It's weird, I've never considered myself a "royalist" but this news has affected me quite strongly. I just burst into tears unexpectedly on hearing this news and I don't quite understand why I feel so very sad. I guess I have grown up and lived my whole life (as a Brit) seeing and hearing the Queen, singing "God save the Queen" etc, and this news made me suddenly feel very old, very nostalgic, with the sense that all things pass in time, which makes my heart ache deeply.
I feel the same. I think it’s because it really represents the end of an era. The 20th and early 21st century ushered in unprecedented improvements to quality of life in Britain but it has felt of late that that has peaked and the country is facing a serious decline: Brexit, the increasingly visible effects of climate change, the aftermath of covid, the possible break up of the union, rising costs of living, recession, possibly even war. The death of Elizabeth II coincides with the end of a long period of stability and comfort and is not only a poignant point in history itself but a marker for a transitional point in history for our country.
My understanding is that the late 70s and early 80s in England was a hopeless place. As evidence I submit Alan Moore's introduction to V for Vendetta and Ghost Town by the Specials.
"Naivete can also be detected in my supposition that it would take something as melodramatic as a near-miss nuclear conflict to nudge England toward fascism. Although in fairness to myself and David, there were no better or more accurate predictions of our country’s future available in comic form at that time. The simple fact that much of the historical background of the story proceeds from a predicted Conservative defeat in the 1982 General Election should tell you how reliable we were in our role as Cassandras.
It’s 1988 now. Margaret Thatcher is entering her third term of office and talking confidently of an unbroken Conservative leadership well into the next century. My youngest daughter is seven and the tabloid press are circulating the idea of concentration camps for persons with AIDS. The new riot police wear black visors, as do their horses, and their vans have rotating video cameras mounted on top. The government has expressed a desire to eradicate homosexuality, even as an abstract concept, and one can only speculate as to which minority will be the next legislated against. I’m thinking of taking my family and getting out of this country soon, sometime over the next couple of years. It’s cold and it’s mean-spirited and I don’t like it here anymore."
"My understanding is that the late 70s and early 80s in England was a hopeless place."
That's not quite how it felt as a 52 year old Brit off of mostly England wot lived here at that time, as well as West Germany. I got the full Cold War experience.
I'm not sure about V for Vendetta - that's a film released in 2005 so a retrospective of {something}. "Ghost Town" by the Specials is of its time and an absolute belter and it does evoke emotions.
I can understand that a Canadian that wasn't even born at the time might find it hard to usefully engage with the past of a foreign country.
However we as Canadians and Brits and many others shared a Queen and she has passed away to all our loss.
OK but it is fiction. Not real. I'm sure we are all agreed on that.
If you'd like a tale about the 1970-80s then feel free to ask and I'll tell you what I saw. With luck, my memories aren't too shot.
Living in W Germany in the 1970/80s was rather safer than Ukraine now. A threat of nuclear shenanigans back then is nothing compared to a rocket salvo now.
Ukraine is being attacked right now by Russia and has been for months. Civilians are dying daily in this revolting attack on common civility.
I'm not too sure how important V for whatevs is. It's a story.
> OK but it is fiction. Not real. I'm sure we are all agreed on that.
Yes, it's fiction, but the comment you were replying to mentions Alan Moore's foreword to his work where he mentions the context in which he created the comic -- and that context was the despair and hopelessness he felt in the UK of the 70s and 80s.
Alan Moore is talking about the reality that inspired his fiction (and in fact, mentions how his fiction fell short of what actually happened next).
> I'm not too sure how important V for whatevs is. It's a story.
"V for whatevs"? You are being needlessly dismissive. Alan Moore is a highly influential and political comics book author whose work has a lot to say about the 70s and 80s. Just like punk was also a reflection and a product of its era.
Would you have preferred more prosperity, but soundtracked only by the Bay City Rollers, Pink Floyd, and Cliff Richard? Or the angry DIY spirit of punk to emerge?
The improvement only happened for some people. Thatcher made it better for a group of Tory voters at the expense of Wales, Northern England, Scotland and quite a fair chunk of the Midlands to boot.
She is adored in some of London and all the Home Counties where her polices led to increased wealth and life outcomes.
In the rest of the country, she is the person who destroyed communities and the fabric of what it was to be British for many.
This is not cognitive dissonance. It's different experiences by different people.
Given this is a thread about HRH Queen Elizabeth II, it's worth noting that she herself and her family were no real fans of how Thatcher conducted herself in relation to some of her policies that were _actively hostile_ to many working class communities.
When the Royal family quietly whisper that they think someone is a snob, well... that's saying something, eh?
The 80's weren't crap. The 80's saw a massive increase in wealth for the working class. There was even a whole comedy character about it - https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/loadsamoney
Yes. The Thatcher era marked the end of a lot of stagnation, and while at the time people might have linked her and the era, plenty of subsequent people don't like Thatcher despite the marked increase in quality of life post her era.
That's a very one-sided telling of the story. Both Labour and Conservative governments struggled with the economic mess left behind by the war and the end of the empire.
And the long-term negative effects of Thatcher's legacy (much like Reagan's in the states) are being felt now. The homeless situation is (in large part) a product of Thatcher selling off public housing and turning actual care into "community care".
It seems as if you judge the past too positively. The 70s and 80s were also perceived as pretty dark at the time and anything but stable. The sentiment at the time was quite similar to the way you describe the present. You had stagnation in the 70s similar to what is happening today and a general view that the welfare system was losing its viability. The Cold War also became more serious again in the 80s and the geopolitical threats were comparable to today's.
I love the example of ancient texts that decry how the youth don’t listen to their elders any more and the lords are getting stingier with the taxes every season. It’s a universal feeling.
You mean this quote by Socrates, which was written as Athens was entering a period of (terminal) decline?
“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”
Maybe it is not so universal, but an actual predictor of civilizational decline?
Socrates never said that and he never wrote anything (that has survived, anyway).
"QI has determined that the author of the quote is not someone famous or ancient.
It was crafted by a student, Kenneth John Freeman, for his Cambridge dissertation published in 1907. Freeman did not claim that the passage under analysis was a direct quotation of anyone; instead, he was presenting his own summary of the complaints directed against young people in ancient times. The words he used were later slightly altered to yield the modern version. In fact, more than one section of his thesis has been excerpted and then attributed classical luminaries."
> but an actual predictor of civilizational decline?
I think it is more of an indicator of overall prosperity, which may, in fact cause civilizational decline. I'm reminded of the mouse utopia[0], and my own family.
You really hit the nail on the head. Watching footage of her inauguration drives home how the world changed during her reign. She lived through the entire crazy exponential increase in, well, everything.
No. Statistically, the reason the gp was celebrating their post war prosperity was because the proceeds or automation and burning fossil fuels were much more equitably shared in that period than any other in history.
Indeed. That was the start of the big push of thousands of big and small inventions and commercial progressions that has gradually allowed more and more of the whole world to achieve heights no one could've dreamed of even 100 years ago.
None of those things you mentioned are real or big problems visible at an individual level any more than the problems of previous decades. If nobody told you they'd happened, you'd be enjoying the same stability and comfort as before. Perhaps the problem is how the media presents events, not the events themselves.
Without an objective way to measure "badness", all you're doing it reflecting what the TV told you to feel.
I think humans have evolved to need rulers and hierarchy to look up to to some extent. Look at what happened to Americans -- once the UK royalty was gone it was replaced with celebrity. It's just human nature.
The Queen is not a 'ruler' though, she's a figurehead.
Which is fully appropriate where it exists.
I would be 100% against the US having a 'Constitutional Monarch' but I'm 100% in support of the UK Constitutional Monarchy, given that it has come from their long established culture, nearly a 1000-year-old 'contiguous-ish' institution.
FYI in 1258 the Monarch signed documents which required him to 'Confer with Parliament' when changing rates of taxation. That's only 40 years past Magna Carta, and the first reference to 'Parliament'.
I think the British Monarch could in _theory_ have some political power as parliamentary bills go by the monarch for approval. The Queen always approved them of course.
The romantic in me likes to believe the Queen would step in if the British parliament tried passing some truly terrible bill. Basically acting as a last stop gap of human and British sensibility. Though with Queen Elizabeth II gone I'd have less trust in the judgement of a monarch.
Part of me does wonder if US politics would've been much different with a ceremonial figurehead. And that'd be a fun alt-history where a great-great-grandchild of George Washington is the ceremonial head of the US government and has to deal with intrigues of Washington politics while just wanting to live quietly on the ancestral Virginian home.
The power of the Monarch is kind of real actually, particularly because of the way Parliaments are created and dissolved etc..
There is no clear '4 years to election' as they have in the US.
In my home country, Canada, it gets dicey as we wonder sometimes just what the 'Governor General' (Queen's rep in Canada) will do.
I don't think the Queen is going to be interjecting on any 'legislation' unless there is something fundamentally unconstitutional about how it was passed; but there's definitely some question marks about 'how and when government falls and is formed' - and especially, how 'minority governments' are formed. If there's no obvious winner, then minority situations form, and it can get weird.
That's still a thing.
I suggest the US would have been a better country were the American revolution to not have happened. Sounds totally crazy, but true. I think the US would have healthcare, be a bit more socially minded, slavery would have ended a lot sooner, and the US still have all of the 'good parts' (except a cool national anthem).
I don’t think that’s really a thing in the UK. In every election for over a century, when there are disagreements (and there have been many), the parties thrash it out and pick somebody to be prime minister, and that person drives to the palace for the Queen to make it official. It’s entirely ceremonial and I haven’t heard of any instance at all where she was actually involved in the decision.
There has been a lot of speculation over the years about whether Charles might be a more activist monarch, but I’ll be really surprised if he actually tries to exercise any of his theoretical powers. He might be a bit more outspoken in public, and do a lot more lobbying in private, at most.
Yes, there are question marks though that the Queen theoretically fulfills.
Otherwise, we might need a 'Supreme Parliamentary Council' to basically enact those duties, and if any members of Parliament didn't agree on the outcome, they'd take it to the Supreme Court who would rule on it kind of thing. Something that would only happen 'once in a century'.
Where there are Presidents, it's generally straight forward: the Dude with the most votes (of whatever type) is the Dude and that's it. There can be voting shenanigans but generally not outcome shenanigans.
I'm fine the way it is in the UK and Canada, I wouldn't change a thing.
If we want reforms, we can do that at more operational levels, aka 'governance by blockchain' to put it in 2019 Valley terms.
Of course she passed the Brexit bill. The irrational hatred of Brexit you see in some quarters is the exact sort of thing the Queen, in her role as a constitutional icon of long term stability, stood against.
You have to remember how old she was. The Queen's first Prime Minister was Winston Churchill, born in the 1870s. A staunch Empire man to the last, he was one of only two Prime Ministers for whom the Queen attended their funeral. He is famous for successfully defeating Europe when it was united under a dictator determined to reduce Britain to rubble and ship its population to labour camps. She was Queen as the British Empire wound itself up and became the Commonwealth. She saw the nationalization of the British railways and then the re-privatization of them decades later. She saw the birth of the European Coal and Steel Community, she watched as it evolved into the European Economic Community, and then into the European Union. She saw Stalin fall, then she saw the Berlin wall fall, and then the USSR. She observed passively as millions of people from the former Eastern Bloc then moved to the UK a decade later to make a new life. She saw the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. She saw the space race. She was Queen throughout the Troubles, living with the constant threat of being assassinated by the IRA, who at one point dropped a concrete breeze block on her car. She visited over 100 countries. She watched as countries fell to communist revolutions. She watched her country be brought to the brink during the Winter of Discontent, she watched as European nations transitioned from dictatorship to democracy. She watched global COVID lockdowns. She watched the Euro debt crisis and a thousand other crises come and go.
In short, she saw political institutions far larger and more important than British membership of the EU rise and fall over her lifetime, and far more dramatically. She saw the UK join the EEC, she saw it transform into the EU and then she saw the UK leave it again. Of all the things she's seen and done, of all the life and death battles she witnessed or even took part in, EU related events were surely some of the less memorable and important, especially given the relatively imperceptible changes Brexit so far brought about.
If you really want to engage in speculation about the Queen's views on Brexit and the EU, consider this. I already said Churchill was one of only two Prime Ministers the Queen honored by attending their funeral. The other was Margaret Thatcher. Both had complex views on the merits of European integration, with both being positive in their earlier years but coming to regard it as a mistake in their later years.[1][2] Both were strongly committed throughout their lives to the strength and independence of the United Kingdom regardless of what Europe did.
Right, the Queen was (unsurprisingly given her privilege) a closet Tory and couldn't be relied upon to stop dirty Tory shenanigans. I don't think anyone was disagreeing? Not sure what the point of this comment was apart from to assert your opinion on Brexit.
> if the British parliament tried passing some truly terrible bill
> ... She passed the Brexit bill ...
> Of course she passed the Brexit bill
> not sure what the point of this comment was
It was to point out the absurdity of picking out this particular example given her long life and the many, many events and bills you could describe as 'terrible' along the way. If she was going to have broken her convention and tried to assert real power, that would be have a really odd one to pick.
BTW I didn't assert any opinion on Brexit itself, only that the level of hatred of it reached by some people is irrational.
> the Queen was ... a closet Tory
You don't actually know what the Queen's politics were. She lived through several Labour governments and never stopped their bills or expressed opinions on them either, that's just not the sort of monarch she was.
Yeah, not sure about that. If QE1 was any better, it wasn't because of her gender, it was the constraints placed on her because of her gender back in the day. And we are into 'constitutional monarchies' now, not the absolutist version. Also, see: Queen Isabella I.
What makes you think Charles is a man ? Are you judging of his gender on the basis of old stereotypes ? And if he is a man, but decided to identify as a woman, would you then be ok with him being king ?
With leftists nutcases... never short of a good laugh!
Celebrities don't wield any power comparable to that of rulers or monarchs. We allow unbounded accumulation of wealth but that's a facet of our political and economic system.
Most social animals imbue their elders with some level of authority but this is easy to explain as an evolutionary habit to make use of lived experience and thus, hopefully, expertise. It's obvious why you'd ask the person with the most experience or the best domain knowledge for their assessment or even to lead you in that domain. It also makes sense to appoint a leader during times of war when the battlefield requires split second decisions that don't allow for consensus seeking.
But human nature is cooperative if nothing else. We resort to exclusion, hierarchy and domination/obedience only under duress, which our current system helpfully maintains perpetually.
Yes. Our political and economic system maintaining duress perpetually is why the US has those, not human nature. It's also how we got monarchies, which modern capitalist systems evolved from.
An upvote for you (if I could). I'm American but have lived in the UK for near 20 years. My great-whatever grandfather signed the Declaration of Independence so I'm hardly a royalist... So WTF am I doing living in the UK??? (the NHS etc...)
My general sense is that of respect for the Queen as a symbol. She did it right and wasn't a useless numpty like ... oh... all of the rest of them. Primarily nothing but B list celebrities. William and Kate seem fine enough, Harry and Meghan are .. irrelevant except to the nonces who have no actual lives, and let's not discuss Andrew...
Hopefully Charles will use the "soft power" he supposedly has to corral the professional sociopaths destroying this country (e.g. wind and solar power, given his supposed environmental leanings) but I don't know.... it very well may be all downhill from now. England (and by extension all of the UK) is destined to become a failed state.
Which is why I am looking hard at moving to Scotland (soon to be independent!) or even the EU to get the F out of here ASAP. It really is a transitional point.
Odds heavily against Scottish independence in the next 20 years.
Bookmakers price a referendum before 2025 at about 10% probability. I think that's too big a number - I'd say 10% chance by 2030.
Let's suppose it happens in 2025, though. At that point, the UK and EU will still be at loggerheads over the border with NI meaning the SNP's central premise - that Scotland should be able to rejoin the EU - will look more and more like a dangerous and economically calamitous poison pill. Even pro-independence financial analysts will warn of a deep recession with house prices falling off a cliff. That'll make independence about as popular as mouldy bread.
In addition, the EU will be quite feckless and tone deaf to what that SNP promise of independence is centred on, and during any campaign will confirm confidently that yes, Scotland could rejoin the EU, all it'll take is adoption of the Euro (non-negotiable), and a complete adoption of all protocols and laws that the UK - including Scotland - will have mostly dismantled by that point (for better or worse). The timeline will be a decade or more, and the estimated costs will be in the billions, but the EU think it's still value. Meanwhile Scottish voters will wonder if a generation of being out of the UK _and_ the EU is worth the candle.
The idea that against that backdrop the SNP think their argument for independence is stronger, not weaker, is strange.
I think you'll also see a slight shift in polls in coming days and weeks because of the death of the Queen. Operation Unicorn is designed in a small way to allow Scottish unionists to show what the United Kingdom is all about. Sentimentality has been proven time, and time again, to be incredibly powerful in changing people's minds quite irrationally.
Coupled with Charles' political will - as you note, towards radical environmentalism and architectural protectionism that aligns neatly with a decent proportion of the Scottish populace - you might find Sturgeon and the SNP looks more and more marginal as time goes by.
The Queen oversaw a decline in Empire and a rise in the British believing in - and committing to - a people's right to self-determination. And so it will be in Scotland, just as it has been for so many countries that have gained independence from British rule in the last 75 years. But the backdrop right now is firmly that the SNP is about to slide, independence will become less popular to many, and Scotland will either be part of the renaissance we are all hoping for, or is coming down with the rest of us.
Which is why I am looking hard at moving to Scotland (soon to be independent!)
Has there been any real progress towards another referendum on independence? I know SNP still has the lion’s share of seats in Scottish parliament, but what else? As a Scottish ex-pat of sorts (born UAE, to Scottish parents, but raised and educated in the US), I have nostalgic notions of moving to Scotland. Then I remember its dark much of the year and rains a fair bit. Heck, it even snowed in June the last summer I visited (yes, that was up Glenshee, but still).
No one seriously thinks Scotland will leave soon. The energy is moving to a new settlement of the four nations. That will come in the next ten years. We're fine. Edinburgh got loads of tech energy. Glasgow's a massive city with loads of opportunity. We have a large financial sector that needs geeks. Come. We need you. Lived here thirty years now. No regrets. Weather is improving with climate change (ducks).
Not to mention ability to generate its own energy from various renewable sources and with climate change, more ability to grow food in the lower regions.
Definitely pay attention to how much sun Scotland -- heck, any part of the UK -- gets before moving there if you have even the slightest inkling that you might have seasonal affective disorder. You need to be pretty happy with very little sun.
I'm a fellow UAE born! Hello!! I live in Canada. Was just looking up moving to Scotland after seeing footage of Balmoral castle. Something about the beauty of the highlands captures the imagination. I'm of South Asian decent so I am a bit weary of how welcoming a new place will be.
'Long period of stability' since WW1? WW2? The Cold War?
Maybe you're young, but this 'feeling of stability' really has only happened since 1991.
I remember before that, and it was very scary living with the Soviet Union and all those countries with nukes pointed at us.
Also, the 1960s-1980s wrought huge economic change, as the last phase of major 'Democratic Socialist' changes occurred, desegregation/civil rights in the US along with giant leap in crime, and most of the west moved out of a very chaotic political climate only towards the end of that.
1990-2010 was a bit of a calm period.
Also, 'Brexit' is not a net negative thing (I think it's neutral on the whole). The EEC (i.e. trade) is almost all of the benefit of the EU, some of the post EEC i.e. EU artifacts are actually quite a bad thing (though not all of course). Even Euro itself, is probably only 'neutral' in that it has very harsh externalities that are just not obvious.
Notably, we have seen a massive failure in the EU to not only protect itself, 100% dependent on US military defence, even in 2020 - but one of the 'root problems' was the EU powerhouse, Germany, abdicating it's defence responsibilities, and selling out the entirety of the EU to Russian energy dependence which put the EU in an existentially weak position vis-a-vis Russia. If the US did not exist, Putin would be dominating the EU via it's vast tentacles (like it is in Hungary, but much worse, and all over).
Obviously some nations, like France, Sweden and Finland are quite prepared, but on the whole, it's bad.
Europeans are know this, Macron himself has suggested 'something else' for Ukraine and Georgia.
It will literally take decades for Ukraine get into the EU, which is nary impossible for any normal country as they cannot maintain a consistent strategic orientation for that long, which speaks to the gigantic bureaucratic complexity of the EU.
Instead - UK, Turkey, Ukraine, Finland, Georgia, Switzerland will possibly join the 'expanded' EU (by another name), which will mostly be trade focused. The interesting thing about that however, the other nations, notably Spain, Italy, Greece will definitely start to wonder about 'the grass being greener' in those countries.
QE2's death is definitely a kind of geostrategic demarcation, along with the failure of Russia in Ukraine as it's 'last gasp' as a major power, and COVID. The rise of China as well, but that's in phases.
This is kind of a WW1 moment.
As for the future of the Royals? It's hard to say - some progressives may want to think more 'Republican' but I'm not so sure. We are choking on materialism and people are yearning for authentic things.
'Secular Ideologies' including Socialism and Capitalism have brought us some nice things, but we are fundamentally more hollow. 'De-culturlization' isn't going so well, people are spiritually empty, we lack community. Putting a 'Starbucks on Every Corner' of the world is good for the GDP, but it's woefully lacking otherwise. A trip to the suburubs of Toronto where things are actually technically 'good' from a culturally secular perspective (i.e. peace, jobs, people get along well) ... but you'll find it's a kind of cultural death: absolutely no local culture whatsoever, almost the entire population working for 'local offices' of international firms, nothing to even identify the area as belonging to it's actual nation, culture and values being dictated by the marketing rooms of foreign countries, mostly in the name of selling sneakers and iPhones. That's 'materialism' not true 'prosperity'. It's amazing if you were a poor kid from Hyderabad (i.e. to have material stability), but not so good otherwise.
In that context, everything that has cultural authenticity is basically worth more than anything else. Do you know what's exploding in value? Authentic Faberge eggs. As we also realize the value of cultural institutions. Other things, even neat things like iPhones, are ultimately just commodities.
Soft agree with you about the secular ideologies, I keep wondering if the alternative was actually better. Pre globalization with hard borders, little travel, suspicious of your neighbours, long distance travel reserved for the rich. Is the old situation of social pressure to comply to local social norms better? I am not so hot about the culture of places with abject poverty. As you correctly pointed out it's amazing for a poor kid from Hyderabad or rather millions of other poor kids from similar places. I don't think there can be any kind of positive culture without peace, jobs and people getting along well.
> Notably, we have seen a massive failure in the EU to not only protect itself, 100% dependent on US military defence, even in 2020 - but one of the 'root problems' was the EU powerhouse, Germany, abdicating it's defence responsibilities, and selling out the entirety of the EU to Russian energy dependence which put the EU in an existentially weak position vis-a-vis Russia. If the US did not exist, Putin would be dominating the EU via it's vast tentacles (like it is in Hungary, but much worse, and all over).
There is no 'massive' failure in the EU to protect itself as it has no such objective nor a mandate to protect itself. It's up to individual countries to spend on their armed forces as was up to Britain to spend when it was part of it and the EU didn't stop it, it did so just fine. If the US did not exist that would have been taken into account by the member countries themselves and acted accordingly.
> Instead - UK, Turkey, Ukraine, Finland, Georgia, Switzerland will possibly join the 'expanded' EU (by another name), which will mostly be trade focused. The interesting thing about that however, the other nations, notably Spain, Italy, Greece will definitely start to wonder about 'the grass being greener' in those countries.
Spain, Italy and Greece have all joined the Eurozone (Italy is a founding member btw) for their own good reasons. If they wanted less integration they could have not adopted the Euro just like a number of other countries. People seem to forget what inflation looked like for their national currencies of these countries before getting the Euro and it was not very green.
"There is no 'massive' failure in the EU to protect itself as it has no such objective nor a mandate to protect itself."
First - change EU to Europe and the point is more clear: 'Europe' failed to defend itself.
Second - Though you're right, EU is not a defensive pact, it's inexorably irresponsible for EU to not provide for defence. Defence is an existential concept - one that involves parts of the state.
How can there be 'ever closer union' and 'open borders' if nations can't even provide for their own defence.
This is 100% clear with Germany's 'sellout' to Russia: Germany, the leading 'political' block in the EU, gave Russia massive leverage which has put Estonia, Latvia etc. at huge risk, and effectively handed over Ukraine do the hungry dogs.
In that dsyfunctional dynamic, 'Sovereign Europe' is still dependent on the Anglosphere: USA, UK and even Canada (!) all of whom have provided much more support than France, Italy, Spain etc (!) in defence of Europe.
"People seem to forget what inflation looked like for their national currencies of these countries before getting the Euro and it was not very green. "
"If they wanted less integration they could have not adopted the Euro just like a number of other countries."
Inflation is much more preferrable than the current straight-jacket death of a hard currency. The lack of inflation relative to Germany is killing Europe.
As for 'adopting and not' - there's no way for them to adjust otherwise. The EU is a 'one size fits all' regime and also a 'Hotel California' (i.e. cannot leave) game.
The Euro won't work without political and fiscal integration and that will never, ever happen, so it's probably better to find something a bit looser.
it is quite clear in the Maastrict treaty that the EU was a newly established entity that absorbed the obligations and responsibilities of the former entities
(in the same way the United States absorbed the obligations and responsibilities of Great Britain in the 13 colonies)
(regardless, I got my dates wrong, I was thinking of Nice...)
We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamebait and unsubstantive comments. That's not allowed here.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
(Since someone is now about to accuse me of stealth Brexit sideage—no, this is just about the tiny business of moderating an internet forum, and that is all.)
I don't lightly ban a 7-year-old account, but (a) we've warned you many times:
Edit: I've taken another look at this and decided that this was partly an overreaction on my part—sorry for that.
I've unbanned you now. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and mitigate the ways that you've been breaking the rules, that would be helpful so we don't end up in this boat again.
---
That may be, but you still have to follow the rules. You broke them here, have broken them elsewhere, we've warned you many times, and I've just told you how to get unbanned if you want to.
Thank you very much. I will do a full review of my warnings and the rules. I'm a huge fan of this forum, and would hate to lose access to one of the only outlets left where people seem to be willing to think out loud. I think the level of moderation here (you) generally does a good job of striking the proper balance between free thought and destructive chaos, and I can appreciate the difficulty of handling any borderline cases.
I think HN moderation is intolerant of people with more assertive form of expression.
It's pretty sad because people here come from different cultures and different personalities, and some people just naturally express themselves more assertively, cynically or provocatively.
Some people prefer hypocrisy and softened words and respect for others, while others prefer getting a clear point across, and using cynicism and exaggeration are valid tools for that.
Looking at previous posts of this person, he's clearly naturally cynical. Does that merit ban? Should all cynical people walk on the tips of their toes in HN to avoid "flamebait" ?
In the name of protecting those easily offendable, we're becoming intolerant of those who don't understand subtle nuances. Or those that just have to respond. Or those coming from cultures with naturally less tact.
This poster didn't even open up the problematic subject himself but responded to someone else.
This is the real reason for the dynamics that you and throwawaylinux are talking about—not cultural or ideological bias by the mods. That's just the reason people tend to reach for because it's simpler and feels like it must be the reason.
We do what we can to mitigate such effects but there's only so much we can do. In the end, this is one big community system and people are responsible for the effects they have on it. That's one of the more counterintuitive and little-noticed aspects of how things work here.
Here are a couple of older comments explaining more about this, in case anyone wants more.
> I think HN moderation is intolerant of people with more assertive form of expression.
It absolutely isn't when that expression is Correct™. You can blather about Brexit horrible and its voters are deluded or selfish, but you have to tread carefully if you voice the opinion that the EU is not roses or Brexit is the better alternative. You must be very polite and non-confrontational about it.
Same as covid. You could rant and rave about anybody questioning the ever-changing official narrative and denounce them as science deniers and selfish, and that was pretty well tolerated. Asking any questions or expressing any doubt would have to be done extremely carefully again.
Same as any topic. This is better than most places I've found though. At least you can be in the minority, question authority, and have "wrong" opinions about many (not all) things. You are definitely not afforded the same privilege as others though. Which shouldn't be a surprise, you have to learn to read a room, especially a room in somebody else's house.
Brexit being bad does not make the EU good and leaving it a notable decline. If nothing else (ignoring short term economic issues) it reduces the soft power that the UK had notably.
The EU is not without a great many issues, notably the weakness is the central banking mechanisms of the EU/Euro - and the Euro in inseparable from the EU, and tbh, kinda endemic of the issues with the EU. It's an almost country, its missing the accountability of a full country, but still has some sovereign powers. I think the flaws in the EU are fixable, but not without making it look more like a democratic supranational government.
However, for all of the EU's flaws - the UK is hurting now, largely because of Brexit - who knows, in 50 years it may turn out for the best. But I honestly suspect not - only time will tell.
I didn't want to debate the merits of Brexit, I'm not from there or the EU nor have studied the subject closely so it's not my place. I do think it's reasonable that you have those opinions of it and want to put them forward to debate and convince and learn. But I also think people holding opposite opinions, that Brexit didn't reduce soft-power or that a reduction in soft power is not a real problem, or that the EU is not fixable, or that it's not worth staying in the EU hoping it will be fixed, or that UK is not hurting now because of Brexit, or whatever -- are also opinions that a reasonable person might have and put forward in good faith.
I do think the banned comment was the tired, tiresome kind of thing that people who feel passionately seem to find a way to shoehorn into discussions where they are off topic or add nothing substantive. And I think the comment they replied to was as well.
I don't really see much difference, other than the nature of the opinion. Yes the banned poster did address their parent specifically, but... really the parent put out their opinion about a bunch of things, if that is substantive then it should invite questions or disagreements so addressing them on the topic of their opinions is appropriate, surely.
> I do think the banned comment was the tired, tiresome kind of thing that people who feel passionately seem to find a way to shoehorn into discussions where they are off topic or add nothing substantive. And I think the comment they replied to was as well.
No disagreement there, the glib angry stuff people insert into a conversation tend to flatten all reasonable conversation into vitriolic bursts of outrage or anger.
Frankly, that's as it should be. If your opinion diverges markedly from consensus reality, it's your responsibility to be extra polite and diplomatic about it, to prove that you aren't just a nutcase and you've actually thought carefully about it. Society has every right to suppress flat earthers.
Not sure if you've made up "consensus reality" as some ironic Orwellian sarcasm, but it's fantastic. As though articular opinions about the merits of Brexit are reality depending on what large segments of the population you ignore :)
But no I think it's even simpler and it's not about what should be. People are generally fairly close minded and are easily upset by hearing about opinions contrary to their own. That's it. It's just the human condition.
The answer to your question is that HN is just a specific type of web forum a specific set of rules. It's not an anything-goes place and never has been, and it's hardly the "western world".
Who decides whether the guidelines are fair? well, that has to be someone's job and it happens to be my job, so for now it's I who decide.
Since you've broken them badly in all kinds of places recently:
If you're talking about American free speech your speech is protected from government censorship, not private censorship on a private platform. HN admins really do try to avoid putting their fingers on the scale when it comes to legitimate disagreements but that comment was dead'd for being flamebait and lacking substance - it added nothing of value to the discussion and veered far off topic (much like your comment and my reply do, but thankfully we're in a dead branch of a comment thread so this won't pollute most user's views).
HN exists (partially) to surface interesting news and foster discussions of that news - flamebait is never interesting and it doesn't lead to interesting discussions. We of the internet discovered, during the usenet days, that reducing a conversation to a shouting match is boring - so to promote a more healthy dialog HN specifically removes inflammatory comments unless they bring an interesting topic to light (and even then it's just nicer to communicate in a polite manner) - as this is the goal for this private forum it's completely within its right to restrict discussions that go against that goal and restrict users that repeatedly violate that goal. The internet is a large place and there are plenty of other forums that cater to other forms of expression - the first amendment exists primarily to make it illegal for the government to say such places can't exist - it doesn't obligate all places to act in such a manner nor mandate the existence of such places.
in contrast to the american idea of free speech which limits what the government can censor, germany has a concept of the freedom of opinion which among other things limits the right of companies to censor opinions they disagree with. the blocking of trump for example raised some eyebrows. the kind of moderation done on hackernews would be just fine in germany too though.
The problem is, the mods at Twitter may have a disagreement with a user and ban them arbitrarily, like they did with Peterson. Pretty soon, you will not be able to read anything except what appeals to the Twitter mods. Your thinking will be forced and re-defined and you won't be able to say what you think, because of the repercussions.
[...]
In a world where you can only say what you are allowed to say, people will stop thinking and everybody will say similar things. I hardly call that "freedom" and "pursuit of happiness".
i agree with your general sentiment, which is why i pointed out the difference of how germany treats its freedom of opinion. a few years ago a new law was enacted that requires the swift removal of online hate speech and one of the first people blocked because that law was someone making anti-muslim comments. so no, there is no allowed hate speech there.
the difficulty is to figure out what is to be considered hate speech and what isn't. some of that we may have to learn through trial and error.
the new law is controversial because it forces companies to act on mere notification without a court order. which, while considered normal in the US, is not how germans like to do things.
shouting matches prevent an engaged discussion. on the current topic we can either discuss what the death of the queen means to us, or we can yell at each other for having the wrong opinions. but we can't do both. it won't work, and it doesn't provide any useful data because the shouting matches bury the other discussions which would actually be interesting. it's not possible to ignore them if there is no way to signal that those comments are not welcome. that's what downvotes are for.
people who do nothing but shout their arguments without engaging in good natured discussion are therefore equally not welcome. as a community we need the ability to stop those people from derailing our discussions.
the problem with flaimbait is that it is that it motivates people who like to shout. in a perfect community where noone engages in shouting matches, flaimbait would be unable to start any fights. it would therefore be harmless and ignored. but rarely is a community perfect, and so it is helpful to remind people to not do that.
to know why this particular comment was flaimbait it may be necessary to learn more about the topic and what kind of responses it draws out. understanding this is the job of the moderators. and while the moderators aren't perfect either, they are doing a god job so far, and instead of rejecting particular moderation actions it would be better to find different, less controversial ways to approach the topic in question, which in this case surely did happen. the topic brought up by the banned account has been discussed on this site multiple times in a more civilized form.
right here we have an example of an engaged civilized discussion. this is as it should be, however it is off topic, so people would still be in their right to downvote all of the comments in this subthread, including mine. we can and should have this discussion, but not here where the topic is the death of the british queen and not freedom of speech.
I have not violated any guidelines here. My language is civil, and my content relevant to the HN mod's recent ban of a certain account.
This is meta navel-gazing and is generally not considered on-topic or useful here. That's probably the main reason for the downvotes.
To try to answer the question though, since we're already here:
There are two (at least two) definitions of "free speech" in the US. The "strict" one related to the Constitutional principle enshrined in the 1st Amendment which basically means that the government can't make certain speech illegal and then put you in jail or otherwise punish you for what you say. For better or worse, the courts have generally ruled that there are limits to that though, hence the old saw about "yelling fire in a crowded theatre".
Beyond that, some people look at free speech in a colloquial sense as meaning something like "I can say anything I want, anywhere I want, anytime I want, and nobody can interfere in any way with my doing so". This would mean, for example, that a private web-forum like HN banning an account could be seen as a violation of "free speech". This is not even close to a universally accepted definition, but at this point I guess we could say it's close to being "widely adopted" at worst.
I think most Americans though, accept that as an individual no one of us has standing to compel another individual, or private organization, to assist in transmitting, propagating, relaying, or distributing our speech. So HN banning an account may be distasteful to some people, but it's not a violation of the principle of "Free Speech".
"Free Speech" in the west is the concept that the government cannot use its power to silence your opinions or expression.
It has been co-opted fairly recently -by some- to mean that no one can silence you anywhere. This is a new interpretation, and unrelated to the USA constitutional right to free speech.
This has never been the case. If you say something offensive to me in my house, I can rightfully remove you. You can continue to say the thing somewhere else, just not in a private house.
Hacker News -in this instance- is a private house. If they allowed unlimited free speech, they would have to allow personal attacks, spam, off-topic submissions, etc... Part of the value of HN is that the speech IS NOT free.
You and I can come here and trust that the conversations will meet a standard, banning people who flagrantly abuse that standard is also a form of free speech.
edit: after seeing your edit, it looks like this is a disingenuous question intended to start a flamewar. If that isn't your intention, you should be careful about how you phrase things.
I'm not dang, so I can only speculate, but I would argue that the original comment is very close to a personal attack, and the comment was not made in good faith.
Likewise, I would caution you about your own phrasing, particularly << So, there--the enlightened, FREE Western man or woman or "it", please tell me, is your freedom of speech an illusion and only applicable to Moslems? >>
You have had your question answered thoroughly, but you have escalated to examples that have already been explained (in one sentence: private companies can choose what to publish (Hebdo) and what not to publish (HN, Twitter) without government interference), and chosen a phrasing that is generally acknowledged to be insulting to non-gender conforming individuals.
"Free speech" only applies to what the government can do.
Private entities are allowed to do whatever they want with their platform regarding speech. Twitter, HN, etc. are not obligated to give everyone a megaphone.
There's no way you don't know this already. It comes up every week.
The idea is to oppress tedious communication so curious communication can flourish. It's impossible to have both.
I realize there's a critique of gardeners which argues that nobody should ever pull weeds, or even label any plant a weed—but I think most people come here for the flowers, and for that there needs to be a shit-ton of weed-pulling.
the world is a closed system. the illusion of independence is just a lie. Brexit marks the transition of the UK from arguably the most important state in the EU, to a 2nd and then 3rd world country. It is the suicide of a nation due to spite, ignorance, hate, greed, stupidity. Europe needs to be unified. the entire globe needs to be unified. small countries trying to go it alone will be wiped out or impoverished or both.
How do you want to agree on a common set of values with, say, the Taliban and the CCP?
Would you yourself rather live in a giant dormitory with a thousand other people, everyone eating the same breakfast, than in your own house according to your needs and wishes?
I share your feeling. I was struck by a deep sense of sadness as well. Maybe it’s silly, I don’t know, I sort of felt she was the grandma of the nation. It was a nice feeling knowing she’s there and a sad one knowing she no longer is.
One thing is for sure. She did leave a mark. Winston God damn Churchill was her first time minister! When I will be old and have grandchildren, I will tell my grandchildren how I became a British citizen. And when they’ll ask me when, I’ll tell them during the reign of The Queen. And they will know who I mean.
The most useful Twitter comment I saw today described the Queen as "iconic".
And I realised that's exactly what she was. She was iconic in the religious sense - an embodied icon of a nationalist religion.
This suddenly made a lot of things about the current state of the UK much clearer.
There is no practical sense in which she was genuinely "grandma of the nation." That personification goes one way only - from the population to what psychologists would call a parental projection.
Objectively she paid almost no attention to her subjects, except for a tiny number who were socially or financially notable.
She may have been witty and personable socially - as reported by many people - and perhaps the most interesting thing about her as an individual is that she trained as a mechanic during the war, taking delight in a job that women didn't usually do, and continued that interest through her life.
But I find the crypto-religious elements of the UK's (actually mostly just England's) relationship with her very unsettling.
And I genuinely believe she could have done far more for the people of the UK than she did. Especially recently.
Monarchy is a strange thing. When I flew to Bali on a Thai airline in the 90s a fair few pages of the inflight magazine were full of carefully manicured praise for the talents of the reigning monarch.
It seemed bizarre and alien. But over time I realised the UK has a similar relationship with its monarchy.
And where Heads of State are nominally expected to work for the Greater Good, it seems to be assumed that monarchs do the same, mostly by modelling social ease and extreme privilege.
This is all quite odd. I'm sure there are reasons for it - possibly evolutionary - and I suspect they're not obvious.
She's iconic, unbelievably so due to the duration of her reign and all the changes she's overseen. But...Charles III and then William and Louis will become as iconic. Although she's filled the job magnificently, Elizabeth was Elizabeth at the end of the day, but the British King/Queen is immortal.
I suspect she was iconic in a way we will not see again. It's likely that the British monarchy will not survive in its current form to Louis, perhaps not even to William. When QEII ascended, she was one of a scant handful of European monarchs that survived to the middle of the 20th century, and the public perception of the institution has steadily eroded over the years. If anything, QEII's longevity held some of that erosion back, but Charles and William will not.
Why is it likely? I've a feeling William will be as fondly regarded as his grandmother. Charles not so much, but he might not be in his post for very many years. Also don't overlook the fact that the British Empire and Commonwealth have basically fallen apart under QEII's watch, but that's still not likely to mean that the country gets rid of the monarchy. Nobody in the country is of the mind that having President Boris as head of state is a better idea than having King William. Not even the Scots.
The British Empire and Commonwealth may have fallen during her watch, but she wasn't the cause - Empire and its relics were increasingly relics of a different age and not something she or anyone could have averted.
My impression is that William benefited from just not being Charles, and some of the sheen rubbing off from his mother. Both of those things only go so far, and as he moves more and more into public responsibilities, he has more and more chances to bungle up. From the high of the early 2010s, the only way for him to trend was down, and its inevitable. William is, what, 40? Charles wasn't quite reviled when he was 40 too - he grew into that role.
Even if the monarchy isn't abolished outright before Louis or a sibling ascends, it's very possible that the United Kingdom in its current state may not. The unified crowns of England and Scotland may exist in title only, if that.
I think an institution of monarchy fundamentally can’t survive tabloid journalism. Someone like QEII, who preceded it, could have the advantage of adapting to it as it developed. But people like William were targets since childhood. Every youthful indiscretion was covered. They’ve lived their whole life in a fishbowl. You can’t come out of that with the necessary level of mystique and gravitas it takes to be regarded as a divinely enshrined national mascot.
The UK becoming a republic would not automatically mean a divisive popularly elected politician being head of state. They could continue the current parliamentary system while having a neutral figurehead as President (many countries do this: Ireland and India for example).
yeah but what would be the point of doing that? No politician is going to try and bring about a vote to change from a monarch to a ceremonial figurehead. Indeed, given they swear an oath to the monarch, they're probably not even able to bring about that vote. There's no call for it from the electorate, so it wouldn't be a vote-winner and would be a waste of time.
> Indeed, given they swear an oath to the monarch, they're probably not even able to bring about that vote.
The oath itself wouldn't stop the British Parliament passing an Act of Parliament to abolish the Crown and replace it with some other system. In theory, the monarch could refuse to give their assent to the proposed law but given that would cause a constitutional crisis, in reality the chances are the monarch would assent and the system could be changed.
It seems it would take a republican government in power _or_ huge public demand that the monarchy to be abolished for that to happen which seems unlikely any time soon assuming King Charles III and his successors don't err massively.
I couldn't tell you off-hand how many presidents I've lived through, how many prime minsters I've lived through, how many wars I've lived through ..
But I can tell you I've lived through one Queen.
Even just logistically, to replicate this takes a young start that's getting less and less likely. If we assume Charles has 10-20 years left on him, that'll make William 50-60.
Longest running opera in the world. Everything carefully scripted and in a way to appeal to the masses. See how her demise played out as a drama to get the population engaged.
I've noted the similarities between the Thai and British monarchy with unease as well.
I think it's perfectly plausible that one day the UK could be silently couped by elites using the monarchy as cover - much like Thailand was. The legal framework is all there. If the monarchy is on side, the army is on side.
you know her subjects when lived to a ripe old age of 100 gets a letter from the queen right, the PR game is strong in Queen, call her anything but she did her job with her life and you're witnessing her legacy right now
Apparently, when I was little, I got excited one Christmas when the Queen’s speech was on tv, because I thought it was my Grandmother…
I used to take comfort in the idea that all things pass in time, now not so much. Probably because I realised that includes everyone I love, and myself!
I’ve no great love for the monarchy, but this is certainly the end of an era in British public life and likely in UK international relations - I can’t see the commonwealth nations welcoming King Charles as their new head of state.
And it is weird, there are some things you just never expect to change. I’m hardly a spring chicken, but Queen Elizabeth was not only there my entire life, but Queen far enough into the past before I was born to have interacted with historical figures (like Churchill).
I left the UK a year or so back and have been pretty anti-monarchist for as long as I can remember, so am probably not the best person to ask about the public mood on succession!
I think there are probably a lot of people like me who, while anti monarchy in general, were not particularly anti-Elizabeth. However now that she’s passed I would quite like the whole thing to be further de-emphasised, de-legitimised and removed from any remaining levers of power, however ceremonial or theoretical, and any remaining state subsidy, palaces and lands to be taken into public ownership etc etc.
Not necessarily a bad thing, TBH. Think of it like our Senate in the US. The Senate is a longer view, while the House is the shorter populous public-opinion. Not sure of the Parliamentary influences, but someone who was as respected and revered in an status where one COULD get the longest view on staff (so to say) - why not?
>Think of it like our Senate in the US. The Senate is a longer view, while the House is the shorter populous public-opinion.
Huh? Is a six year term rather than a four year term rally that much longer a horizon. Maybe this view made since when the senate seats were an appointed position. but ever since it became an elected position its ceased to have any appreciable difference from a seat in the house.
The existence of the US senate is a disaster, making the country practically ungovernable (it’s extremely difficult to pass any law without both parties agreeing). It’s really not a great comparison.
Well, originally it wasn't designed to just having two parties. There used to be more ... and there should be more. A two party system just doesn't work.
Honestly, I think the US populous really feels the same about this but from the perspective our history. On the other side of the coin, is the UK has been one of longest running allies in the world with a common history born out of the womb of war. The romantic nature of nobility runs from a far, without the struggles of having the institution in that format - though some would argue we do, but in the oligarchy of wealth. I need not go further, as it treads that fine line.
I myself, am in agreement however. If governance of the UK would modernize, the removal of generational status like what a monarch represents would be a step in the right direction. Why one would do that, and loose the history in the process? Not sure if the UK populous is ready for that, since its still a beloved part of the country and outwardly is a hallmark of the country's brand.
I digress. I am probably just speaking ill of the dead to some, but just glad to be in the US for our representation structure of legislation and executive by proxy. Direct Democracy is the red headed step child of mob rule, and I'm content to not have that either.
It is said that the Queen was 100% against the idea of monarchs retiring. I suppose that harks back to the abdication crisis, but also undermines the concept of royalty altogether.
If the Queen had retired, there might have been a little opportunity for a national conversation about what comes next. As it is, it would be seen as disrespectful to question the succession. The Queen is dead; Long live the King.
As for people preferring William to his father - I think if you give an inch to the notion that the public should have some choice over their head of state then the idea of a hereditary monarchy starts to look pretty absurd.
Reminds me of when when the rules of succession where changed so that the first-born child would inherit the title (rather than the first-born son). Any attempt to reconcile the monarchy with the concept of equality seems a kinda humourous to me.
Early on, the Swedish king was elected at the Stones of Mora. The Holy Roman Emperor was nominally elected by prince-electors (who most of the time elected a Habsburg).
And even withing a hereditary framework, there are other alternatives to retirement in addition to outright abdication. An elderly monarch could for all intents and purposes retire and a let the crown prince (and I suppose in current British succession order, crown princess) rule, appointing them as a co-ruler.
The biggest problem with this is that with modern medicine and the world class treatment the head of state receives, you are destined to end up with geriatric heads of state. For example, it would be unlikely to have a 40 year old King or Queen. Maybe that's okay, but there's something nice about the idea of a monarch starting their rule at a relatively young adult age.
They're a popular couple for sure. I expect King Charles will be more 'active', in lieu of a better word, than the Queen was and thus more controversial. He's long been vocal in eco/green/environmental subjects in particular, which might be very interesting.
Thank you for that recommendation, published 2010 and seemingly out of print, but I've ordered a second-hand copy.
I don't expect it's unusual for a monarch to be something of a philosopher though - they're somewhat inherently well-educated, thoughtful, devoting time to deep thought, etc. Less usual (in modern times anyway) is to hear their thoughts in public as we did while he was Prince of Wales; we'll see to what extent that continues - he has said he's 'not stupid' and that he recognises the role of sovereign is different. If I had to bet though, I imagine he does see a bit more room for public commentary than Elizabeth II made.
I was told a few years ago that there's a general expectation that Charles will mostly focus on some long overdue reforms of how the Royal Family operates e.g. with respect to their business and land holdings, whilst leaving 'normal' politics behind. There have been changes he felt were important for years that he couldn't do whilst he wasn't King. And after that he might retire.
Not sure how much truth there was to all that but it was a family member who told me and they follow this stuff a lot more than I do. It sounds plausible at least, and if that's how he does things, and then William becomes King, the monarchy might stick around for a while longer yet.
How they operate? I mean what can they do beyond the sovereign fund, which takes the profit from their land and business holdings and gives them 15%~ (increased only for certain reasons, like Bham palace renovations), with the rest going to the government.
I think it's hilarious how the average person thinks that "the taxpayer" pays for the monarchy whereas realistically it's their family's holdings that pay for it. If they don't like that then strip them of their land, but strip everyone of their land; no inheritance for anyone.
And even then, whilst they have _some_ personal holdings, the majority of the royal estate cannot be sold by them for personal gain, it _must_ be passed down, it's not your typical inheritance.
As well as that, sure they live a cushy royal life, but I wouldn't want it for me. They are bound to royal duties, to act a certain way, do certain things, follow certain protocols - doing otherwise is shirking royal duties and that comes with its own consequences.
At the same time I think QEII was the last "true" royal. She was the last royal who exhibited at least some of what we would expect from the royals of old, King Arthur, etc. The modern royals, CIII onwards is the start of their decline, imo.
She lived for so long and through so much. Maybe she could have done more to help the everyman - but her power was limited, which is what the people chose - the Glorious Revolution.
Their holdings gained at the expense of the population?
There’s a huge difference between a family that has gathered obscene wealth through royal privilege and families that pass on their moderate inheritances to children.
Let’s start by enforcing normal inheritance tax on them, rather than letting them sidestep it using family trusts.
That's true, I can't remember the phrasing but wanting a more 'slimmed down working royal family unit' as it were is another thing he's been vocal on. But I would say it has gone a lot more that way in recent years anyway, through some combination of the Queen agreeing/easing into it and 'helped' by some external factors of course.
So was the queen. The kind they practice is a lot more occult than your common highstreet homeopath, and more akin to the kind espoused by Czech magician Franz Bardon, and other occultists that the likes of us will never have even heard of.
I think most people would prefer William, but if you'd have waited over seventy years to become King of England, how likely do you think it would be that once you'd finally become King you'd pass it over?
Charles is going to milk his kingship for everything it's worth.
> I think most people would prefer William, but if you'd have waited over seventy years to become King of England, how likely do you think it would be that once you'd finally become King you'd pass it over?
I don't know, if I never had a job I am not sure I would want one at 76!
To be honest, most people I know around my age don't really care too much. I'm hoping he'll use his soft power for talking about and trying to push changes to combat climate change though, he at least seems genuine about that.
Charles isn't liked as much due to the Princess Diana situation (which didn't paint the Queen in great light either), but he'll be accepted as King. William doesn't seem to be as much in the spotlight as he used be.
Before anyone dismissed this as a cheap shot or ungenerous, we need to remember that this is likely our only route to a republic given the absurd biases in uk media and establishment.
Well, it would be a lot harder to sack president Boris /s.
I defer to the historian Niall Ferguson who said (I paraphrase) that purpose of monarchy is to protect the people from its government. From a UK perspective, it seems to work.
But let’s take one example: the monarchy and the ludicrous rules and conventions that go with it to govern parliament are just one way working class MPs are intimidated and given the information that they are not really welcome in the corridors of power.
Let’s remember also that the British people have not sacked Boris. Conservative mps worried for their personal survival sacked him and 300,000 old white people from the south east of England have, for the third time in recent years, made Truss our PM. She has no regard for the manifesto that her party was elected on. Everything is by convention in the UK, which means people with privilege can do whatever they like.
> I can’t see the commonwealth nations welcoming King Charles as their new head of state.
Well this is precisely what is about to happen. There may be some hand wringing articles in major newspapers about whether the Royal head of state is still relevant, appropriate, blah blah blah, but there is approximately zero chance that anything will change in reaction to this news.
"In many [Commonwealth countries] constitutions state that the Queen, specifically, is the head of state. In these countries, constitutions will need to be amended to refer to her successor. In countries such as Jamaica, where there is a strong independence movement, and Belize, these constitutional changes will also require a referendum, according to Commonwealth experts. This is expected to bring about a moment of political peril for the new monarch, who, after Barbados became independent in 2021, could face the loss of another prominent part of the Caribbean Commonwealth."
The article is highly dubious. For example, it lists PNG as a state where "Questions are also like to arise ... over whether the new monarch could lawfully appoint a governor general", yet the Constitution clearly states "The provisions of this Constitution referring to the Queen extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
This is surprising tbh. When they changed the act of succession to remove default male succession, part of that was negotiating changes in succession acts around the Commonwealth. This implies that some or even most of those are unconstitutional? Weird.
Anyways, it would be more surprising if the Commonwealth didn't lose a couple now and if a couple more didn't make plans for when Charles dies, which won't be all that long from now.
I wish Canada was one of those, but all I'm reasonably hoping for is that we drop monarch icons on our cash.
The Commonwealth is not the list of countries that had QEII as their head of state. If you check the summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations you can read about it. That article has even been updated in the last 3 hours.
I am aware of that and did not say otherwise. I can see how you might have read that into what I said (as if I had said "across all") but my intention was across the countries in the Commonwealth that do share a monarch with the UK.
Unless you're saying there are countries not in the Commonwealth that have her as the head of state which is news to me, but maybe i am mistaken.
Immediately? Perhaps not, but I think we’ll see a bunch of countries breaking away from having the British monarch as their head of state in the next few years.
I’m pretty sure that (for instance) Australia was just hanging on until we could be sure she was gone, the current government have already planned a referendum on it in a few years if they get a second term.
(I say ‘we’, I am a relatively recent British migrant, and not a citizen yet)
There's a common understanding amongst Aussies (or at least, the Aussies that I know) that we were waiting for Liz to die before getting on with becoming a republic. For 2 reasons:
1. There was a sense of loyalty to Liz personally. She did a good job of Queening and it seemed almost rude to interrupt that.
2. No-one wants Charles as king. He's very weird, and has ideas that he actually wants to do things with.
I fully expect the referendum to be brought forward because of her death, and for it to get a strong "yes".
Yeah, no. Countries don't care about who is on the throne. They nod along to the British monarchy because they value diplomatic relations with Britain. Just like how they put up with Trump's children.
> I can’t see the commonwealth nations welcoming King Charles as their new head of state.
If you meant the Commonwealth of Nations, Charles was confirmed as the successor in CHOGM 2018. If you meant Commonwealth Realms, their close economic and military ties to Britain are not going to change anyways.
I get that this is an emotional loss to Britain. But let's not pretend there's going to be a material difference.
She's also been a moral authority. She avoided the soap opera situations that have dogged the rest of the moral family and frequently she's shown leadership. In WWII she trained as a mechanic so she could do something tangible to support the war effort.
> the soap opera situations that have dogged the rest of the [royal] family
"Soap opera situations" seems like a gentle way to put it. Several of her family members have been accused of serious crimes, and associated with some very nasty people. For years they were shielded by their association with her.
Exactly. Her silence/defence of Andrew is shameful. No moral compass there. Her distinguishing feature has been to give no public interviews and to entrench antidemocratic privilege as best we can.
Dangs top post irritated me because it felt like this has to be the time to remember the whole life - not just the fantasy we are typically sold.
I think it would be safe to say she put on a stoic face to the world while fronting for what is possibly the most out of touch, dysfunctional, and entitled family in the world.
I really don't want to go on criticizing the queen at length here because I think it's a bit insensitive, so I'll be brief, but I don't think that "avoiding soap opera situations" is really the same as "being a moral authority". Not that I think she was horribly bad either, but my standards for "moral authority" are quite a bit higher. Royal families tend to be neutral to a fault.
An immoral authority. She paid no taxes, lived a lifestyle of luxury paid for by her so called subjects, has offshore accounts, no public accountability, etc. Very easy, paid for life. Nothing moral about it.
It's definitely affected me a bit today. She has a visual and historical presence in so many Canadian institutions, from her portraits hanging in my elementary school growing up, to our currency, the courts, and government itself. It's a bit hard to think of her as a real person sometimes, yet seeing Prime Minister Trudeau speak about her with glistening eyes tells me that she did more than purely her constitutional duty, but genuinely touched many, especially world leaders, with loving humility.
IMO this is a normal way to feel about it. I'm american and while I'm not shedding tears, I do feel the significance. I'd have immense respect for her even if it were only for fulfilling one large role, honorably and consistently, for an entire human lifespan. How many politicians have? And I think she had a hard, hard job. Imagine having to live up to the expectations of a great Queen of England for that long without a meltdown or scandal.
It's quite a different context, however I felt sort of similar about John McCain, mostly for what he endured as a POW, and what he nevertheless went on to accomplish in politics.
The words 'God save the King' in the national anthem are going to feel very alien for a while I think, I feel a genuine sense of loss with the Queen's death. I think it comes from a place of national identity in general rather than royalism specifically, royalist or republican it can't be denied that Queen Elizabeth played a significant role in how the UK sees itself and to an extent how the rest of the world sees us and now she's suddenly not there.
In most of our lifetimes we will also utter “The King and Queen of England” since Charles is already 76. British seem to treasure this tradition, where as we Americans definitely got rid of a Jefferson stature somewhere recently.
struck me as unfamiliar.
Nope, it’s been quite familiar to even someone several hundred years ago.
> Nope, it’s been quite familiar to even someone several hundred years ago.
I'm not sure what point you're making here. I'm not claiming England has never had a King before, I'm pointing out that I'm used to seeing "Her Majesty the Queen" rather than "His Majesty the King" all over.
I daydreams of becoming an indie game developer and publishing under the name Her Majesty's Pencil Service
That name was inspired by the very real HMSO: Her Majesty's Stationary Office(!): a name that struck me as absurdly pretentious for something really mundane.
> * But 2,000 years ago the Europeans were were not "civilised" in the sense that we think of.*
That really depends on what's your definition of "Europeans" and "civilized". The Catholic church exists for around 2 thousand years,is still alive and well, has its capital in Italy, and has defined western society for centuries.
> America is a baby compared to them, the history and memory are very different.
Yes, my house is older than the United States. We found pieces of journals talking about the General Bonaparte. It's pretty common to find stuff from several centuries ago in old buildings.
Queen Elizabeth's mother was also "Queen Elizabeth" as wife of the king, until her daughter took the throne and she became the "Queen Mother" to distinguish which Queen Elizabeth.
(This is not the same as her mother being Queen Elizabeth I, which was the tudor queen from the 1500s, wife-of-king queens don't take up a number).
It's a weird bit of asymmetry to the husband-of-queen title being decided on an adhoc basis, having been a prince of denmark, prince-consort of the united kingdom and prince of the united kingdom respectively.
It's a weird bit of asymmetry to the husband-of-queen title being decided on an adhoc basis...
The asymmetry derives from an asymmetry in the titles themselves: the title "King" outranks the title "Queen", rather than those titles being of equal rank. You can't have someone other than the monarch outranking the monarch, so the husband of the reigning Queen can't be a King.
I know it's getting into technicalities, but "consort" modifies "queen", like "pro" modifies "airpods". The opposite is a queen regnant. Both are queens.
So while you're right that she is styled Her Majesty the Queen Consort, she is the same kind of queen that Queen Charlotte was. I think you're right that people are avoiding the phrase "Queen Camilla" at the moment but I think it will come into use.
prepare to shift your paradigm then. It's anachronistic because there hasn't been a King for such a long time due to QEII's epic reign so it's not part of our vocabulary, but nevertheless, Britain is getting Kings in the 21st Century, because Charles will likely be followed by William and then Louis. Might be the 22nd century before we get a Queen again!
Not just QEII - Elizabeth was the longest reigning British monarch, but that record was previously held by Victoria. So the last 185 years were book-ended by two epic Queens, with a few short Kings between them.
I mean obviously Queen feels more normalized because there's only been a King for 0.002% of my life. But I do think Kings being the minority for the last two centuries adds its own impact too.
Now would be a great time to change the national anthem to something without God or royalty in it.
There is no place in modern society for a family who got all their wealth from wars and stealing it. Only to parade it around infront of millions of people in poverty.
Lets get rid of them. Start by turning the palaces into social housing.
I'm am American, but with a substantial Commonwealth connection. I am vigorously, vocally, unapologetically antiroyal. (I'm going to take this to an absurd extreme to make point, not to be incendiary.) I despise the whole cosplay, exploitative embrace of what is effectively an echo of dictatorship.
But...
Elizabeth was a remarkable person, filled with evident curiosity and willingness to connect with people despite being a reserved personality. She was a bit mischievous. She wasn't defined by her job, she defined it.
And beyond that, there are just so many constants that are about to change. I keep thinking how lucky we are that we have cashless transactions, because the abrupt switch from the ubiquity of Elizabeth's face would have been much more noticeable 15 years ago (which sounds like a non sequitur, but ... her face is everywhere on money).
It’s a cult and she is a cult leader. But the the thing is, you cannot entirely remove the need humans have for cults, religions, nationalism and their corresponding figureheads. You cannot entirely remove the need for unity via shared rituals and traditions, how ever inane.
So we have two options, pick good cults and cult leaders or live with bad ones. The Royal Family at the moment asks nothing from the devout. Literally, you don’t have to pray, believe ideologies, support politics, almost nothing. Just show up for the weddings, respect the titles and play along with the ceremony.
Even many non-Brits shared that respect and admiration.
In 70 years, the number of gaffes/crises linked to her person (rather than other members of her family) are few, perhaps the only dents were the Diana incident and the secret influencing of the law by the crown ("royal consent" and "royal assent" - e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...).
>It's weird, I've never considered myself a "royalist" but this news has affected me quite strongly. I just burst into tears unexpectedly on hearing this news and I don't quite understand why I feel so very sad. I guess I have grown up and lived my whole life (as a Brit) seeing and hearing the Queen, singing "God save the Queen" etc, and this news made me suddenly feel very old, very nostalgic, with the sense that all things pass in time, which makes my heart ache deeply.
I'm not even British and find myself feeling likewise. The Queen has been a fixture for a long time (before my birth and even before my parent's birth as well). It is also probably because of Queen Elisabeth's story was somewhat moving. It will take some time to get used to King Charles III...
I think it’s quite understandable to have an emotional response. People who become fixtures in our lives die and it instantly fires the signals of our own mortality we spend our lives suppressing.
I'm surprised to say I feel the same. I'm Scottish and never really had much affection for the royal family, but I also feel quite sad and that it's the end of an era.
She was the last of the best, we'll see what comes next.
In some way, she was like one of those nice Grannies from your neighborhood. Had no big negatives, also not much positive for the average observer. Just a nice old lady, doing stuff with her family and being around for such a long time that she was some casual part of your world awareness.
there is something that harkens to our mortality when we witness something come to an end. I remember having some reactions to businesses failing and closing shop that I encountered as a youth. They always seemed and appeared so permanent. A place we'd always go to or pass by. Then the years go by and after encountering enough mainstays that had their heyday go under you realize that sentiment of durability and a perpetual landmark were never warranted in the first place and its kind of jarring and unsettling to realize how much flux there is in life.
Perhaps it's because the world is in such turmoil these days and we just lost one of the most (if not the most) stalwart figures on the world stage. I'm not British but that's how it hits me.
I'm very much the same, and have an enormous amount of respect for her. There's a part of me that wonders whether this feeling of continuity - from the start of her reign which was only a few years after the independence of India until now - has kept the country in a kind of a weird stasis though. It'll be interesting to see whether the UK's view of itself shifts significantly over the next few years.
I was very quietly watching BBC News whilst in a meeting. The news was announced just a couple minutes in, I didn't expect to particularly care, but, apparently I do...
Beautifully said. I’m an American and I feel this one too for some reason. It feels nice to stop and reflect on this a bit today — life, and all of it.
I am an atheist and as a french who lived in the Paris surroundings for years I got some tears when I saw Notre-Dame de Paris burning. I guess it is more nostalgia and the loss of what feels like a constant in our life. The more they stay the harder it is to see them go.
Having said that while I am not the kind to wish for heads to roll I think it is a good time to realise you might not wish to allow someone else take her place and be an expensive parasite now =)
>" Twitter is an echo chamber of edginess and not indicative of the average person in the real world."
For now, at least. I think we are all underestimating just how much Twitter impacts public perception. Not just on topics, but how people feel, act, and interact with others. Twitter seems to have a cancerous negativity it inflicts on its users.
The hashtag #IrishTwitter that artificially gets pumped up by Twitter's recommendation algorithm does not equal Irish Twitter, and it certainly does not equal Ireland.
Speaking as an Irish person who hates inherited titles, those people are effing assholes. What part of don't speak I'll of the dead did they miss out on?
That's more a matter of what circles you're in. Most people I've encountered have been much more moderate, separating the human being, who deserves to be mourned, from the institution.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
There is just that thing with those prison camps littering North Korea, the recurring famines, the fact that the Kim dynasty claims god-like status and more... so no, this is not a good comparison even though we of course do not really know how much of all this is known to the North-Korean populace.
All of which is negligible when compared to the atrocities imposed throughout the world by British Colonialism under the sponsorship of the British Monarchy.
Again this is disanalogous. Kim actually perpetrates these hideous crimes to this day. The Queen inherited what you're describing and oversaw decolonisation, today largely serving as a figurehead. It'd be like blaming Hirohito's children for the crimes of Hirohito. Children don't inherit their parent's debt.
What you could blame her for is not doing more to dismantle the monarchy's non-figurehead powers from the inside. But what you're trying to do is something else entirely and rather gross.
I agree only on the point that she doesn't inherit the wrong deeds, nothing on her personally.
But the place she sits, is from the blood of millions who were enslaved, robbed and were dealt with a rather inhuman treatment to say the least. In the process empire also justified what they did was in the past and cautiously moved away from that without an inch of guilt. It is sad to see people in India/Pakistan/SriLanka mourn for her death, a pity case of Stockholm syndrome.
If as you say, she has done good in her life, she should have relinquished the power, disowned the wealth which was directly a result of the horrific colonialism and imperialism. Or at least have some decency and apologise, give back the stolen wealth as a good gesture. Now I wonder, if she would have given up imperialism out of her own volition if she was in power during that period. I am inclining towards No.. it was convenient she didn't have to oversee those horrors.
It has been more than 70 years and even now, they hold their crown so precious adorned with the Diamonds taken away forcefully from our lands. What an absolute shame!
There are unheard horrors from the colonial countries, which will ache even the stone hearted. Bringing all this in perspective, we don't think she's Kim, but we have the same respect or the lack of it for anyone in their legacy.
> she should have relinquished the power, disowned the wealth which was directly a result of the horrific colonialism and imperialism. Or at least have some decency and apologise, give back the stolen wealth as a good gesture.
Totally fair criticism. But that's not what I've been seeing from any of the criticism until your post.
What I've been seeing has been collective filial guilt assignment. The same psychological process underlying racism and other forms of collective guilt assignment. Hatred directed to the Queen little to do with what she did or didn't do, but because of what British Imperialism did in past before she got the job. The post above ours exemplifies this.
I can see that, it is not what I wish. I don't advocate or recommend any of that to my fellow men. Late Queen and the current British monarchy aren't worthy and I believe they need little of our time spent in empathy.
The hatred though is coming from unresolved hurt, which the modern British era is trying hard to forget and won't be easy until they take some sensible directions towards reparations and an honest apology at least from whomever even got to witness, including the late Queen. She had a chance to resolve or ease it in our memories. We'll remember her as someone who lived their life in power, saw the horrors their parents designed upon others and didn't even have courtesy to apologise.
So much for the British decency..
Edit: Sorry for the rant. My Grandpa and his kin suffered a lot and was in freedom struggle, it is that lasting impact. I've put it here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32775488
If you're a brit, please know that I am not against you or anybody for that matter. Just the monarchy's horrific past.
> Late Queen and the current British monarchy aren't worthy and I believe they need little of our time spent in empathy. > She had a chance to resolve or ease it in our memories. > Just the monarchy's horrific past. > won't be easy until they take some sensible directions towards reparations and an honest apology
All totally reasonable things to say.
> The hatred though is coming from unresolved hurt
Yeah, that's the explanation, but we shouldn't confuse that with justification.
What puts me off about the reaction I'm seeing is more abstract than the details of this particular case. It's the same feeling I have when I see casual anti-White racism, justified as legitimate only because of the existence and history of white supremacy. It's filial guilt and collective guilt put on one individual who didn't perpetrate the crimes that are the actual source of the anger. And it's the cultural normalization and even promotion of such perverse group-based moral systems that I am speaking out against.
I totally agree on your point, it is an explanation and not a justification.
And I am against putting the blame on someone to feed our emotions, the hatred isn't going to serve any. This is unhealthy and what I am seeing at anti-white racism is absolutely narrow minded full of obtuse morals. I will support you and several others against such foolishness.
On a side note, this particular case is just one among many, many such happenings for over two centuries of british rule. The worst of the Black Racism and its horror history has mostly ended, and same is the case of colonial countries. But the scars run deep in both the camps, any person who has the decency and courage to come up say sorry and treat as equals would be welcomed with open arms.
It should have happened in the 70s, the 80s or 90s, 2000 or 2010s. I don't think they have any plans for it, and honestly won't care about what others say like we should about them.
> we of course do not really know how much of all this is known to the North-Korean populace
Maybe they know better than you. At the end, they live there. What you claim to know from North Korea and all that other countries from the "axis of evil" comes from TV.
Not what I claim to know but what I know. The difference between these two is that I don't claim to know what I know while not actually knowing it. The things I know about North Korea may be only part of the truth but there is no doubt about me knowing these things nor a necessity for me to claim knowledge I do not possess.
> all that other countries from the "axis of evil"
Where does that come from? I did not say anything about any axis of evil.
> comes from TV
I do not even remember the last time I watched television but I know it is more that 24 years ago since I had one of those contraptions. Nope, I do not get my information from television and have not done so for a very, very long time. What I know about North Korea comes from a diverse mix of sources on the 'net, from books on the subject, from interviews with North Korean escapees and from the odd travel report from people who went there - yes, some people actually visit the place. Satellite imagery provides proof of the existence of camps where escapees said they were so I tend to believe their descriptions of live in that state more than the denials which are thrown their way.
How much did the inhabitants of the Soviet Union know about the conditions in GULAG? Those who went through the system and survived to return to society were not eager to tell the tale for fear of repercussions. It took the death of Stalin and Khrushchev's subsequent speech “On the Cult of Personality and its Consequences” at the last day of the party congress of 1956 for some of the information - but only some, and only until Brezhnev came into power - to be the subject of discussion among Soviet citizens.
> Maybe they know better than you.
Stalin was a monster but to many people in the Soviet Union he was like a god - just like the Kim dynasty in North Korea has a god-like status to many North Koreans. They don't know any better, yet. Let's hope they will get to know the truth, soon.
The axis of evil is just the set of countries somebody wanted you to put the focus on. That's why you are so interested in North Korea while at the same time I bet -but I may be wrong- that you have no clue, nor interest, about what happens in many other countries that do much more harm to their inhabitants, and/or to those from other countries, than NK.
Talking about Stalin, he is a very respected figure today in Russia. In fact, polls say that he is more popular than ever, and a majority of Russians think he played a positive role for their country. Although we may think he was a monster, that doesn't mean that people can't worship him. Why can't they? If some random guy starts crying for a queen that couldn't care less about him, in the case of these leaders it makes even more sense.
Why can't people worship Hitler? Even those who refuse to say negative things about the last president of the USA are labelled fascist by the current president... but worshipping Stalin and the Kims is beyond reproach?
No, facts are facts. Stalin was a monster, as were Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot and - in a slightly lower category - Franco, Castro and Chavez and dozens of other tin-pot dictators from all winds and all political directions. Maybe the local populace adored them but that is besides the point given what we know - what you know as well.
> what happens in many other countries that do much more harm to their inhabitants, and/or to those from other countries, than NK
Let's have some examples of those countries and in which way they do much more harm to their inhabitants than North Korea.
Now back to what started this discussion: where does Elisabeth II stand in comparison to all those mentioned crooks? As far as I know she did not personally oversee any atrocities like those of Lenin/Stalin/Hitler/Mao/Pol Pot/etc.? The British Empire does have a bloody history but so does the rest of the world. Those who were conquered by the British conquered others before them and were often conquered after the British left. The British themselves were conquered by the Romans, the Vikings, the Normans, Bretons, Flemish, and French under the Duke of Normandy. The Germans tried but failed, the Soviets would have liked to but never got that far. The Indian subcontinent was conquered by the Mughals who set up a far more bloody rule than the British did. Genghis Khan killed about 11% of the world's population. Et ce te ra, humans are a warlike species. When Elisabeth II came to the throne the British Empire was winding down, decolonisation continued under her rule until all that was left is the British Overseas Territories.
I can't think of much else that has been the case as long as Queen Elizabeth II being the monarch. There are more than a few pensioners out there who weren't even born when she ascended the throne; I daresay that very few people under 75 years of age remember a time when she wasn't queen before today.
As a Canadian, the idea that she's gone is... strange? Every single time I've ever held a coin (in Canada), she's been on it. Every dime, every cent, every ten dollar bill. I have a difficult time with visual memory, but I know what those images look like because I've seen them a hundred thousand times.
Now it's going to be someone else? It makes sense, but it doesn't feel right.
I find this super interesting, and I have a hunch it has to do with how much the Queen/monarchy has been revealed as human to us through media, movies, entire Netflix shows, etc.
I mean, the Queen could just as well have been a made up figure to you or me, given the vanishing possibility she would affect any of our lives directly. Yet after watching those stories about her life, the monarchy, it manipulates your neurons to actually have a person to mourn. Funny, isn't it? And the length of her life certainly gave enough material to feel some story.
I imagine that before QE2, much state/people mourning of the sovereign was just symbolic, and though perhaps somewhat heartfelt (I daresay, but more for loss of the symbol), not deep. For all their quirks and personality problems revealed to us on TV, it actually caused them to mean more to us.
The phrase 'free world' is ironically apt. It was developed in the Cold War to refer to the US-led anti-communist bloc, precisely because 'free' is equivocal enough to cover despots ruling over capitalist economies. Of course, a Queen by definition is not an emblem of free government.
"God save the Queen" is a beautiful song and anthem. I know it wouldn't be kosher, given that it uses the same underlying music, but "My country 'tis of thee" would be ten times better the US anthem than the "Star-Spangled Banner". It'd be a stretch, but we could just say its metaphoric. :-) Musically, I think even "Dixie" is much better than SSB. My condolences the the country of GB and the world for this loss.
You most likely not one of those who were at the end of her might. You were not the one who suffered when she went on a tour to curtail the independence movements in the colonies, making her one of the biggest PR person for death and destruction.
Or one of the Children that her son raped and who she protected.
Well now you mention it I do feel rather odd myself today, to the extent that I visited the cafe downstairs of my place of work and bought a lolly cake, which is simply the last thing I expected to happen today. Or perhaps the second-to-last thing… well, you get the picture.
The Queen was mostly a symbol, right? It makes sense that you feel sad - it is not just the person who has passed, but also, in part, some essence of that which she symbolized.
Dude, I'm American and even more anti-monarchy. Hell, I'm anti-president, anti-congress, everything.
But I feel the exactly same as you do, and it's not even my damn country to boot.
But, we all know why, or at least it seems to me...a lifetime of dedicated service, consistent and steady service to UK and the world both. Calm, cool. Loyal to country, husband, the whole shooting match.
There's a LOT to admire about the woman that has nothing to do with monarchy. But, almost everyone likes tradition. The 60 second minute and 60 minute hour have been around since Sumerian epoch 5,000 years ago. Tradition. We still use the name of the months from Rome 2,000 years ago. When a head of government has been around for 70 years, the person is not a monarch, that person an institution.
So I had a lump in my throat, and felt some tears well up. Especially as I read that there was a double-rainbow as it was announced. I am not superstitious in the least, and still not about that, but still...
It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for political/ideological/nationalistic battle. We ban accounts that do that, because it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. I'm not going to ban you right now because you posted a few better comments when you first created the account, but if you keep up this pattern, we're going to have to. Same for posting flamewar comments generally, so please don't do that either.
Incidentally, we don't need you to change any of your views, nor do we need you to conform to the majority here (which, although highly international, is certainly mostly Western). But we need you to follow the site guidelines, which means using the site for intellectual curiosity and thoughtful conversation, avoiding name-calling and personal attacks, avoiding flamebait, and not using an account for a mostly-political agenda. There are other places on the internet to fight those wars. We're trying for a different sort of forum here.
The fact that you did not remove the flags from my comment and instead preaching to me about some guidelines shows that you are a pretty pathetic and incompetent moderator.
I think it's a very understandably human urge to hold up someone for emulation. The only odd thing about a noble class in that sense is that we decide the job of "role model and leader" should be hereditary.
But I think it's a very understandably human reaction to feel sorrow when someone who millions of people have invested so much energy into making the best person that can be is still mortal.
> The only odd thing about a noble class in that sense is that we decide the job of "role model and leader" should be hereditary.
I don't think it's odd at all, in fact it's pretty normal when you look at a long stretch of history. I'd wager that heredity based monarchy is probably the most common form of regime.
Interesting! So I'd never really thought about this dimension before, but yes: at least among monarchies, hereditary monarchy is the most common form.
Whether it's the most common form of government is unclear. In modern times, democracy is most common. I think what was most common historically might be a complicated question and changes in terms of how it's asked (in terms of distinct governments, total territory controlled, or total population loyal to?).
Today yes. But until the 19th century, heredity based monarchy was the most common form of government historically.
Monarchy is still the most common form of organization as well. For instance, every corporation is a monarchy with a board that acts as the king/queens court and executives that represent the remaining nobility. Same with Military arrangements. It's probably a reason that these forms of organization tend to dominate others, like collectives, etc. Strong leadership from the top will always be optimal. Of course, weak leadership from the top is fatal.
I'll add:
Consider there are 3 forms of organization:
Rule by 1, Rule by some, and Rule by many. These can be broken into 6 implementations, 2 for each form. Monarch/Tyrant, Aristocracy/Oligarchy, Democracy/Populism. There's interesting relationships between these 6 and what some historians believe are natural transitions from 1 to another: Monarch->Aristocracy->Democracy->Oligarchy->Populist->Tyrant
I like to expand the though "strong leadership from the top will always be optimal" with what it's optimizing for. It has benefits for speed and specificity; as long as the chains of communication are open and clear, what the group should be doing is easy to understand. That's much muddier in a distributed leadership system.
And, of course, that centralization carries good and ill. At different points in time, it can be detrimental to centralize authority so. But even countries like the United States, which generally pride themselves on decentralized democratic rule, have various emergency powers abilities for wartime consolidation of authority behind the Executive (and President specifically).
Apart from that note, I agree with everything here.
No... Not at all. Not that many large cap corporations(large capital organizations, not Mom and Pop Inc) have one exclusive owner. None of the publicly traded corporations are monarchies at all.
Sure they are, CEOs are the King/Queens. They have full control on decisions and do as they please more or less. If they don't perform then they are replaced with a new monarch. Monarchs can be challenged and deposed and often were. A monarch that was not doing a good job was often in defense of themselves from rivals.
A monarch is the leader of a state. If we remove the "of a state" part from the definition, we just have a fancy sounding synonym for "leader." So in some sense a CEO could be called a monarch if we did that, but so could... whatever, a sports team's coach.
Yeah sort of my point in that it’s a common form of organization. Point being we feel like democracy is the best but nearly every other organization is closer to monarchy. Monarchy’s are extremely effective organizational structures when the monarch is extremely competent.
And an extremely ineffective organizational structure when the leader is incompetent. This is fine in the lower-stakes scenario of a company. For nations, it isn't surprising that the most successful ones have switched to democracy. Peaceful handover of control, representation of diverse interests, and all that.
Replace the word CEO with President, Prime Minister, Branch Manager, Head of Labor Union - and it'll make as much sense.
As a person making this claim, you are failing miserably to make a case that CEO is a monarch. (Mostly because you don't know what it means to be CEO or a monarch)
> Replace the word CEO with President, Prime Minister, Branch Manager, Head of Labor Union - and it'll make as much sense.
They all have massive limits on their powers as compared to a CEO. They work with parliaments, etc. They can be vetoed easily.
I'll grant it isn't a perfect analogy. A CEO doesn't have unlimited power granted by god and has to answer to a board and therefore shareholders. But in essence, the idea of having a singular ultimate decision maker/leader rather than having a small group vote on decisions or have the entire company vote makes it a de-facto monarchy.
It's a very bad analogy, because CEO's operate within a charter. CEOs isn't even the top position at all companies, typically it's the chairman of the board... that can literally tell the CEO to can it. In fact almost all CEOs can be vetoed by the board of directors and even at certain times - individual shareholders.
Your analogy is, again, rooted in lack of knowledge(aka ignorance) of corporate structures.
The CEO of my startup right now, where she literally owns 51%, still must go to the board for any impactful decision. And any C level exec can call the board.
LLCs are generally autocratic, but that isn't "any corporation".
Plenty of publicly traded companies have a single shareholder with 51 or more % of the votes, for various reasons. (this doesn't necessarily means owns 51% of the shares, just that they control 51% of the votes - e.g. special stock classes with more votes per share, or via holding proxies, etc)
I gotta admit that it is a bit weird to see british royalty being so heavily privileged that they even get special moderation treatment here on HN to protect them (?) from any negativity, or rather stop negativity about them.
I'm not keen on the idea of using this submission to flame the Queen, I obviously agree with the general rule of avoiding flamebait, what I mean is that other HN submissions on the deaths of people certainly didn't get this special treatment. It is also not at all enforced in both directions when looking at the obviously and comically over the top positive comments of low quality which contain no real substance.
Edit: I used the wording "stop negativity" which might be misleading, since (as far as I am aware) no comments are being deleted. What I'm talking about is moderation giving out a lot of warnings and keeping a closer watch on "flamebait" violations than I've ever seen before on any submission.
It wasn't really special moderation treatment, though I understand why it looks like that way now.
It was because, when the thread was getting going, it flooded with crap comments (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769222, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769043). I decided to come down hard on those to try to ward off a shitshow. It would have been the same in any thread that was filling up that way, but which we weren't going to downweight off the front page. And we weren't going to do that because (a) the story was on-topic, and (b) it's such a big story that we couldn't get rid of it if we wanted to—people would just repost it until one got past us.
I posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769925 at the top of the thread as a bulwark against the crap comments. That's also standard moderation. At some point, though, the thread started to fill with plenty of more substantive comments and then it looked to people like I was taking a side on the royalist question. Nothing was further from my mind.
It took me a long time to figure this out, probably because after 4 hours of doing nothing but refreshing this page and posting moderation scoldings, my brain was fried. Eventually I got it and the fix was simply to unpin https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769925 from the top and demote it as offtopic. That seems to have calmed things down (except maybe for https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=theirishrover).
It's worth noting that the delivery often causes more problems than the content. Counter-opinions appear to last a lot longer if they frame it in a civilised discussion.
They were crap comments because they were low-information, high-indignation name-calling. Comments like that are noise—and destructive noise at that—regardless of the position they favor. They could be arguing that 2+2=4 and be just as terrible.
Because they were crap comments. They'd have been crap comments if they were pro-monarchy, too. One of them was a one-liner "fuck the monarchy I don't care" comment, and the other, not much longer, ended in "cringe asf lmao".
> One of them was a one-liner "fuck the monarchy I don't care" comment,
I did not referred to that comment.
> and the other, not much longer, ended in "cringe asf lmao".
The comment you're trying to misrepresent was "Great time to abolish the monarchy. Monarchies are fucking stupid.", and afterwards, once the downvotes started to flow, was edited with "Edit: yall actually support monarchies? cringe asf lmao"
Nobody feels that. It's plain why the comment was singled out, and it has nothing to do with its point of view, other than the contempt that it had for the community it was posted on.
I’ll happily read an HN debate on the monarchy all day long.
But I don’t see Dang censoring a robust, thoughtful discussion of abolishing the monarchy here. He shut down a cheap, childish comment that was followed by an even cheaper, vulgar dismissal of people who don’t already agree with the original “comment”.
I'm not against republicanism. Your example, 'Great time to abolish the monarchy. Monarchies are fucking stupid', is not an interesting or well though-out comment. If that's all the effort this commenter felt like giving to this forum, then it should be down-voted.
A lot of us here are coders and we appreciate concise code. Why not, then, concise arguments? Bias wrapped in fake nuance is obvious and time-wasting. "Fucking stupid" is an apt description of monarchism in this day and age.
I feel that you might have a dataset of sufficient size to fine tune a language model to help you with the task.
It can serve as a rough detector which alerts you of posts which might violate the guidelines and also rank them from those that are very likely to violate one (which you can get through quickly, without wasting much cognitive energy) and ones which require more judgement.
If there were a way to block comments by recently-created/low-karma accounts in these situations, perhaps that would be better than burying the entire topic.
> (a) the story was on-topic, and (b) it's such a big story that we couldn't get rid of it if we wanted to—people would just repost it until one got past us.
but somehow the dozens of kobe bryant posts didn't get past you, even though it was just as big of a death and just as on-topic (anything piquing curiosity, right?). i'd suggest being even-handed about these kinds of posts, rather than allowing some to be flagged off the front page because [black, athlete, relentless winner, investor, entrepreneur, oscar awardee, loving father, ... ], would help temper the backlash.
none or all such posts should be allowed, but not the picking and choosing that happens currently, which is highly disrespectful in the same way you're criticizing others here.
I'm sorry—and yes, it may have been the wrong call. I don't know how to make all right calls. If a good HN user is still upset about something years later, that probably means we messed up somehow.
People often propose mechanistic rules like "allow all such posts" or "allow no such posts". The simplicity of that has an obvious appeal in the abstract, but I don't think it's viable on HN. This place doesn't function mechanistically. Human interpretation is constantly required: messy, unsatisfying, flawed human interpretation.
apology accepted! and sorry if it came off a bit harsh.
to be fair, the all-or-nothing suggestion isn't practicable on the face of it (otherwise you'd get more troll postings, or more unhappy users), so it was more an opening gambit than a fleshed out suggestion.
however, it's pretty clear that implicit biases strongly and unflatteringly drive[0] what gets flagged and what gets popularized (largely by hn users of course). is it hn's job to address implicit bias? that's certainly debatable, but i'd think you'd want the widest reach possible and potentially turning away upwards of 80-90% of the world's population isn't a long-term winning strategy for yc.
most entertainers (singers, actors, celebrities, etc.) are stale topics of conversation (mostly rehashes of what they did/said), but way too many make the front page anyway (or conversely, far too few of the more interesting ones make it).
[0]: it'd probably be an interesting exercise to analyze what obit posts gets flagged, uncommented/unpromoted, and popularized. i've casually observed (and even tested a bit) that nearly all the black/brown people and most women don't make the front page, many of whom are fascinating historically, otherwise they wouldn't have cleared the higher bar for getting noticed in the face of bias in the first place.
For us who don't feel for the monarchy or think it has minimal impact or significance on our lives, the next couple of weeks (or months) is going to be grueling as we have to stay quiet, bite our tongues and bare the over-the-top ness of this situation to not offend others. I was disappointed in this moderation warning.
The ex-prime minister of the UK who led us through a pandemic where hundreds of thousands died has just said it's the UK darkest day. And, I have received an email to say my kids nursery will be closed due to the situation, and they will be talking about bereavement for the kids. He is 2.
Really? Nearly everyone I know is somewhat against the monarchy and think it should be abolished, but my parents are very pro-monarchy. The only thing my dad said was, "Did you hear the news? Very sad", and I said, "Yeah, very sad" and that was it.
Is it really hard to have a bit of empathy for people who are sad that someone they loved/admired/respected has died?
A nursery closing is odd, but again, their choice. Talking about bereavement sounds very healthy to me, whatever the excuse for it.
I don't live in the UK, but it looks like it's a proper big deal for a large part of your society... I guess that's what society is about. Sometimes you have to give way.
> I guess that's what society is about. Sometimes you have to give way.
Would you be saying the same thing if we were talking about racist, or homophobic individuals? Let's not pretend that the monarchy doesn't have victims.
I agree that it will be a trying few weeks. Although I think these kind of situation can give voice to existing pain in peoples lives. And the losses of covid may be expressed as grief for the Queen. It is easier for some people to feel those kind of emotions when the object is less personal and less complicated. The emotions flow precisely because she had minimal impact or significance on our lives. If it really was personal people would want to keep their emotions more private. But the collective nature of the loss lifts the veil and the sadness becomes public. And of course the media and VIPs will milk it for all its worth.
Society is give and take; roads and services are closed, tax money spent, and favorite TV shows cancelled for things like sports events, concerts, and state visits that one may personally oppose
I hope you manage to find some meaning in what will happen in the next few weeks. For many, this is a great loss, perhaps can there be learning in being curious and compassionate regarding other people's experience of loss and grief, and their hopes and fears for the future
I'm not saying it's entirely reasonable to lay all of that hate on the Queen's feet. But just as she was a symbol of hope and progress to some, she's a symbol of a deeply evil, globe-spanning empire to others. I don't think you can give her credit for the good without accepting at least some credit for all the harm that happened under her watch as well.
If we're expected to be understanding to the people grieving the loss of a celebrity, surely we should be a thousand times more understanding to all the people who are angry at far greater losses caused by the British Empire.
I would suggest that many more people are saddened by the Queen’s death than consider it a meaningless inconvenience, as you appear to. Perhaps you could be sensitive to the feelings of your fellow citizens, even if they do disrupt your day somewhat.
My point is not the meaningless, or the inconvenience. But the over the top reaction.
Many people are saddened with a small s. Many people don't care much at all. Many people appose to it (and are saddened.)
You may suggest more. But you or I can't know for sure.
That's my point. Millions in the UK lost someone during the pandemic. I'm sure these were darker days. It's the perspective and balance that I feel is off.
You were disappointed that there was a moderation warning when some people are celebrating her death? Her job was to take pictures and open hospitals. And random people who dislike the idea of royality or dislike the UK are posting some rancid patter.
Sure all, it's all over the top, sure many people don't care. The warning wasn't there for people who didn't care. It was there because there are literally people going around acting like this woman was a war criminal when she held no real power, if she ever tried to use any power she technically had it would have caused chaos and resulted in that power being removed and the royal family being removed. Some people acting like Indians would be dancing on her grave even though they've been indpendent for all of her reign and every Indian I've met has been interested in the Queen and royal family like all other people are. Or the Irish are happy she is dead, maybe in the 80s or 90s at the peak of the troubles but most people won't care just like most people in the UK don't care.
And let's be serious, you won't have to bite your tongue that much since most other people will be complaining about it all in a few days.
> You were disappointed that there was a moderation warning when some people are celebrating her death?
Actually, if you read dang's comments you'll see that's not why it was moderated. In fact, there's obviously nothing wrong with celebrating her death as many see her as a tyrant who committed and maintained massive atrocities. The problem here, were the massive amount of low-quality comments just saying stuff like "Good" and "fuck the monarchy" (and nothing else.) See his comment above for more references and explanations.
Actually, you seem to misunderstand the difference from being critical of someone and being rancid and celebrating their death.
And honestly, I think there is something wrong with celebrating the death of a woman who had no power and whose primary job was being a mascot. If you think she did have any power you clearly misunderstand the political landscape of the countries she was the mascot for.
Fundamentally speaking, while she held no formal power, she was wealthy, popular, charismatic, and quite possibly the single most politically-connected individual in the country. Half of what she's being praised for in this very thread is examples of her using her informal power to strengthen diplomatic relationships and so forth.
If the Queen wanted to go on TV and denounce the evils of UK society, nothing was stopping her. I'm not from the UK, so I've honestly no clue how she used that power - but to say she was powerless is to say that every artist, author, activist, and lobbyist has wasted their life, because not a single one of them had anything like her influence.
> If the Queen wanted to go on TV and denounce the evils of UK society, nothing was stopping her. I'm not from the UK, so I've honestly no clue how she used that power - but to say she was powerless is to say that every artist, author, activist, and lobbyist has wasted their life, because not a single one of them had anything like her influence.
She went on TV and denounced stuff all the time. Still doesn't change anything. You're mistaking influence with power. And most lobbyist would have more influence than she actually had.
I love hating on moderation and I'm always ready to be critical of it, and of dang, if it's warranted. But I will say "monarchy is bad" comments are boring and don't lead to interesting discussion. There's a million other places to express that if you want.
Sort of tongue in cheek, but the visible effects of moderation are awful in 90% of circumstances across the internet. Granted we don't see the benefit of the non-visible parts, but on reddit especially there are endless stories of communities being ruined by moderation, and moderation being used to force community behavior that suit the moderator's agendas.
There instances, like HN, where the platform isn't trying to be used for making money or pushing an agenda. Moderation on this tends to be good, but that set of circumstances is rare
Through complete coincidence of timing, her reign saw her become head of state for the entire post-war United Kingdom. Life was different back then, in a way that is more complex than being defined by the things we didn’t have. Entire continents were owned by London, fields were hand harvested by men in tweed with scythes, it was illegal to compete with the government telephone monopoly and/or be gay, and goods were hoisted off ships in cargo nets.
It’s hard enough to look back at the 1980s and see what a shockingly different country the UK was, let alone to the 60s and 50s. Elizabeth was present for the post war reconstruction of Europe, the emancipation of the working classes, and ironically the end of most people’s deference to anything except money or celebrity.
On top of all this she also represented a beloved family
member to which many of us can relate, especially those of us who have lost that grandma, mother, or sister.
Her death is both a single flower dying, and the last flower of its species dying.
>On top of all this she also represented a beloved family member to which many of us can relate, especially those of us who have lost that grandma, mother, or sister.
She represents a bygone institution that will one day cease to exist, quite possibly the last monarch to die with the title in Australia and hopefully elsewhere.
>Her death is both a single flower dying, and the last flower of its species dying.
This is exactly what my previous comment was getting at. This is HN not poetry corner.
This is the point I was trying to make at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769925 by quoting pg's 15-year-old bit about how empty positive comments aren't so bad (https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html). It's true that they don't contain any more information than empty negative comments, but they don't degrade the threads the way empty negative comments do.
Unfortunately people took that as some sort of pro-monarchist stance!
Who decides what's "empty positive" vs "empty negative"? What you frame as pro-monarchist vs anti- can be as easily framed as anti-egalitarian vs pro-egalitarian. So anti-egalitarian empty comments were allowed, while pro-egalitarian ones were held to a higher standard.
"Empty" praises and supports for one side of the position - a political position in a complex issue, not just "Thanks" like PG writes - are not really empty, they're the tools of populist campaigns.
I will accept boring positivity over boring negativity any day, and as dang responded, that is basically his approach here too. I think boring comments in general should be dissuaded but frankly this post on HN was never going to generate much interesting convo anyway
It seems like you misunderstood or are misrepresenting what I wrote.
While we have these kinds of submissions pretty regularly on HN, this is the first time in multiple years I've seen a reminder about this under almost every single negative comment and every comment containing critique. The reminder about the rule was even expanded to the whole concept of royalty.
My point is not that speaking ill of the dead should be encouraged, my point is the selective enforcement of that sentiment with only a special, priviliged group benefitting from it.
Edit after consideration: Whether criticizing the dead or not criticizing the dead should follow a general rule, I can't and won't comment on.
There is genuinely a lot for love for the Royals from a lot of people in the UK so there is a ton of media coverage of them, especially in some of the low end newspapers such as the Daily Express.
Further afield, the Royal family is aggressively marketed by those who stand to benefit from increased tourism.
But it is to be expected. There are the good guys in the Western sphere of influence and the bad guys. And this is a Western site. It cannot be expected to do much but reflect what is this site's audience. The Elephant and The Rider, after all.
Besides, she's just a figurehead, and makes no real decisions. So it's a bit strange to lay the blame at her feet for the Mao-style starving of her subjects (as they would have been considered by her at the time) or the many wars.
> So it's a bit strange to lay the blame at her feet for the Mao-style starving of her subjects (as they would have been considered by her at the time) or the many wars.
Not really. She's been the living figurehead and embodiment of "Britain" for nearly a century, and for colonized peoples that by definition includes the generational trauma and suffering from the British empire. You don't get to be Queen and wear a crown with the Kohinoor on it and just separate yourself from that history.
You say "special moderation treatment", as if it is something sinister. Have you considered that it may just be the fact that she was so broadly loved, that this happens naturally?
> From commoners to heads of state, the queen has been known to smooth over embarrassing situations with a gentle quip or two. According to Blaikie, at a Buckingham Palace Garden Party, a woman was chatting with the queen when her cell phone embarrassingly started ringing. “You’d better answer that,” the queen told her. “It might be someone important.”
> Then there was the notorious incident that occurred during Charles and Madame de Gaulle’s state visit to Buckingham Palace. “Somebody asked Madame de Gaulle what she was most looking forward to in her retirement, which was imminent,” Blaikie writes. “Not speaking English much at all, she replied, ‘A penis.’ Consternation reigned for some time but it was the queen herself who came to the rescue. ‘Ah, happiness,’ she said.”
Well, I'm actually a French speaker and what makes me say that is the "a" in happiness that is IMO never going to be pronounced by a French speaker the same way as the "a" in "a penis".
The "e" might get pronounced as the "I" in penis by a good enough English speaker, but probably not by a bad English speaker.
I also believe that stress would be totally different, put only on the "a" by a French speaker.
Even some English speakers omit the H, 'appiness. Give it a little inflection and you've got yourself a penis. I did watch a French burlesque show that had a comedy bit based in on this very mispronunciation, but that may well have been contrived.
or embrace the sillyness of having a monarch in the modern era and appoint a random tree kangaroo the monarch and all of their descendant be the new royal family. Wheel it out a couple time a year for ceremonies before taking them back to their estate some nature preserve
> Serious question: name someone who might realistically be President who would not make you sad.
Michael Kirby, Marie Bashir–both too old now, but either could have been a fine President if we had become a republic sooner. Or, similarly, Ted Egan, former Administrator of the Northern Territory.
Frank Brennan–the whole his being a Catholic priest thing is somewhat of an obstacle, admittedly (although possibly not a completely insurmountable one.)
The President is a largely symbolic apolitical role – yet also popularly elected. To ensure only high quality candidates run, the hurdle to nominate is rather high – nomination by at least 20 members of the Irish Parliament (the Oireachtas), or by at least four county/city councils (Ireland only has 31). My impression is that people are generally happy with the outcome of the process.
In Australia, we could similarly require nomination by at least 20 MPs (the Parliament of Australia is only slightly larger than the Oireachtas, 227 vs 220). The four councils requirement is a bit harder to translate – but rough equivalents would be nomination by 1 state/territory government, or by 70 local councils.
What? Most Australians do not support the monarchy, a lot of Australians want a republic.
For all of those Australians, having the democratically elected PM become president is clearly superior than having an unelected monarch be the head of state.
We might find out soon I suppose, no shortage of calls for a referendum. I imagine the dilly dallying has just been because the Queen was quite favorable, and didn't meddle. A don't fix what isn't broken situation.
When one doesn’t need to be worried about being elected, one can make decisions based on principle, and the longer-term view, rather than pandering to popular opinion.
We always complain that politicians work on a two-year cycle. If your position is permanent (pending death), you escape this cycle.
See also: the House of Lords.
It’s weird to think about, and I’m a working-class Labour voter from Sunderland whose grandad was a welder on the ships, but there’s something to be said for it.
There's also the argument that if your job as ruler is known from a young age you can be groomed into the role in a way a career politician never will be.
A system for choosing a head of state that requires an extensive training period and that meant they couldn't simply be turfed out on the whims of a gaggle of swinging voters has something to be said for it.
But what sort of long term decisions would you have them make?
Probably infrastructure, as that takes a long time to complete, and can be made a little more effective rather than "if I can find a way to tunnel from the country to the beach, I'll get more votes" (/s)
We do not have enough gusto here to lead ourselves.
Asus being a republic is doing to be 50 years of dumb, outdated ideas and strife. None of our pollies are going to be innovative (Kevin, Turnbull, and Gillard were the last attempts)
With Murdoch having such a strong grip on the public conversation, he's going to profit the most from shitty controversies over absolutely nothing.
There's already a "change" vacuum (think power vacuum) in Australia which really opens the door for totalitarianism in the future. And Australian nanny-state-ism hasn't been a good precedent so far.
Approximately zero of the indigenous population present prior to settlement by Europeans would have identified as being Australian, or of being born in Australia, or anything like that.
Definitively, yes, Australia "began" with European settlement of the continent.
Except I do live here, and it's patently ridiculous to say The Commonwealth of Australia is anything but an invention of European settlers. Of which Queen Elizabeth II was the Head of State for 57% of its existence. Which is the context of this comment thread.
Can't the term "Australia" just refer to the place on the globe? Like if someone was telling me what Antarctica looked like 50,000 years ago, I wouldn't tell them that Antarctica didn't exist back then. I'd know what they meant.
"Australia's history" was a poor choice of phrase exactly because of that ambiguity. In fact it was explicitly referring to the period since 1901, which very few people would consider to be the start of "Australia's history".
Yes, the commonwealth. Federation was not the start of Australia. It was colonisation. We began 1788, mate. That's it.
You can't just erase all those years of history or say they weren't part of our history, because they're "unpalatable". Ugh. Did you forget your history that you learned in school? :)
The GP's statement was completely factual: the title of "Queen of Australia" only came into existence in 1901 when the states of what is now Australia federated. Before that, the Queen was head of state individually over six separate colonies.
Factual? From what point of view? The narrow one that Australia only existed after federation? That's f*** ridiculous I'm sorry. It was called Australia way before that. And the Queen was still the queen of those f*** colonies come on. It's not factual, Australia's history extends from more than 200 years. Why do engineers have to be so narrow about definitions: they think they're right but they're wrong they're just not seeing the other points of view. They just paint themselves into a corner on a narrow definition and then double down... it's f*** pathetic. But they use this to be abusive and quarrelsome and start fights, on the false pretense that they're right and they're the only right. it's b****. rather than just going, "yeah there's another point of view."
Like how you can question 1788 is the start of Australia is just ridiculous. And the monarch was the monarch of Australia for all that time because it was a British colony and then federation and we still have those heads of state. so it's not completely factual... what I said is factual what the other person said is wrong or limited to the point of view of federation. To argue against what I'm saying is crazy. What's the point of it even it's just like picking fights.
Your facts don't cover the reality of the situation I'm sorry. Australia is not just a name on a piece of paper after federation. Why do engineers think a single fact conveys the whole truth. Then I realize it's abusive to stick to that and not consider all the points of view...ugh. whatever.
Convince yourself what you want man but it's not the truth. But I don't think you've got any skin in the game to even argue this... Haha :)
> The Tjapwurung, an Aboriginal people in what is now southern Australia, shared the story of this bird hunt from generation to generation across an unbelievably large slice of time—many more millennia than one might think possible. The birds (most likely the species with the scientific name Genyornis newtoni) memorialized in this tale are now long extinct. Yet the story of the Tjapwurung’s “tradition respecting the existence” of these birds conveys how people pursued the giant animals. At the time of this particular hunt, between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago, volcanoes in the area were erupting, wrote amateur ethnographer James Dawson in his 1881 book Australian Aborigines, and so scientists have been able to corroborate this oral history by dating volcanic rocks.
...
> What are the limits of such ancient memories? For what length of time can knowledge be transferred within oral societies before its essence becomes irretrievably lost? Under optimal conditions, as suggested by science-determined ages for events recalled in ancient stories, orally shared knowledge can demonstrably endure more than 7,000 years, quite possibly 10,000, but probably not much longer.
Under her reign it was Her Majesty’s government and she took an active role in it that wasn’t publicly visible. Laws did not take effect without her assent, and the government formed with her permission which was asked for.
Under Charles III’s reign, it will be His Majesty’s government; how actively he takes an interest in its affairs will be on him, but at a minimum laws will not take effect without his assent and his permission will be asked for to form future governments.
That’s the system of the United Kingdom. It never stopped being a Kingdom, people just chose to view the late Queen as ceremonial because it was a convenient way to square the Throne with democratic ideals, but it really isn’t all that ceremonial. The reason the customs held fast is because Queen Elizabeth II worked to make the system work. A different sort of Queen may have sparked a constitutional crisis or two by now and there’s no guarantee she would have necessarily lost to the Commons.
Small correction: not “you guys” because I’m not British, just an observant American that took a serious interest in the functioning of foreign governments as a lens through which to evaluate our own.
The functions and powers of our Presidency are a much closer derivative of the British monarchy than we tell ourselves in our classrooms. The President signing bills into law is a copy of the requisite assent of the monarchy. Political appointments were a copy of how the King vested power, and as you guessed it, the King is the Head of the British Armed Forces.
Also I think even British folks are undersold on how powerful the late Queen really was. She may not have vetoed any legislation, but her Prime Ministers sought and received her advice regularly, consulting with her and unburdening themselves to her the problems they were faced with or tasked with resolving. Put another way, she was an active participant in how laws were formed and the business of Her Majesty’s governments proceeded even if she did not participate in the drafting of the texts or have any policy objectives per se. That isn’t ceremonial at all, although many of her duties as Queen and Defender of the Faith were ceremonial.
In America we celebrate the separation of powers, telling ourselves a few myths along the way about the co-equality of branches (essentially Nixon era propaganda from when he was facing down the gun barrel of impeachment, but Congress adopted the myth despite being head and shoulders the most powerful branch of Government under the Constitution). The King-in-Parliament—or under the late Queen, the Queen-in-Parliament—is absolute power in the United Kingdom and no one may question their directives because this is King, Lords and Commons speaking as one. Their power as one body is what we separated into the President, Senate, Representatives and Supreme Court. We then limited it further by conceiving of powers as enumerated, although clearly this was insufficient as a power limiter.
Yes but the last time a monarch vetoed a law was in 1707, and that was only because parliament asked Queen Anne to veto the law.
In reality, if King Charles started vetoing then after a short constitutional crisis, parliament would basically just change the rules of the game to say that the monarch no longer has the power to veto laws.
Wouldn’t the loophole still be if one house of the parliament co-opts King, essentially simulating American democracy where you have a Republican King and Republican Party in power allowing the Republicans to veto laws and stop monarchy reform in parliament?
The British Armed Forces are also know as "Her Majesty's Armed Forces" (now His Majesty's). The official head of the armed forces is the monarch and that's who they swear their allegiance to. However, there is a long standing constitutional convention that the executive authority is given to the Prime Minister by "royal perogative". So technically the monarch, but in reality it's the Prime Minister.
If the monarch tried to actually do something significant with that power I imagine the law would be changed pretty quickly.
This is why working royals generally have various military titles and positions, because the monarch is the head of the armed forces. It's also why the monarch dresses in military regalia for various military events.
Why? Constitutionally the Prime Minister is just the "first" minister to the monarch. These days, of course, the monarch defers all governance to the Prime Minister, but the origin of the role is as an advisor of sorts to the monarch. It shouldn't sound any worse than saying Merrick Garland is Joe Biden's Attorney General.
Along those lines, Britain joined the EU a year after Smalltalk-72 and K&R C were introduced. Smalltalk inspired Objective-C, which is still used today in Macs.
The British Constitution can be seen as a large piece of legacy code which has never been tossed and rewritten from scratch, just incrementally patched and refactored over a really long period of time.
Downside: lots of bizarre complexities, bits of dead code, stuff that works as long as nobody touches it etc. Upsides: it's really stable.
Yea, it seems like yesterday it got announced. I was working in Berlin with an English guy, he took it super hard. We went out for drinks after work and at the end of the night he was telling one of the Germans they were lucky - because they were still in the EU.
I feel slightly bad for Liz Truss, since I imagine that one of the things she will be remembered is that the Queen died less than 48 hours into her government.
Truss wouldn’t care about that. If anything she’ll spin this to her advantage. It’s pretty common for governments to release embarrassing documents or unpopular changes during busy news weeks, or at the weekend, knowing that peoples attention is elsewhere.
Oh I'm sure she at least appreciates the opportunity to bury some unappealing news. News broke e.g. of her decision to rescind all restrictions on fracking (and – just a funny coincidence – of the fact that her campaign's biggest donation came from the wife of a BP exec), at about the same time as news of the Queen's deteriorating health.
It's interesting you bring this up as in my view Truss is the antithesis of Queen Elizabeth II. Truss is somebody that would say anything that people wanted to hear to be popular and amass political power whereas Queen Elizabeth refrained from staying anything people didn't want to hear to be dutifully detached from the fickleness of politics.
Alternatively, a new King took power less than 48hrs into her government. The ascendancy of a new monarch is at least as memorable as the passing of, in this instance his, predecessor.
I remember clearly the time when Princess Diana died (1997). For me, it was THE moment when I understood the impact of the Internet. I was randomly browsing the web during the night in Mexico, and suddenly I started to see websites (I think Yahoo and MSN at that time) showing the news. I went to sleep without giving it too much attention.
Next day, all the news in my country were mentioning the death as breaking news. My mind was blown over how I knew about this very important event the night before Mexico TV broke the news.
I had a similar experience. I saw news of her death online and assumed it was some sort of hoax. When I woke up the next morning and saw it on the (TV) news I had this weird “Holy shit! The internet was right!?” moment. It was very surreal. Up until that point I hadn’t even considered that the internet could be used for much beyond screwing around and chat rooms let alone that it could be a platform for breaking news!
> My mind was blown over how I knew about this very important event the night before Mexico TV broke the news.
I've had the opposite experience. It's clear that real-time news is detrimental, and it's better for reporting to wait a bit for facts to come in and analysis to be done.
Early reporting is vague, light on facts, disjointed, facts are hedged, etc. It's really quite worthless.
This is probably the only death of a public figure that has really hit me hard. The Queen was a constant all of my life, all of my parents' lives and, indeed, a good deal of my grandparents' lives. The comfort she could bring to many is not to be underestimated in my view. When Covid-19 was kicking off in the UK, and our lives were changing in ways we couldn't predict, I remember being immensely comforted by her speech.
Her speech early in the Covid-19 era was one for the ages[1]: Short, personal, reflective of history yet with a clear call-to-action for her country. I'm not British and also found it exceptional.
"It reminds me of the very first broadcast I made, in 1940, helped by my sister. We, as children, spoke from here at Windsor to children who had been evacuated from their homes and sent away for their own safety."
Indeed, it felt like a safe, reassuring voice in a sea of panic. A voice that had been heard for decades and for me at least, represented that “keep calm and carry on” mentality. RIP
Thank you for giving this perspective. I admit my aversion towards monarchy has inclined me to ignore news of the royal family. I also perceive a correlation between tabloid coverage and triviality. I admit neither of these are good reasons to discount the Queen's impact on people, much of which was in spite of a general preference for democratic rule.
Imagine being groomed to do this job from birth, with no real way to opt out[1]. You wanted to breed horses, become a blacksmith or start a business? Get that nonsense out of your head, you're a princess!
Then, when you're 25, your daddy dies aged only 56 and after a rather brief period of mourning you get pushed into taking his job in a pompous ceremony. Now you're going to be doing this until you die. No retirement! I bet there were times where Lilibet just wanted to go to her room and cry.
I wouldn't have wanted her job for all the wealth and power that came with it.
[1] Well, you could make a big scandal about marrying an American divorcee, but that didn't go down too well for the last guy.
Monarchs all over Europe bowed out of this bullshit after WW2, so it can definitely be done. The UK monarchs rebranded themselves as "the royal family", at considerable effort and expense, so that they could carry on "enjoying" their lifestyle. Whatever enjoyment might mean in this context, in terms of the personal enjoument of one woman, who knows, and I'm not sure why I'd care either.
> Now you're going to be doing this until you die. No retirement!
If she had wanted to, at some point, abdicate in favour of Charles, that could have been arranged. It would have required a special Act of the UK Parliament (following the prior example of His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936) [0] – and probably also supporting legislation in the other Commonwealth Realms (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc) – but no doubt the governments of the Commonwealth Realms would have obliged. It was her own decision that she did not want that. I would not be surprised if, in another 10 or 15 years, King Charles III makes a different decision, but we shall see. In recent years, monarchs abdicating due to advanced age has become rather common – the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg, Japan, among others.
The only recent abdication in UK history (and maybe the only voluntary one ever?) put her father and herself in line to the throne, dragged the monarchy and the rest of the UK's system of government through a major public scandal, and caused serious damage to the royal family. Because of all that, I doubt she would have considered abdicating herself.
That was all about the reason for that particular abdication though, not the act of abdication itself. I can't see why it would have caused any scandal or damage for the monarch to abdicate due to ill health or old age, and other European monarchs have abdicated for similar reasons without scandal.
(Spain is somewhat of an exception, but Juan Carlos' abdication was linked to corruption allegations over shady business dealings in Saudi Arabia; I very much doubt Elizabeth had any such skeletons lurking in her closets.)
> I very much doubt Elizabeth had any such skeletons lurking in her closets.
Her son and heir has literally been accepting suitcases full of cash from middle east despots (nominally for his charity), and her other son was up to his neck in Epstein's dealings. I wouldn't be so sure.
The idea is that another abdication, even if it wasn't driven by an underlying scandal, would have sowed a perception of instability in people's minds, associated the concept of "Royal Family" with chaos or drama, and might have led to the fall of British Monarchy. I genuinely think she didn't feel like that was even an option.
The Dutch monarchy has seen two abdications in recent decades (Juliana in 1980 and Beatrix in 2013), and I'm not aware it has caused any damage to the institution. I think they've even come to expect it – King Willem-Alexander is 55 now, both his mother and grandmother abdicated in their 70s, it seems likely in another 15–20 years he will follow their example, and pass the throne to Catharina-Amalia (who is only 18 now, but will be in her 30s by then).
So, if the Dutch monarchy can survive it, why not the British? I think you are probably right about her own attitudes to the topic, likely irreversibly marked by the events of 1936. But I'd be surprised if the same is true of her son or grandson.
Completely different. The risk with the British Royalty is that the Queen is Queen of many Kingdoms. While England may still be pro-monarchy, some of these kingdoms and territories are more split down the middle. You only need one to switch, and proclaim itself a Republic, and that would severely increase the risk of more proclamations, in a domino effect. Domestically you'd have comparisons to the fall of the British Empire, and opinion may shift more against royalty domestically as a result.
Note that this scenario may still happen, but she was extremely lucid to realize its salience:
> dragged the monarchy and the rest of the UK's system of government through a major public scandal, and caused serious damage to the royal family.
The damage in both cases were mainly to their pride. If that was all she risked, I'm not impressed. Her uncle Edward was a literal Nazi, and yet even he was willing to give up power to marry the woman he loved.
But it could of course be that she risked more than that. What keeps elderly rulers clinging to power is often the knowledge that they and their close ones has done some very bad things, and that the descent may not be so graceful if they let go willingly.
You could absolutely abdicate. You could, if you really believed in democracy, peacefully dissolve the monarchy. I understand that that would have meant losing many members of her family, and I understand on a personal level why she would not choose to do that.
She did go beyond simply maintaining the monarchy - she worked to influence legislation to, among other things, hide her personal wealth, give her and her family an exemption from seatbelt laws, and make it easier to lease land for development. Pretty minor issues all things considered, probably much more mild than the average MP, but it does not sit right with me given that she was unelected and in office for life.
Abdication and eradication of the monarchy is the only thing compatible with human rights and equality she could've done. If she wanted to get a job that's all there was to do.
It is part of the human condition to feel positive emotions for a well-known person even if their role throughout history is based on an antiquated belief such as the divine right of kings.
- She ruled for 30% of the time since the American Revolution
- She oversaw the largest reduction of landholdings of any empire in the history of the world. Notable because it was also one of the most peaceful transitions in history -- Australia, Canada, South Africa, Israel, Egypt, etc.
- She oversaw the loss of Sterling the world reserve currency and the rise of another (the USD, EU).
> She oversaw the largest reduction of landholdings of any empire in the history of the world. Notable because it was also one of the most peaceful transitions in history -- Australia, Canada, South Africa, Israel, Egypt, etc.
The peaceful diminishing of an empire should be remembered as one of the most remarkable achievements during her reign, a striking contrast to world leaders past and present who seek the reverse.
I'm curious if they'll be splitting the monarchy between the children or keeping it consistent. Government could actually change quite a bit at this point across much of the west.
I'm not sure what GP is speculating about either but as for succession, AFAIK sovereign countries in the commonwealth have their own rules. The head of state of Canada was not the Queen of England, it was the Queen of Canada, and theoretically nothing would stop the heir to those positions being different. In fact this was momentarily a topic of conversation in Canadian news outlets as the UK was talking about changing the rules of succession to be gender neutral and whether that would make for different heirs if the rest of commonwealth didn't change their rules in step. In practice that was moot since Prince William's firstborn was male.
They are separate, but the different countries have agreed to keep them coordinated. You're right that there was a conversation about the change to absolute primogeniture, with the different realms having to agree to pass the necessary legislation. If one realm had not agreed I suspect the change wouldn't have happened, rather than the succession being split.
That said, there is precedent. Victoria didn't inherit Hanover, which had been in personal union with the UK, because it had different succession laws (which excluded women). So it's just a matter of political will really.
Ironically that is one of the first times I've seen lose/loose stand true for either interpretation.
She didn't lose her royal power when handing over those landholdings, nor did she loose it (militarily) to prevent those reductions in the first place.
In essence Westminster Parliament lost its power, but the Royal Family remained unaffected in many cases.
There was little for the Royal Family to adjust to.
They were the sovereigns of those nations, if independent from the UK. They still "appoint" the PMs of those countries and have a fair amount of political influence via governors.
- At least in the US, Canadian diplomatic residences are owned by her. Where I live, the owner of the consulate general's home is listed in public records as "Her Majesty the Queen Right Canada".
Here's another example from a few years ago:
> Charlie Zelle confirmed Wednesday he has purchased a five-bedroom, five-bathroom Minneapolis lakeshore home that has been the official residence of the Canadian consulate general.
> Records show Charles and Julie Zelle paid $1.65 million US for the property, with the seller listed as "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth."
This lady represents British military violence to millions of black and brown people around the world. I don't understand why people, especially the British, aren't ashamed of this person.
What a dark and sad way to respond - so crimes perpetrated against people only matter if the victim is blameless?
People who think like you will support new genocides in the future. I hope, for humanity's sake, that you are out-numbered by those of good conscience.
It is not about how they behaved at that point in time of history. It is what do they about it since then about it.
Tens of thousands of artifacts never returned to the countries from which it was taken including Crown jewels like Kohi-noor, or how Meghan was treated, views on reparations, or preserving the legacy of empire[1] and still holding on to being head of state of so many countries and all the privileges they have fought to keep their way of life - A president does not withhold signing a law to negotiate special exemptions for his family (see Royal Consent abuses)
I don't think the UK is the only country that has items from conquered nations. It just has the most.
And given that the UK ended the slave trade, to whom should reparations be paid?
Megan was treated very well indeed, until she decided to turn on the British people and the Royal Family.
The Royal Family aren't forcing countries to keep them as the head of state. In fact she's been removed from a few I believe. Of course, a lot of the countries that are doing this are chasing Chinese money, and just swapping one "coloniser" for another.
As a Brit I'm not a huge fan of the royal family on principle, but Queen Elizabeth has been such an excellent head of state for us you really can't fault her.
People like to make out her life was easy and that it's not fair that she inherited such a privileged position, but I think the exact opposite. Her life seemed like living hell to me. Every day for the last 70 years she's had to serve this largely ungrateful country, and she did so without complaint. Even in her 90s she took her duties extremely seriously, and I respect the hell out of her for that.
It was only a couple of days ago she invited our new PM to Balmoral Castle to form a government. She was clearly looking weak and it's been no secret that she's been struggling to fulfil her duties as Queen for a while, but even just two days before her death at the age of 96 she put on the performance that was expected of her. And she did this practically every day of her life.
RIP. I doubt anyone will ever live up to her legacy. Despite all the problems I have with the royal family, I couldn't feel more pride that she was our Queen.
As a Canadian (and we tend to be staunchy more anti-monarch over here) I agree whole heartedly. Her reign was pretty much entirely inoffensive, she tried to use her powers to promote good things while staying out of the running of any of the commonwealth governments.
I think being a monarch as prominent as Queen Elizabeth is a hard job mostly because there is very little you can do right and a whole lot you could do wrong. She avoided doing much wrong for her reign and I think she was an ideal monarch for the modern democratic age.
Support for the monarchy among all Canadians[0] isn't very different than support for the monarchy among the youngest Brits[1].
Which makes sense, to me. The Canadian experience of the world wars and subsequent decades was decidedly different than the British experience, and the role that Elizabeth played, though meaningful, wasn't as important to our cultural identity. But now that those wars are generations past, and both nations have enjoyed relative peace and comfort for some decades, the sentiments toward the monarchy are beginning to align.
I couldn't disagree with you more. I live in BC (and ONT), and all of us that migrated from the UK are much more pro-monarchy than most brits back in the homeland.
I assume he means natural-born Canadians rather than naturalized Canadians.
That said, I think his statement is not quite accurate. Very few people are aware of (or think about) the monarchy at all, and of the ones that are, very few of them actually care one way or the other about it. Of those, I'm sure most agree that the monarchy is pointless, but unlike in the UK we don't spend a whole lot of money on it so in reality no one really cares much except on principle.
> ...I'm not a huge fan of the royal family on principle, but Queen Elizabeth has been such an excellent head of state for us...
This is a vastly underappreciated aspect of government, and of human social institutions in general. The principles-on-paper version of something can be mediocre, or just plain horrid. But if the actual people running things are sufficiently capable and caring, the on-paper failings doesn't much matter.
Flip-side, even a perfect-on-paper system, implemented with incompetent & uncaring people in charge, will be crap at best.
I would frame the above comment as this question: If the form of government is chosen first and the people that fill the roles are chosen later, which government(s) are statistically more likely to serve their people and to what degree?
> People like to make out her life was easy and that it's not fair that she inherited such a privileged position, but I think the exact opposite. Her life seemed like living hell to me. Every day for the last 70 years she's had to serve this largely ungrateful country, and she did so without complaint. Even in her 90s she took her duties extremely seriously, and I respect the hell out of her for that.
She wasn't doing it from the kindness of her heart. This was her job, she was obscenely rich off of taxpayer money and she could retire any second she wanted to. You make it sound like she was sentenced to sign paperwork for her entire life, when the reality is she consciously chose to do so every day and in exchange she and her family was granted an immense wealth. It's not even remotely something that would warrant complaint. I'm not saying this to be snarky, just pointing out that although maybe parts of her job was boring, stressful, and unfulfilling, this is what she signed up for. And her "compensation" was unimaginable amount of money and power in the form of interpersonal relations.
The Crown Estate is not the private property of the Windsor family though. It is more akin to the wealth of a parallel state. One could speculate that in the event of the abolition of the monarchy the Crown Estate would be taken over by the government (at the very least not become Windsor family private property), in effect making it the taxpayers' property.
I think it's totally fair to feel that they have a life of immense luxury and privilege off of wealth that belongs to the people, while so many people in this country are wondering if they'll have heating this winter.
Again this is something I assume that must have been very frustrating too. She couldn’t just say “that’s not right” and intervene because that’s not within her remit in a democratic system.
I can’t begin to imagine how many times she must have had to bite her tongue over the last 73 years.
No, they actively lobbied over the years of her reign to preserve their economic benefits. They enjoyed this luxury and made attempts at preserving and expending it. Elizabeth was not a passive victim of her birth circumstances.
>Elizabeth was not a passive victim of her birth circumstances.
It's so strange that this even needs to be said out loud. It's not edgy to say that someone born into her position has benefitted from it. For a place that claims to be a meritocracy, the UK has some strangely dissonant beliefs.
The Crown Estate is owned by the government, so it could be used to reduce taxes or increase spending if it weren't used to support the Royal Family. So indirectly, the money comes out of taxpayers' pockets.
My understand is that the Crown Estate is owned by the Crown, personified by the Monarch. Also, it's NOT used to fund the Monarch directly, instead all profits from the Estate go to the Treasury, which in turn pays a percentage of that back to the Monarch, for the purpose of running the Monarchy.
I'm not sure if it is in any way clearly defined what should happen to the Estate should Britain choose to become a Republic, but I suppose the actual result would be that it would be taken over completely by the government.
But _formally_ it is still considered property of the Monarch.
It's the property of the Crown, which is legally a corporation sole with the monarch as the sole 'member' of the corporation. It means, for example, that Charles gets Buckingham Palace and the crown jewels automatically by operation of law on becoming king, rather than via Elizabeth's will. A similar arrangement applies to Anglican vicars who have the freehold of their church - it's owned by 'The Vicar of Bray' rather than by Rev Smith.
It's generally understood by constitutional scholars that the Crown is essentially governmental rather than private and the Crown Estate would go with the government rather than the royal family if the assets were split up on the creation of a republic.
The Queen also had extensive private wealth, including Balmoral Castle which (unlike the royal places) was hers personally rather than as monarch. IIRC it was bought privately by either Victoria or Albert rather than via the Crown Estate. This mattered after the abdication of Edward VIII, where the property of the Crown passed to George VI as the new king, but the private possessions of Edward stayed with him. I think Balmoral and Sandringham had to be bought off him so they would stay as royal residences. Presumably most of that private wealth will be bequeathed to Charles, though we won't find out: the Queen's will is, uniquely, private by statute.
She didn't really "sign up" for it though. She was born into it in 1926. It's not like 2022 where she could've said "yeah, not for me, I'm moving to Santa Barbara". I don't see how she had any choice but to do what she did, and by all accounts she did it well.
What do you mean? Edward VIII abdicated in order to marry Wallis Simpson. Not to mention countless other people born into royal families not only in European kingdoms, but also kingdoms throughout the world. Yes they were (in varying degrees) pressured to respect the line of succession but if Elizabeth II wanted to retire 10 years ago she would be able to.
And he wasn't treated very well by his family as a result either. So you're kinda choosing between your family and leaving. Not saying you should always pick family, but for a young 20 something year old girl, that can be quite the ultimatum.
Most people end up doing something or other their family disapproves of - it's not some unusual hardship of adult life that outright prevents you from doing things. In his case, being both a doofus and a bit of a Nazi cut off the possibility of future family reconciliation. I suppose there's a line even in royal families.
You think she enjoyed the trappings of wealth? I never had that impression. And no, she didn't "sign up for it", she became Queen as a result of birth. Yes, she could have abdicated but the fact that she chose duty is to her credit. She was not faultless, but it's difficult to imagine another monarch doing a better job. I say all this as an anti-monarchist. I don't want one, but if we have to have one, she was the best.
If you can quit a job but you choose not to do so, in what sense did you not "sign up for it"? Her own uncle Edward VIII abdicated so he can marry Wallis Simpson without controversy. This has nothing to with anti-monarchism, I'm just pointing out that she was the queen only through her own free will.
>If you can quit a job but you choose not to do so, in what sense did you not "sign up for it"?
>she became Queen as a result of birth.
It is true that failing to live up to her responsibility was a path she could have chosen. She did not, and that is greatly to her credit. Choosing not to abandon your responsibility is a far cry from "signing up for it."
Her responsibility to be a rich and powerful figurehead for a colonial empire? I don't see how choosing that was to her credit. Isn't it better to value something more than your own family's power and prestige?
There's a massive difference between signing up for your dream job and being handed a responsibility with the right to abdicate it if you don't mind causing a constitutional crisis and still being stuck with the media obsessing over you.
Technically, I can take drastic action to negate things I received as an accident of birth if I don't mind getting flak for doing it, but it makes no sense at all to claim that on that basis my parents, physical appearance or manhood were all stuff I signed up for of my own free will.
If tomorrow some guy from a small remote and completely obscure island came to you and told you're the last in the royal bloodline and need to reign the SNBXIHWJ people, leave your life and everything you own to come to their survival island and sit on the throne, you'd probably give them the middle finger.
In our current world wealth and royalty is preserved by free will and is nothing comparable to your manhood (which you can also give up if you want to, people do)
> If tomorrow some guy from a small remote and completely obscure island came to you and told you're the last in the royal bloodline and need to reign the SNBXIHWJ people, leave your life and everything you own to come to their survival island and sit on the throne, you'd probably give them the middle finger.
Sure, I wouldn't necessarily be up for a lifestyle change involving playing Survivor with consonant-loving maniacs I wasn't actually related to and have never heard of before! However the Queen's situation is the exact opposite: she had a life built around being heir to the throne and whilst it was technically possible to give the middle finger to everyone in her life instead of fulfilling the role she'd been assigned at birth, that's a bit different from implying monarchy was the job she wanted or even a net positive.
Odd that a subthread which started with someone praising the late Queen for choosing not to run away from obligations requires so many followups pointing out that she could have run away from them...
> your manhood (which you can also give up if you want to, people do)
Well yeah, that was the point. You can change almost anything you're born with; the ability to give something up [at significant cost, and without necessarily getting a better alternative] clearly isn't remotely sufficient to describe it as something you "signed up for".
> Odd that a subthread which started with someone praising the late Queen for choosing not to run away from obligations requires so many followups pointing out that she could have run away from them...
This goes in pair. You praise someone for the choices they make, it doesn’t make sense if it wasn’t a choice at all in the first place.
I think she was a brilliant and intelligent person, she proved it in so many occasions, and she didn’t become Queen or stayed for so long just because of social pressure and “daddy told me to”. So yes, I’m assuming it was a net positive for her, and that she dedicated her life to something she wanted to do.
Sure there are many shitty parts coming with the throne and the toxicity surrounding the whole royalty system, but I give be the benefit of the doubt on having done the right choices in her life.
The easiest choice of all would have been to take up the role of monarch but decline to keep her opinions to herself or do stuff she couldn't be bothered with. The talk of her "signing up for it" upthread was all aimed at dismissing the notion that performing the role well was praiseworthy, as if they were responsibilities she'd actively looked for rather than merely been given.
He was pressured not to marry Wallis Simpson. If he married her it would have been a constitutional crisis, so in order to prevent that controversy, he abdicated and married Wallis Simpson. He could have chosen to be the king and not marry her; or he could have married her anyway and embrace the huge controversy. This is why I said "he abdicated in order to marry Wallis Simpson without controversy".
No, he was pressured not to marry an American divorcee (with two living ex-husbands). That led to his abdication - doing otherwise would have led to a constitutional crisis. He was rumored to be a Nazi sympathizer, but that wasn’t the direct cause of his abdication.
I feel like the timing is important in that story, and often underemphasized. Edward was pressured not to marry a married (and arguably not separated) American woman he was in some form of relationship with, who was willing to divorce her current husband in order to marry him. Simpson didn't file for divorce until after George died, and the cause of divorce is widely understood as having been orchestrated to allow her to marry Edward. The divorce was not finalized until well after the abdication.
While, technically, the constitutional crisis would have been caused by him marrying a divorcee and being the head of a state religion that didn't approve of remarriage with living ex-spouses, the circumstances were likely important in motivating a hard stance on the policy: it involved the sort of situation that an apologist might have given as an example of why remarriage should not be allowed. Even current Church of England rules would not allow the marriage.
It is interesting that the story is often simply portrayed as him wanting to marry a American divorcee, likely leading to the sense in many readers unfamiliar with the circumstances that he wanted to marry someone who simply had had prior marriages, quite possibly with ex-husbands who were still in the US.
Not directly, but for that reason it was a massive relief for the govt when he did abdicate and they could "exile" him and his wife and their Nazi sympathies somewhere far away.
Basically he never wanted to be King, and seemed totally unsuitable for it anyway.
Edward VIII abdicated at the end of 1936, almost three years before the start of the second world war. At that time being a Nazi sympathizer was still perfectly respectable in much of British high society. I think possibly you are getting the timeline slightly mixed up.
You're right I had the timeline between abdication and "exile" condensed in my head. But by govt relief I wasn't referring to High Society but the functional bureaucracy of govt and intelligence services etc.
I recall (possibly faulty memory) from a documentary I watched once, that the bureaucracy stopped providing him with certain daily government briefing documents out of fears for national security.
I admire the queen if only for the masterful job she's done at convincing the masses that she is a victim of circumstance rather than the quintessential purveyor of privilege
to be fair those are entirely theoretical powers, the second any of that become a legitimate issue parliament can remove them. Just ask King Charles I about how well sovereign immunity saves the monarch from criminal prosecution.
Completely theoretical. Actually no member of the British royal family has ever been in a situation where the common man would rote in jail for life and got away scot-free. It was all my imagination these past few years.
This. Her personal wealth would already have been astronomical even without the Crown Estate.
She could have retired 40 years ago and never worked another day in her life if she’d wanted to. Charles would still have been King and her family would have been no worse off.
The Royal Family in the UK is unusual in that it generates more money in tourism for the UK than they take in. Probably due to so many people being interested in the British royal family.
For one thing, the Queen was rich for a list of complex reasons that largely have to do with hereditary properties and assets stretching back centuries. It's not as cut and dried as "taxpayer expense". Yes, the monarchy as an institution benefits from certain public resources, just as do all institutions in all major countries, but it doesn't do so to any obscene degree compared to a vast range of other public projects and organizations that waste enormously while being much better funded. Any major head of state also benefits enormously from taxpayer money in all sorts of ways and lives daily in the lap of luxury with enormous resources spent on his or her security, personal living "needs" and any trips they make. Despite this, I see little complaint about that much larger source of taxpayer money being spent.
There seems to be a reflexive, emotional and partly irrational hatred of the UK monarchy spending heavily and having assets and money, along with certain public benefits (which by the way are carefully circumscribed) by people who barely bat an eye at the fact that the absolute largest sources of resource and tax spending on a vast range of immensely expensive but often wasteful and even pointless things are perfectly modern government institutions that have nothing to do with monarchs. It's an absurd sort of blindness.
What the UK government spent on the idiocy of the Iraq War alone far exceeds all public funds given to the Monarchy in decades, but hey, let's complain about Elizabeth and the castles that have been in her family for centuries.
I'm pretty sure she didn't do it for the money but from some sense of moral duty. Don't forget, she took reign right after one of the worst wars in history.
