 1993).

All data were collected from the publicly accessible YouTube channel (@RepublicCampaign). Transcripts for long-form videos were obtained using YouTube’s built-in auto-generated captioning system and subsequently downloaded and compiled into datasets. Where necessary, transcripts were reviewed against the original video content to correct obvious transcription errors (e.g., misheard words, punctuation, or speaker segmentation), ensuring a reasonable level of textual accuracy for qualitative analysis. All transcripts were downloaded from January 2025 to January 2026, corresponding to the defined sampling period. Downloaded transcripts and associated metadata (e.g., video title, upload date, view counts) were stored in a structured digital archive using Microsoft Word and NVivo-compatible formats. Files were systematically organized by date and video title, with version control maintained through iterative coding stages. In addition to textual data, screenshots and analytical memos were archived alongside transcripts to preserve the content’s contextual, visual, and interpretive elements.

Short-form videos (e.g., YouTube Shorts), for which transcripts are not consistently available through the platform, were analyzed through repeated viewing and manual note-taking. In these cases, key spoken phrases, visual cues, and narrative elements were transcribed manually within analytic memos and incorporated into the coding framework. This approach ensured that short-form content was included in the analysis while maintaining consistency with the broader thematic coding strategy applied to long-form transcripts. All YouTube transcripts, memos, and visual references were imported into NVivo 14 (Lumivero, LLC, Denver, CO, USA), a widely used qualitative data analysis software for communication and media research to manage large textual datasets and support systematic coding (Wong, 2008). Moreover, GPT-based Large Language Models (LLMs) were utilized to detect and find qualitative themes since previous research has found that LLMs are comparable to human qualitative researchers, particularly for descriptive and pattern-level analysis (Yang et al., 2024; Castellanos et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2025; Mathis et al., 2024; Li et al., 2024).

2.3. Analytical Approach

This qualitative inquiry employed a hybrid content analysis combining inductive (data-driven) and deductive (theory-informed) coding strategies, along with LLMs (Jozaghi, 2026). LLMs were used to support initial data familiarization, pattern identification, and summarization, while all coding, theme development, and interpretation were conducted and verified (Jozaghi, 2026). This dual approach is particularly well-suited to analyzing political discourse in digital environments, where emergent meanings coexist with established ideological repertoires, and is combined with hours of video analysis to ensure accuracy and capture tone and emotional cues (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Franzosi et al., 2013; Jozaghi, 2026).

2.4. Inductive Coding

Inductive coding was conducted first to allow themes to rise directly from the data without impeding predefined analytical genres. Guided by grounded theory principles and Braun and Clarke’s (2006) 6-phase framework for thematic analysis, transcripts were examined line by line to identify recurring ideas, narrative patterns, emotional cues, and explanatory frames (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Initial codes were iteratively refined through constant comparison, leading to the development of higher-order thematic nodes, as shown in

Table 1. Preliminary inductive coding framework (intermediate stage).

Theme	Explanation	Examples
Structural Inequality	Monarchy constructs and legitimizes unequal social hierarchy and inherited privilege.	“You cannot be a democracy if you’re saying this bunch are more equal than the rest of us”; “They’re the top of the class system … unearned wealth, unearned power.”
Elitism	Monarchy is linked to concentrated wealth, land ownership, and economic extraction.	“The monarchy are like the world’s biggest landowners … what are you going to do with all that wealth?”; “Charles is now worth probably at least 2 billion pounds … where’s that come from?”
Colonial Legacy	Monarchy is constructed as historically and materially tied to colonialism and exploitation.	“A class of people who for 500 years have exploited and extracted wealth from ordinary people”; “The most unequal country … transplanted that inequality onto the world.”
Racial Power & Discrimination	Monarchy is associated with racial hierarchy, racism, and exclusion.	“It relies on … white supremacist heteropatriarchy”; “[monarchy is] about histories of racism […] it’s about all of these things it’s not just about one thing so for us [… They are] white supremacists.”
Lack of Accountability	Monarchy is framed as legally and politically unaccountable and protected from scrutiny.	“The monarchy has got the right to veto its own dissolution … how ridiculous is that?”; “An unaccountable corrupt institution.”
Media Control & Narrative Suppression	Media institutions are seen as reinforcing pro-monarchy narratives and limiting criticism.	“You don’t hear about that … you don’t hear about that”; “The media collude … to keep that system in place.”
Republicanism & Democratic Alternative	Monarchy should not be embedded in narratives of national identity and collective belonging.	“Surely, it’s the right of every child … to have that possibility [to be head of state]”; “We want to create a society for the people, by the people … to move away from that inherited structure of governance.”

.

Axial coding, which connects codes into higher-order categories, was utilized; this phase emphasized sensitivity to language, metaphor, and narrative construction, recognizing that political meaning on platforms such as YouTube is often communicated through affective storytelling, symbolic association, and moral framing rather than formal policy argumentation (Boyatzis, 1998; López, 2015).

2.5. Deductive Coding

Following inductive analysis, a deductive coding phase was undertaken to systematically examine discursive patterns identified in prior research on marginal political movements. NVivo’s Word Frequency Query was used to identify high-salience terms and recurring phrases across the dataset, a technique commonly employed to support deductive qualitative analysis (Feng & Behar-Horenstein, 2019; Jozaghi & VANDU, 2026). These results were interpreted alongside insights from repeated video viewing and memo writing, enabling the development of a theoretically informed coding template, as shown in

Table 2. Deductive coding framework (theory-informed, intermediate stage).

Theme	Explanation	Examples
Legalized Wealth Extraction	Monarchy is framed as extracting public wealth through legal privilege and financial exemption.	“It is now a half a billion pound [in terms of cost]”; “The Royals choose to avoid tax at every turn.”
Corruption Narrative	Monarchy is constructed as inherently corrupt, benefiting from privilege and a lack of accountability.	“The monarchy is … corrupt … undemocratic … bad”; “An unaccountable corrupt institution.”
The Elite Class structure reinforcers	Monarchy is positioned as an elite class structure opposed to ordinary people.	“The monarchy is symbolic of elitism, privilege, snobbery”; “They’re the top of the class system … unearned wealth.”
Undemocratic Constitutional Power	Monarchy is framed as incompatible with democracy and enabling centralized, unchecked power.	“Absolute power corrupts …”; “The crown centralizes power … at the expense of Parliament.”
Constitutional Fiction & Contradiction	Monarchy is portrayed as a contradictory institution (symbolic yet powerful), masking real authority.	“The monarch is powerless … but also somehow guards our democracy!?”; “It can’t be both.”
Colonial & Racial Power Continuity	Monarchy is framed as a continuation of colonial, racial, and imperial hierarchies.	“Histories of colonialism … racism … patriarchy … class inequality”; “White supremacists … at the very top … rule our country.”
Mythic Legitimacy & Narrative Control	Monarchy maintains power through myth, symbolism, and selective historical narratives.	“Telling a lie about this one family …”; “We forge narratives about ourselves … kings and queens are central.”
Mobilization & Anti-Monarchy Activism	Anti-monarchy discourse is linked to collective action, protest, and political mobilization.	“I heckled King Charles … You are not our king. You are not sovereign. You committed genocide against our people”; “We need change … through protest and the ballot box.”

.

Drawing on existing scholarship, nodes were created to capture patterned rhetorical strategies such as scapegoating, elite antagonism, moral polarization, and claims of systemic deception—discursive techniques often described as “coded vernacular” communication in political media research (López, 2015; Tuters & Burton, 2021). NVivo’s Node Explorer was used to manage and refine these deductive categories prior to re-coding the dataset (Wong, 2008).

2.6. LLM

The LLM-assisted component of the analysis was conducted using ChatGPT (GPT-5) based on the GPT-5.3 model (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA). The model was accessed via the ChatGPT web interface between January and February 2026, corresponding to the primary coding and data familiarization phases of the study. Default system settings were used, and no external plugins or fine-tuning procedures were applied. LLMs were employed during the early stages of analysis to support familiarization with the dataset, summarize transcripts, and identify preliminary patterns across a substantial volume of textual material. Transcripts were processed through an LLM to produce descriptive summaries and suggest potential thematic groupings. These outputs were not treated as definitive findings but rather as exploratory prompts to guide subsequent analysis, in line with emerging literature indicating that LLMs can complement—though not substitute—qualitative thematic approaches (Yang et al., 2024; Castellanos et al., 2025; Mathis et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2025).

To maintain analytical rigour, all LLM-generated outputs underwent systematic manual verification. Initially, suggested themes were compared directly against the original transcripts to ensure alignment with the data. Instances of inconsistency, oversimplification, or omission were identified and addressed through repeated reading and iterative coding. Additionally, LLM-generated summaries were evaluated alongside inductively developed codes within NVivo 14 to assess coherence and refine the emerging thematic structure. LLMs were employed for a limited set of clearly defined tasks, including: (1) generating descriptive summaries of individual transcripts; (2) identifying preliminary patterns and recurring concepts across multiple transcripts; and (3) suggesting candidate thematic groupings based on aggregated textual input. These tasks were designed to support early-stage familiarization and pattern recognition rather than formal coding or interpretation.

The role of LLMs within the analytical process was therefore limited and carefully controlled. Their use was confined to facilitating early-stage pattern recognition and did not extend to final coding decisions, theme construction, or interpretation. All coding was conducted manually within NVivo, and themes were developed through an iterative process combining inductive analysis with deductive engagement with relevant literature. This ensured that the analysis remained focused on the data while benefiting from the efficiency of LLM-assisted exploration. A standardized prompt structure was used to ensure consistency across interactions with the platform. Prompts typically included: (a) the full or partial transcript text and (b) explicit instructions such as “summarize key themes,” “identify recurring narrative patterns,” or “suggest preliminary thematic groupings without interpretation.” The model was not prompted to generate final conclusions, theoretical interpretations, or evaluative judgments.

All LLM outputs were treated as provisional and were systematically verified through manual review. First, generated summaries and suggested themes were cross-checked against the original transcripts to confirm accuracy and completeness. Second, instances of overgeneralization, omission, or misinterpretation were identified and corrected through iterative reading and manual coding within NVivo. Third, LLM-generated themes were compared with inductively derived codes to assess alignment and ensure that no analytic decisions were based solely on automated output.

To minimize reliance on automated outputs, several safeguards were implemented. An audit trail was maintained to document how LLM-generated content informed the analysis, and reflexive memoing was used to record interpretive decisions, underlying assumptions, and potential sources of bias. To ensure transparency, all LLM interactions—including prompts and corresponding outputs—were documented and retained as part of the study’s audit trail. These records were stored alongside transcripts, coding memos, and NVivo project files, enabling traceability from initial LLM-assisted exploration to final thematic interpretation. Only those outputs that were validated against the data and supported by manual coding were incorporated into the analytical process.

A code–recode procedure was also applied to enhance consistency across manually developed themes. Throughout the process, interpretive authority remained with the researcher, with LLMs functioning strictly as supportive tools. This bounded integration enhances transparency and reproducibility, illustrating how LLM-assisted techniques can be incorporated into qualitative workflows without compromising methodological rigour. The LLM-assisted component of the analysis was implemented using a structured and reproducible workflow. To ensure transparency, the prompt design, transcript processing logic, and output validation criteria were standardized and documented.

Transcripts were processed in segments (“chunks”) to accommodate model input limits and to preserve contextual coherence. Long-form transcripts were divided into units of approximately 1000–1500 words, typically corresponding to natural breaks in dialogue or topical shifts. Each segment was analyzed independently before cross-segment synthesis was conducted to identify recurring patterns. A consistent prompt template was used across all interactions. The base prompt structure was as follows:

“Read the following transcript segment. Identify recurring narrative patterns, key themes, and discursive frames. Do not evaluate accuracy or provide conclusions. Focus only on descriptive pattern identification.”

Follow-up prompts were used iteratively, including:

“Summarize the dominant themes across these segments.”

“Group similar themes and remove duplicates.”

“Identify recurring language, metaphors, or framing devices.”

The model outputs were treated as preliminary analytical aids. Criteria for retaining or discarding LLM-generated themes were explicitly defined. Suggested themes were retained only if: (1) they appeared across multiple transcript segments; (2) they could be directly verified in the original data; and (3) they aligned with manually coded patterns identified in NVivo. Themes were discarded where they were overly generic, not grounded in the data, or based on single instances. Representative prompt–output pairs were documented in the analytical record. For example, when prompted to identify narrative patterns, the model produced candidate themes such as “elite corruption,” “wealth extraction,” and “undemocratic authority,” which were subsequently cross-validated against transcript excerpts and incorporated into inductive coding where appropriate. In cases where LLM outputs introduced overgeneralization or interpretive drift, these were excluded and corrected through manual review.

2.7. Validity, Reflexivity, and Reliability

Although qualitative research does not aim for statistical generalizability, methodological rigour was maintained through transparency, reflexivity, and systematic documentation. An audit trail was preserved throughout the research process, including detailed records of coding decisions, node development, and analytic memos, enabling traceability from raw data to interpretive claims (Rodgers & Cowles, 1993). Reflexivity was central to the analysis, particularly given the material’s politically sensitive nature. Ongoing self-reflection was used to identify and bracket potential researcher assumptions, ensuring that interpretations were grounded in the data rather than normative positions regarding monarchy or republicanism (Nicmanis, 2024). Reliability was addressed through intra-coder consistency and triangulation via an LLM model.

The full dataset was coded twice at different time points, and coding outcomes were compared to assess stability and coherence. This code–recode strategy is a well-established approach to enhancing reliability in qualitative content analysis (O’Connor & Joffe, 2020). To enhance reliability, a code–recode strategy was employed, in which the full dataset was coded at two separate time points. The second round of coding was conducted after a temporal gap (approximately two to three weeks), allowing for analytical distance and reducing the likelihood of recall bias (O’Connor & Joffe, 2020). LLMs’ use was limited to analytic support functions and did not replace reflexive, human-led qualitative interpretation. The use of LLMs was therefore strictly bound to assistive functions. All coding decisions, theme development, and final interpretations remained the responsibility of the researcher, ensuring that the analysis adhered to established standards of qualitative rigour while incorporating LLM-assisted efficiency in early-stage data exploration.

The process of qualitative coding was conducted by a researcher, consistent with qualitative content analysis approaches that emphasize depth of engagement and reflexive interpretation. During the second coding cycle, previously assigned codes were systematically compared with newly generated codes to assess consistency, stability, and interpretive coherence. Discrepancies between coding rounds—such as differences in code assignment, category boundaries, or thematic grouping—were resolved through iterative review of the original transcripts, with priority given to maintaining fidelity to the data rather than enforcing initial coding decisions. Reflexive memoing was used throughout this process to document coding rationales and evolving interpretations.

Table 1 and Table 2 represent intermediate coding structures used during analysis and do not constitute the final thematic findings. Table 1 presents inductively generated themes derived directly from the data, capturing recurring patterns, narrative elements, and interpretive frames identified during open and axial coding. Table 2 presents deductive themes informed by relevant theoretical frameworks and prior literature, applied to the dataset to examine how discursive strategies align with established concepts such as elite framing, constitutional critique, and narrative construction. The final three themes presented in Section 3 were developed through an iterative synthesis of both inductive and deductive coding, consolidating overlapping categories and prioritizing higher-order patterns that were most analytically salient across the corpus.

To further enhance transparency, qualitative prevalence was assessed across the dataset using a consistent interpretive rule. Themes were considered dominant if they appeared repeatedly across a substantial proportion of videos (e.g., present in multiple segments within at least half of the sampled content), while less frequent but analytically significant themes were retained where they contributed to the overall narrative structure. Rather than reporting numerical frequencies, prevalence is described using qualitative descriptors (e.g., “frequent,” “recurring,” “dominant”), consistent with established qualitative research practices. This approach ensures that the analysis reflects both the distribution and the interpretive significance of themes within the corpus.

Appendix A provides a detailed corpus inventory, including video titles, length, upload dates, transcript download dates, URLs, and additional metadata relevant to the analytical process. This information enables independent researchers to locate and retrieve the original materials directly from the source platform. Full transcripts analysis is not redistributed in a repository as part of this study, as they remain the intellectual property of the original content creators and are subject to platform terms of service and copyright protections in both Canada and the UK. However, all primary materials are publicly accessible via the original YouTube links provided in Appendix A. Researchers can independently retrieve the same transcripts using the documented URLs and access dates. To facilitate reproducibility, the archived materials provide sufficient detail to reconstruct the analytical process, including how transcripts were processed, coded, and interpreted. This approach aligns with legal and ethical standards while ensuring that the study’s methodology remains transparent and open to independent verification.

3. Results

The three themes below represent the principal findings of the analysis. The accompanying quotations illustrate and contextualize each theme. While the three themes are analytically distinct, they frequently co-occur within the same videos, indicating that anti-monarchist discourse operates through overlapping narrative frames rather than discrete categories. To enhance transparency,

Table 3. Qualitative prevalence of final themes across the corpus.

Theme	Number of Videos (n = 62)	Approx. Proportion	Prevalence Description
Legalized Wealth Extraction	~45–50	Frequently observed (~70–80%)	Dominant
Undemocratic Power	~40–45	Widely recurring (~65–75%)	Dominant
Colonial/Elite/Mythic Power	~35–40	Consistently present (~55–65%)	Recurring

provides an overview of the qualitative prevalence of the final themes across the dataset. Themes are reported as approximate frequencies based on coding presence across videos rather than precise quantitative counts, consistent with qualitative interpretive approaches.

Prevalence descriptors are based on qualitative thresholds, where “dominant” indicates presence across a substantial portion of the dataset, and “recurring” indicates consistent but less widespread occurrence.

3.1. Theme 1: Legalized Theft and the Extraction of Public Wealth

One of the most prevalent discussions of the Republic movement was linked to the cost of monarchy, framing it in the context of entitled elites who legally steal money from hardworking citizens and the poor. Many presenters wore T-shirts that emphasized the privileged life of the elite via “born equal,” or made shows that emphasized the privileged life of the Royal Family with titles such as “from below the balcony”. The quotation below emphasizes the associated cost of the Monarchy:

But still people say oh well you know it brings in x amount [of benefits] from this and x amount from that and that so people will always try and find a way of justifying it […] it is now a half a billion pound [it terms of cost].

Sometimes the discussion of the Republic movement is couched in ambiguity to portray the Royal families, not only in the UK but around the world, as above the law, corrupted, and out of touch, who “pay no taxes”. The movement routinely invites anti-monarchists from around the world, including the Netherlands or Australia in 2025, as the movement portrays their campaign as a global struggle against the elitist oligarchy by ordinary working poor for justice and equality, as seen below:

The Royals choose to avoid tax at every turn [… but] put the onus on public servants to behave in an ethical and dignified manner […] now where King Charles to abide by those high standards surely, he would accept his moral obligation to pay taxes.

The dominant narrative portrays the monarchy as structurally corrupt, benefiting from legal exemptions, financial privileges, “pay no taxes,” and institutional deference that undermine the principle of equality and justice before the law. Royal behaviour is framed not as isolated misconduct but as the predictable outcome of elite hereditary power insulated from the law that covers their corruption, theft, and abuse, as the discussion often includes Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. They often conclude that Monarchy everywhere is an outdated organization that does not fit the 21st century and ought to be dismantled in a global rise against elitists, or bourgeoisie, as seen below:

The monarchy is all about […] telling a lie about this one family […] We’re going to abolish the monarchy because it is corrupt. It is undemocratic and it is bad […] The monarchy is symbolic of elitism, privilege, snobbery, and different. The assumption is that they are superior to us and we must defer to them [… as] an elite […].

Simplified framing as moral simplification (“they are bad” or “they are corrupt”), combined with conspiratorial logic grounded in material grievance against capitalism, is repeatedly used as a “coded vernacular” for the channel’s most royal followers. This framing reflects a broader narrative strategy in which complex economic arrangements are simplified into accessible and emotionally resonant forms of storytelling, often privileging symbolic claims over detailed financial analysis. Within this discourse, the monarchy’s wealth is portrayed as opaque and difficult to scrutinize, with blurred boundaries between inherited assets, public resources, and privately accumulated income. Questions surrounding taxation, security costs, and the broader financial implications of royal privilege are thus presented not as technical matters, but as evidence of systemic inequality and elite advantage.

Most royal followers of the Republic movement are often invited to donate to the organization, buy their merchandise, follow their other social media accounts (e.g., the Republic Podcast [From Below the Balcony], TikTok) and attend their events where they routinely hackle members of the Royal family who attend charity, fundraising events, military engagements, and government functions. Honoured guests often include people who have successfully heckled the Royal Family at national events, such as Senator Thorpe of Australia at their parliament, to give viewers excitement and the affirmation that any action at public events is reasonable to achieve the goal of dismantling monarchies in the UK and globally.

3.2. Theme 2: Undemocratic Power and Constitutional Manipulation

Like theme one, where the monarchy is described as an elitist organization that steals wealth and is corrupt, the monarchy is described as fundamentally incompatible with democracy, functioning as the constitutional anchor for centralized, unchecked executive power. Royal prerogative, the Privy Council, and uncodified authority are repeatedly described as enabling authoritarian drift under the appearance of tradition. Rather than viewing this arrangement as symbolic, speakers emphasize its practical consequences, arguing that, despite being democratic, absolute power emanates from the crown, disguised in an ambiguous context where the crown’s power is portrayed as “limitless,” as seen in the below quotation:

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts […] the UK’s historical distance from the worst tyranny […] complacency has left us exposed to abuses of power [… we want] a republic and not for some kind of weird tyranny.

Moreover, the role of the King, in the constitutional monarchy, is portrayed as limitless, framed as an “elective dictatorship.” Some of the invited guests who have been critical of the Royal Family proclaim that we live in “an elective dictatorship.” The claim in the literature that the monarchy’s role in the constitutional system of government can protect democracy during the peaceful transfer of power is challenged by profit-driven messaging offered via invited “experts.” Such experts often proclaim that the monarch cannot act as a democratic check, as a contradiction, arguing that

The monarch is powerless […] but also somehow “guards our democracy” … it can’t be both […despite] the biggest political crisis for years threatening to blow up into a constitutional crisis […] our head of state has remained silent.

The role of the King in the constitution is portrayed as a tool for maintaining political discipline and suppressing dissent within ostensibly democratic institutions. Overall, the theme constructs the monarchy as an institutional architecture that enables democratic erosion while maintaining the appearance of stability and continuity. Rather than acting as a protective barrier against authoritarianism, the monarchy is discursively portrayed as a constitutional fiction that centralizes power in the hands of a few elitists at the expense of democracy and ordinary people, as seen below:

In short the crown centralizes power […] at the expense of Parliament and the Monarch is a useless head of state that can play no serious role in our Constitution […] It’s a distraction […] designed to protect the ruling elite.

This framing aligns the monarchy with broader critiques of elite dominance, institutional opacity, and an outdated system of government, reinforcing its portrayal as fundamentally incompatible with modern 21st-century and democratic governance. The Republic campaign often attends government ceremonial events, such as the King’s speech at the State Opening of Parliament at Westminster, with standardized, high-quality yellow signs proclaiming, “Not my King.”

3.3. Theme 3: Colonial, Elite, and Mythic Power Reproduction

The monarchy is discursively framed as a colonial and elite institution, out of touch with society, sustained by myth, national identity, and symbolic power over ordinary people. The Republic movement argues that royal legitimacy depends on obscuring histories of colonialism, class inequality, and racialized hierarchy while presenting monarchy as timeless, culturally inevitable, and resistant to reform or change as seen below:

[monarchy is] about histories of racism […] it’s about all of these things it’s not just about one thing so for us […They are] white supremacists and at the very very top are the Saxe Coburg Gotha, the Windsor [… that] rule our country.

In this framing, the monarchy is positioned as a structural anchor linking contemporary inequality to imperial and colonial legacies of slavery and racism rather than as a benign cultural symbol. A recurring element within the framing of the monarchy is its association with elite status, capital accumulation, inherent inequality, poverty and symbolic colonialism. This framing situates the monarchy within broader historical narratives that link contemporary inequalities to legacies of imperial expansion, colonial extraction, and racial hierarchy. While the precise economic contributions of colonial systems to royal wealth are complex and not always directly traceable, the discourse emphasizes the symbolic and material entanglement of monarchy with these histories, particularly in relation to wealth accumulation across regions such as the Caribbean, Africa, and South Asia. As such, the monarchy is constructed not solely as a historical beneficiary, but as an enduring cultural and institutional reference point through which the legacies of colonial violence, exploitation, and inequality continue to be interpreted and debated. This process is articulated through explicit connections between monarchy and historical systems of domination, where one speaker states that the monarchy:

Is about histories of colonialism it’s about histories […] of gender inequality um it’s about histories of racism it’s about […] histories of patriarchy it’s about history of class inequality.

In this view, colonial history, elite accumulation, and inequality are not accidental byproducts but carefully managed absences within public narratives. The monarchy’s power is thus reproduced not through transparency or accountability, but through selective visibility, mythic reproduction, and cultural reverence. This perspective reflects a broader framing of the monarchy as an elite institution that, despite the formal reduction of its visible powers, continues to exercise influence through opaque, behind-the-scenes processes. Within this discourse, the monarchy is not understood as politically neutral or purely symbolic, but as embedded within systems of privilege and inequality that enable subtle forms of decision-shaping beyond public scrutiny. As such, its perceived ability to influence political outcomes in informal and unaccountable ways is consistent with narratives that position the monarchy as an enduring site of elite power and oligarchy.

These interpretations emphasize how symbolic continuity and cultural reverence are maintained through processes of narrative construction and omission. As one speaker notes, “You don’t hear about that … most people watch BBC News … and you don’t hear about that.” This selective visibility reinforces a broader perception that the monarchy’s legitimacy is sustained through mediated representation of gatekeepers rather than transparent accountability, allowing it to function as an enduring symbolic reference point through which inequality and historical injustice are interpreted.

4. Discussion

This study set out to examine how the UK monarchy is discursively represented in anti-monarchist YouTube content associated with the Republic movement, and to identify the dominant themes, frames, and narrative strategies shaping that discourse in the context of alternative-fact amplification. The findings demonstrate that anti-monarchist discourse on YouTube does not operate merely as constitutional critique or policy debate, but as a culturally and emotionally charged narrative system that simplifies complex socio-economic anxieties through symbolic scapegoating and discursive system. Across the transcripts and videos, the monarchy is constructed as a singular explanatory object through which grievances about inequality, democratic deficit, historical injustice, and economic precarity are expressed within digitally mediated environments.

The first theme—legalized theft and the extraction of public wealth—reveals how anti-monarchist discourse frames the monarchy as an elite institution that appropriates public resources under the protection of law and tradition. This framing reflects broader patterns identified in the literature on populist and alternative political communication, where economic complexity is reduced to morally legible claims of theft, corruption, and exploitation by identifiable elites. Rather than engaging with contested empirical evidence regarding the economic costs or benefits of a constitutional monarchy, the discourse relies on affective moral simplification, positioning the monarchy as a parasitic actor within narrative constructions of inequality. In this sense, claims about royal wealth, tax avoidance, and public expenditure function less as factual assertions than as symbolic frames that resonate with wider anxieties about inequality, austerity, and perceived elite impunity. Consistent with research on alternative media, these narratives mobilize selective evidence and repetition to reinforce a sense of injustice and direct political anger toward a visible, emotionally charged institution.

The second theme—undemocratic power and constitutional manipulation—highlights how anti-monarchist discourse reframes the monarchy as fundamentally incompatible with democratic governance. Within this narrative, constitutional complexity is collapsed into claims of absolute or “limitless” power emanating from the Crown, often invoking concepts such as royal prerogative, the Privy Council, and the absence of a single, codified constitution. These claims mirror broader patterns in digital political discourse in which institutional nuance is flattened in favour of dramatized accounts of authoritarian drift and democratic erosion. Importantly, the analysis does not suggest that such claims accurately describe the functioning of the UK constitutional system; rather, it shows how democratic anxiety is discursively articulated through symbolic critique. The monarchy becomes a constitutional shorthand for elite control, opacity, and unaccountability, enabling the construction of what many narratives describe as an “elective dictatorship.” This finding aligns with scholarship emphasizing how digital platforms facilitate emotionally resonant narratives that frame democratic institutions as hollowed out or captured by elites, particularly during periods of political polarization and institutional distrust (Papacharissi, 2015; Moffitt, 2016; Couldry & Hepp, 2018).

The third theme—colonial, elite, and mythic power reproduction—demonstrates how anti-monarchist discourse situates the monarchy within longer histories of colonialism, class hierarchy, and racialized power. Here, the monarchy is not merely criticized as an outdated institution, but as a symbolic anchor that reproduces inequality, injustice, and colonialism through myth, national identity, and cultural reverence. This framing draws on postcolonial and cultural critiques that view monarchy as a site where imperial histories are selectively remembered or obscured (Hall, 1999; Cannadine, 2001; Taylor, 2024). Within the Republic discourse, royal legitimacy is depicted as dependent on mythic narratives of tradition, continuity, and national belonging that shield the institution from scrutiny (Taylor, 2024). Importantly, these narratives are sustained through processes of selective visibility and mediated storytelling, in which critical historical accounts are minimized while symbolic representations of continuity are amplified. These findings echo existing research on how national identity is mediated through symbolic institutions and how challenges to those symbols are often experienced as threats to collective identity rather than political disagreement (Anderson, 2020; Taylor, 2024; Billig, 1995). In digital environments, such critiques gain traction through visual symbolism, affective storytelling, and the personalization of institutional critique via royal figures.

Taken together, the findings can be interpreted considering existing scholarship to suggest that YouTube’s platform architecture may facilitate the visibility and circulation of these discursive strategies. Consistent with prior research, profit-driven platform environments have been shown to incentivize emotionally charged narratives, and the patterns observed in this dataset are compatible with these dynamics (Tuters & Burton, 2021; Bucher, 2018; Papacharissi, 2015). Rather than reflecting a broad decline in support for monarchy per se, the prominence of anti-monarchist discourse in this sample suggests the possibility that such narratives may appear normalized within platformed publics, a pattern noted in prior research on digital media visibility (Couldry & Hepp, 2018; Papacharissi, 2015). These dynamics can be interpreted as broadly analogous to historical moments in which alternative media ecosystems—such as pamphleteering, signs, brochures, cheaper printing methods and mass production of books during the Industrial Revolution—facilitated the diffusion of radical facts and critiques during periods of economic and technological upheaval (Jozaghi, 2025a). In this sense, the significance of anti-monarchist discourse lies less in its institutional impact and more in its capacity to organize meaning, identity, and critique through accessible narrative forms.

Anti-elite, anti-monarchist, and anti-oligarchy movements have been theorized to gain resonance through their capacity to translate diffuse structural anxieties linked to the AI economy into morally legible narratives of elite culpability and scapegoating (Fitzpatrick, 2008; Jozaghi, 2024, 2025a, 2025b; Papacharissi, 2015; Moffitt, 2016; Couldry & Hepp, 2018). Crucially, this study does not interpret the Republic movement’s discourse as predictive of institutional collapse or revolutionary transformation. Instead, it demonstrates how digital media ecosystems reshape the cultural terrain on which political dissent is articulated and understood. The monarchy’s continued popularity within public opinion does not contradict the findings; rather, it underscores the coexistence of dominant and counter-hegemonic narratives within fragmented media environments. In this context, anti-monarchist discourse functions less as a direct challenge to constitutional arrangements than as a symbolic and mediated repertoire through which economic insecurity, democratic dissatisfaction, and historical grievances are expressed within contemporary digital publics.

By examining how anti-monarchist narratives are produced, circulated, and normalized on YouTube, this study contributes to broader scholarship on the amplification of profit-driven, medium and platformed political communication. It highlights the importance of examining not only what political actors claim, but how digital infrastructures shape the meanings, emotions, and symbolic associations through which those claims acquire visibility and resonance (Couldry & Hepp, 2018; Bucher, 2018; Papacharissi, 2015; Jozaghi, 2026). In doing so, the article advances our understanding of how established institutions become focal points of political anxiety during rapid technological and economic change. Importantly, the present analysis does not directly measure platform algorithms or user exposure, and therefore, interpretations regarding amplification remain theoretically informed rather than empirically demonstrated.

5. Limitations

Several limitations ought to be deliberated when interpreting the results of this study. First, the analysis focuses on a single YouTube channel associated with the UK-based Republic movement. While this channel represents a prominent and influential articulation of contemporary anti-monarchist discourse, it may not account for the full range of republican or anti-monarchist perspectives circulating across other digital platforms (e.g., TikTok, X, BlueSky, Facebook, and Rumble), offline political contexts, or national settings. As such, the findings are not intended to be generalizable to all forms of anti-monarchist sentiment or to broader public opinion regarding the monarchy. Second, the study examines publicly available, self-produced video content and therefore reflects the communicative strategies and rhetorical choices of content creators rather than audience interpretation or reception. View counts, likes, and comments provide only limited insight into how viewers understand, contest, or internalize these narratives.

Future research could extend this analysis by incorporating audience studies, comment analysis, or interviews to better assess how anti-monarchist discourse is received and interpreted within different publics. Third, the qualitative design prioritizes depth of interpretation over breadth. Although the dataset spans a full year of content production, thematic analysis necessarily involves interpretive judgment. While methodological rigour was enhanced through systematic coding, reflexivity, and triangulation with LLMs, alternative analytic lenses or theoretical frameworks might yield different emphases or categorizations. Finally, the study deliberately brackets questions of factual accuracy, economic impact, or constitutional effectiveness of the monarchy. The findings should therefore be understood as an analysis of discursive construction rather than an empirical evaluation of political claims. Future work could complement this approach with comparative, historical, or quantitative analyses to further contextualize the narratives identified here.

6. Conclusions

This study examined how contemporary anti-monarchist discourse associated with the UK-based Republic movement is articulated, circulated, and normalized on YouTube within a digital media environment shaped by profit-driven amplification and affective storytelling. The study points toward the importance of platform infrastructures, as identified in existing literature, in shaping contemporary political dissent. By treating anti-monarchist content as a mediated cultural practice rather than a set of factual or constitutional claims, the analysis provides insight into how marginal political positions gain symbolic coherence and visibility during periods of rapid technological and economic transformation.

The findings demonstrate that anti-monarchist discourse is organized around three interrelated narrative repertoires: the construction of monarchy as legalized theft and the extraction of public wealth; the framing of monarchical authority as undemocratic and constitutionally manipulative; and the reproduction of colonial, elite, and mythic power through narratives of tradition and national identity. Together, these themes reveal how complex socio-economic anxieties—such as inequality, democratic distrust, broader perceptions of societal change and uncertainty—are simplified and moralized through symbolic scapegoating and exploitation. Rather than engaging institutional complexity, the monarchy becomes a highly visible and emotionally resonant explanatory object through which diffuse grievances are rendered intelligible.

The qualitative inquiry also underscored the importance of platform infrastructures in shaping contemporary political dissent. YouTube’s affordances—long-form video, personalization, and monetized engagement—have been shown in prior research to enable the circulation of such discourse, and the patterns observed here are consistent with these interpretations. In this sense, the Republic movement’s online presence reflects broader dynamics observed in alternative media ecosystems, where hybrid forms of political communication blur the boundaries between commentary, activism, and movement-building. In line with prior scholarship and earlier historical moments, new media systems provide fertile ground for marginal reinterpretations of authority, legitimacy, and power.

Importantly, the findings do not suggest an imminent decline in public support for the constitutional monarchy, nor do they predict institutional transformation. Instead, they underscore how contemporary digital media environments reconfigure the cultural terrain on which political legitimacy is negotiated. Within this context, anti-monarchist discourse operates less as a direct challenge to constitutional arrangements than as a mediated narrative practice that organizes meaning, identity, and critique. By foregrounding discursive construction within platform-mediated environments, this study contributes to understanding how political dissent is articulated and sustained for monetary goals. The study illustrates how anti-monarchist discourse is constructed within a media environment that has been argued to amplify such narratives through AI driven echo chambers.