It is remarkable how much the Queen's standing has improved during the time since that song (1977). My (UK) family are (as far as I know) staunch republicans, but the last couple of decades have seen all of us soften our disgust with the monarchy as Elizabeth represented it. We might still want the whole concept destroyed, but there is nothing close to the vehemence of Johnny Rotten (Lydon)'s lyrics from that song.
Nevertheless, that is how a bunch of people felt in 1977, and as our memories become even more gilded and rose goggled now that she has died, it may be worth remembering those feelings too:
God save the queen / The fascist regime / They made you a moron / A potential H bomb / God save the queen / She's not a human being / and There's no future / And England's dreaming
These days, I think even us staunch republicans/anti-monarchists would begrudgingly admit that "She could have been worse" and that she actually was a human being.
Maybe Charles will have the guts to end it all, but it doesn't seem likely.
I think even John Lydon has respect for the Queen nowadays. [1]
[1] https://www.loudersound.com/news/john-lydon-on-sex-pistols-g...
The person. Not the institution.
I have the opposite POV
Be very careful what you wish for. As a French, living under the rule of an elected monarch who changes often, but doesn't answer to anyone during their reign, there is something extraordinary to see the British PM bow to the Queen, and do that (I think?) every week.
At the same time, if the monarch (in a system like that of Britain) actually started using and abusing their theoretical powers, they'd quickly have the whole of the country turn against them. And they have a lot to lose if that happens!
In a presidential system, the President is both the theoretical and actual head of state. They're already in the top spot, and the only thing preventing them from staying there is convention or laws which are subject to change, and enforcement of which is largely under the President's control.
A more ceremonial President might work as well, but the thing is, an elected head of state has less to lose by abusing his powers, and far more to lose by properly following convention and thus stepping down.
https://theconversation.com/the-queens-gambit-new-evidence-s... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/09/could-army-c...
But don't worry, as long as people live in a fantasy world where they believe they are just ceremonial figureheads and a benign presence, their position at the top will never be challenged. And at any moment when it does, peoples emotions/grief will be exploited to maintain the institutions by using north korea style propaganda campaigns and security operations:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/03/security-ope...
The PM bows to the Queen, but that doesn't mean they have to listen to the people more than they do in France, no?
Doesn't the French Prime Minister answer to the President? How is that worse than having a monarch? Are they often from the same party, thus rendering this answering to the president less powerful? (I know the current PM and President are, not sure if that's the common case.)
My impression is that just by being less involved in politics, and generally (not 100%) staying away of corruption and other sorts of scandals (unlike others, looking at you Juan Carlos I) for a few decades, the figure of the Queen can be less jarring or seems more trustworthy than a President usually would.
To be honest, I live in a monarchy, and if I could choose we'd transition to a republic... but I've never felt like it would make a huge difference in the quality of our government or our electoral politics, so I just don't really care.
In theory, no, French PM answers only to Parliament. Only Parliament can dismiss them, not the President.
In practice, and in normal times, this isn't true at all. When the President tells the PM that their time is up, they immediately resign. (One tried to resist in the 70s and was immediately voted out by Parliament.) This makes the French PM effectively powerless. They simply implement the will of the President. The equivalent to the British PM is the French President, not the French PM.
Now there are non normal times where Parliament and the President are on opposite sides. When that happens (1986-1988; 1993-1995; 1997-2002), the PM is effectively in charge of most things, but even in those cases the President still has more powers than an typical constitutional monarch.
But my point wasn't about power but about humility. I think it's good and desirable that the ruler has to bow to someone else, and that that person, in turn, has no power whatsoever.
The queen can still secretly prevent legislation from ever being heard in parliament, so...
The point is that a president is a) elected and b) works openly.
I am not well versed about republic vs. monarchy apart from my limited experience, which might be more than many people, but not as valuable as someone that have studied that and can pitch in. Coming from BR, have lived in AU, NZ, and UK, and traveled a lot, I would take monarchy over a republic any day, extrapolating on that, and just looking at the current state of affairs of republic countries vs the ones coming from monarchy, which ones look in a better state, and makes you want to move to, live in and raise your family?
And mad props to UK for keeping --relatively to others-- really well so far.
Thank you and Rest in Peace.
Widespread unemployment, hunger, life expectancies in decline, 1,000 people are dying a month from the botched "response" to covid. Hundreds of thousands in early graves due to same covid response, and before that already over a hundred thousand in early graves as a result of austerity. The political system seems to have completely collapsed and be unable to respond to crises or meet even the most basic survival needs of its population.
I wouldn't lay this on the feet of the monarchy, cos the elected officials seem to be the main cause of it.
But which republics are you looking at? Because I live in one, and I can't imagine moving back to the UK any time soon. Again, I don't think that's because it's a republic, it just happens to have a basically functioning political an economic system that hasn't (yet) failed.
Also the royal family pays taxes and lease lots of stuff to the government at no cost.
Look at the HDI: https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/in...
Look at the top ten countries. How many are a constitutional monarchy? Which of them would you rather live in? :-)
Yet, likewise to me the Queen always earned the respect shown her. Colouring the establishment by the actions of some is just too black and white thinking for me.
>the Sex Pistols GSTQ is a great song (also Anti-Nowhere Leagues 's "So F*king What!"..
In the 90s (the only era I can remember) things were quite different too: there was the whole hubub about Camilla who was (IMO unfairly) extensively vilified in the media, had private telephone conversations with Charles were leaked. I'm not sure that would happen today; or if it did, it would get considerably less attention. Then there was the whole bruhaha about Andrew and Fergie, and let's not even start about Diana.
Maybe today Kim Kardashian or whatnot have taken the place for the "gossip inclined". Or maybe I just don't pay as much attention to these things as I did back in the day. But it seems like reporting is completely different.
As for punk: that's basically intended to offend innit? I'm not sure if you can really tell the general mood of the country from punk.
But you're right that these have had less of an effect on the royal family itself and especially QEII
One clear advantage of monarchs that I can see, are that they have an incentive to grow and expand their tax base. That typically means long-term planning (but doesn't ensure it, which is a disadvantage the UK parliamentary system seems to mitigate).
Hereditary absolute monarchy is the same thing, but for selecting heads of state. Who's in charge? The guy with the biggest army. What powers does he have? All of them. Who succeeds him when he dies? His firstborn. It's dead simple to implement, which made it an attractive solution in times before any semblance of mass communication. But in practice it means the quality of your head of state is totally detached from their actual talent at serving as head of state: the first guy in line was just good at leading an army, and the rest of his descendants are just randos who won the birth lottery. It's not a good solution unless you're willing to make loads of sacrifices in order to have the simplest system possible.
(And yes, of course, the UK is not currently an absolute monarchy, but you appeared to be asking in a general sense.)
Sure, now that the top position is entirely symbolic in the vast majority of monarchies, nobody fights over it. But the if the UK Monarch was in any sense "in charge" of anything, we'd surely see the US propping up Harry and Meghan as the true legitimate heirs and we might even let them borrow a couple carriers to "persuade" Parliament of the fact. Or whatever.
They are given a lot of money.
They can (and regularly do) veto legislation if it would harm their (vast) business empire.
They are not elected.
The burden of proof is on you to say why this is a good institution.
I think there is something to be said for, lack of a better word, the continuity of history. 70 years with the same monarch. A system of monarchy, for over a 1000 years.
It is a symbolic role, but symbols are powerful.
Arsenic-laced baby-food would be tolerated, if not vaguely enjoyed, if it received that kind of positive coverage.
Mainstream UK press are regularly making North-Korea style calls for people who personally dislike the royals to be excluded from the media, eve when they are making even-handed reportage about them, just on the off-chance that their subconscious biases might seep through in to their work (or something? lol): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10267447/Amol-Rajan...
Edit: to indicate irony..
Like the first radio stations had just started broadcasting when she was born, now we're all discussing her passing on a communications network that connects the entire globe. Possibly some of us while on flights from one side of the world to the other.
I don't think so. My grandmother was born in 1900 and died in 2003. Cars, airplanes, electricity, radio, TV, computers, space ships, etc..., all were invented or became commonplace in her lifetime. Queen Elizabeth was born between the birth years of my parents, who didn't remember the "horse and buggy days".
Arguably it's not particularly different now than, say, 1995 - 2000, which is the half decade of web search indexes (AltaVisa = 1995) and banner ads (1998 = DoubleClick IPO).
Travel, media, appliances, transportation, Internet, perhaps even music and fashion, haven't as fundamentally changed since then.
A book by Robert J. Gordon from 2015, "The Rise and Fall of American Growth," goes through this in great and fascinating detail. The life of an everyday American in 1870, starting off with the chamber pot and ending with an early bedtime by candlelight, was hard to even imagine by 1940. As he lays it out , life in that year would be familiar to us: toilets and plumbing, mass media via radio & hardcopy webpage (i.e. newspapers), worldwide communication from home (telephone), refrigeration, etc.
The introduction of trains in the early 1800s literally changed the DNA of England. As people started to regularly traveled 100's of miles away from their villages.
The transatlantic cable was carrying millions of messages by the late 1880s.
American history tends to be written in a bubble. Some people in the U.S.A. were using chamber pots in the 1870s, by the 1870s London had a sewer system.
Too often the U.S.A. plays up a fantasy pioneer past. While in the U.S.A. people tend of talk of the 1860s as a time of pioneers and wagons, in large Western European cities Maxwell's Equations were being discussed in mathematics departments.
She considered company websites as fancy brochures, but thought individual access to almost free global publishing was astonishing.
Telegraphy had allowed current news to rapidly flow around the globe for decades.
1870-1970 (or about that range) probably would be bigger change. That would cover time from before commercial light bulbs to commercial computers[1] and man on the moon. Societally it would include WW1 and the series of Russian revolutions leading to wave of other revolutions in Europe[2], and major advances in Womens' suffrage[3] among other things.
[1] e.g. PDP-8 and S/360
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1917%E2%80%9319...
[3] "The Representation of the People Act 1918 saw British women over 30 gain the vote. Dutch women won the vote in 1919, and American women on August 26, 1920, with the passage of the 19th Amendment" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage
They were born without electricity, and everything it brought, and without cars or planes, and they lived to have pretty much all modern comfort and watch a man on the Moon on TV.
The Commonwealth of Nations an association of countries, but the Commonwealth of Nations does not control the government of any member country (even ceremonially). India and Pakistan are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, but are not Commonwealth Realms.
Actually 1926 but yes, a lot of history in those nearly 100 years.
Seems like Scotland is going to go independent, and if Scotland do Wales will only be a matter of time so may as well just can it now?
A constitutional monarchy is an unreasonable construct, but its perseverance is a symbol of continuity and certainty in an existence that is so often chaotic and uncertain. It provides reassurance to many, and mutes the worst excesses of political turmoil. As long as it really stays out of the fray (and that's sadly not always been the case, with Elizabeth II, and it's likely her son will be even worse), then I don't have a problem with it. Like religion, I don't need it, you don't need it, but many do - and they might as well have it.
Elizabeth nor Charles are claiming devine right. They are a unfiying vestige of times past, providing as she did a human constant, an embodiment of the Commonwealth.
So long as their heredity isn't overtly providing them the ability or write or enforce law, it does not seem an affront to democracy.
While Elizabeth has CHOSEN to not use these powers much, any future monarch can. Just look at the U.S. in the last 6 years to see what happens when a country relies more on historical norms rather than law.
I agree on the idea of dropping the monarchy on a high though, as long as we go for a presidential system similar to Ireland rather than the USA...
I'd vote no, because then we'd end up with people like Boris Johnson or Liz Truss as our head of state(!!) The monarch nowadays is important for what they prevent. The Queen stood in the way of someone like Boris getting access to all the 'bling' of state. A big shift would need to occur before we could become a sensible republic, particularly in dismantling a lot of the ceremonial aspects of British life. Perhaps even a collective head of state like the Swiss could work.
A throne is never empty. The second Elizabeth died, Charles became king.
"The Queen died peacefully at Balmoral this afternoon.
The King and The Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening and will return to London tomorrow."
It works because she receives extensive training to be apolitical. (And if she is political, there are repercussions.)
At least this is true for Canada. I have to imagine it’s very similar for the rest of the Commonwealth. Every instance of involvement that wasn’t ceremonial has been doing precisely what the Prime Minister has requested of her via the Governor General, such as dissolving parliament. Which I guess makes that ceremonial too.
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 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).
Why did you listed a comment supporting abolishing the monarchy an example of "crap comments"?
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
That's an oddly positive attitude to hatred.
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.
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20661919
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2504770
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.
And as a 'general rule', of course there are exceptions.
polishing by bells for the Putin death announcement celebration
It's quite possible to respect the person who happens to be a monarch and being against the institution of monarchy.
If you're not suppse to question monarchy when a ruling monarch dies, then when is it appropriate?
It is pretty obvious that she is regarded positively by the majority here. Are you under the impression that I think otherwise?
That's probably not true. There's the Dalai Lama and Simeon II of Bulgaria, who were minors but at least Simeon surely remembers (his father died in suspicious circumstances, he had an unconstitutional regency, and then he was dethroned, expelled and spent his life in exile).
> Now that generation that remembered the horrors of fascism has mostly passed and we find ourselves in a period that seems to have many echos of the 1930s with a new rise of authoritarianism and fascism around the world
It's honestly infuriating that with the wealth of information available at everyone's fingertips so many people are so easily making the same mistakes as a century earlier.
I think the grandparent comment’s author forgot to insert a “British” in front of monarch.
Edit:
> [Simeon II] is, along with the current Dalai Lama, one of only two living people who were heads of state from the time of World War II. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
However, Elizabeth II did not become Queen until well after WW2.
(Removed erroneous statement about the Swedish king being old enough to remember WW2; he was born in 1946.)
"she was the last British monarch to have any memory of WWII" is pretty weird too, though, since her father George VI was the only other monarch alive during WW2. I guess unless you also count her uncle Edward VIII who was alive throughout WW2 and had previously been a British monarch. If that counts then sure, she was the last of three British monarchs to remember WW2.
The Dalai Lama and Simeon II of Bulgaria were both heads of state during WW II. But China invaded Tibet in 1950, and by 1960 the Dalai Lama ruled nothing. And Simeon lost his throne in 1946 (though he did get elected prime minister many years later).
I wouldn't count them as monarchs any more.
That said, looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_monarchs_of_so... I find the following currently reigning monarchs who were born before WW II and probably remember something from it:
- Emir Nawaf Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah of Kuwait
- King Harald V of Norway
- King Salman of Saudi Arabia
- Pope Francis of Vatican State
Alas, there is no algorithm yet for "truth".
I've thought for a long time that when the generation that fought in the war, or even grew up in it, has died out, that's when idiots like this student will be free to make something terrible rise. Fight for freedoms like speech while you can.
I agree, but for me it's more infuriating how often I see this comparison used when when the modern version is primarily head-canon catastrophizing despite the same people making the comparison advocating and practicing behaviors that are even closer to what they decry, all while pretending they're not. Nuance and introspection are sorely lacking everywhere.
Ahh yes, that photo of Elizabeth changing an ambulance tire, one of the great public relations triumphs of the 20th century. So humble! She's just like one of us...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_tour_of_Germany_by_the_Du...
Saudi Arabia's King Salman was born in 1935
However, I have to confess that to whenever I hear that someone aged 90+ (80+, even) died, I don't really feel sad. Actually, I feel an urge to praise this person's achievements, as I'm aware we are all mortals, and death is unavoidable.
I prefer to rejoice in how much this person has witnessed throughout her life, how she had enough health to keep her wits until the end, how she could raise children, grandchildren, and even know her great-grandchildren.
What else can we humans aspire? Living forever is out of question. As soon as we are born, we are bound to die. So it's a pretty good life to be able to reach a good age, knowing that all our dear ones are set for life, raising families of their own, and living their lives the way that is best suited for them.
This is not just theory. I felt this when my grandfather died, aged 95, when my grandmother died aged 96, and when other people I knew died old enough for their deaths not really come as a surprise.
I think what's "shocking" (not necessarily sad) thing about this is that she's been a presence for such a long time. Who here can remember a time from before Elizabeth II was the queen? She's been queen from before most people here were born and has always been present.
I don't know, living to anywhere between 1'000 to 1'000'000 years of age would surely be quite the interesting experience, lots of things to learn, lots of things to experience. Such numbers might seem humorous but in the grand scheme of things that's still nothing, given the age of Earth and all that.
I get the feeling that if humans approached aging and death as an engineering problem, in a few centuries to a few thousands of years a viable solution might just spring up.
If nothing else, then fighting aging and everything that comes with it is definitely worth it, so the last decades of your life don't consist of being trapped in a degrading flesh prison and possibly suffering from ailments that will take away your ability to be a person (e.g. Alzheimer's or other neurodegenerative conditions, or serious health conditions due to aging).
Of course, most people don't like to think about their own mortality or consider it (or diseases that may affect them later in life) a serious problem, much less a solvable one. For some religion is enough, for others ignorance does nicely. It feels like we might benefit from more focus on this and research in this direction.
Realistically, one just has to take care of themselves as best as they can and spend their time well.
> Actually, I feel an urge to praise this person's achievements...
Regardless, this is admirable. A life well lived is one worth celebrating, with its many achievements and its impact on the people around them.
Would our minds scale to timescales that vast? Would we just start forgetting things as time went on?
I mean, that happens even in the short 70 years most people get.
So does culture, for that matter.
I wonder what impact it will have if/when people do start living for 300 years or more (which some people claim we could see within our lifetime). What happens when racist, openly homophobic grandpa isn't just someone you uncomfortably bear and forgive, but someone with a lot of power and money because they've been around the longest? Investments, compound interests, connections, so many things that would mean that the younger generation would have less and less power and hope as time goes by.
I suspect there’s a strong biological reason we age and die. We compete against our children for the limited resources of our planet. Our genes need to recombine or else evolution stalls.
For now the only true path to immortality is through having children.
Dying in your thirties or forties? “Tragic.” Fifties? “Such a shame.” Sixties? “Too soon.” Seventies? “A good run.” Eighties? “A life well lived.” Nineties? “Hell of a ride.”
Hearing "The King" in this context will take a long time getting used to.
A list, British Kings & Queens - by Length of Reign: https://britroyals.com/reigned.asp
These two women take the two top spots.
By the way, in the otherwise completely unremarkable hobby-writer webnovel "Monroe" (https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/35398/monroe) the queen was a - very popular - side character. After the introduction of "magic" in our universe she got her youth back and started killing monsters using armor and huge sword used by her ancestors hundreds of years earlier, in a sword and magic and levels fantasy universe. The author kept writing chapters about this initially not very important side character after it turned out a lot of readers found the Queen returning to youth and becoming a sword fighting and magic throwing monster killer at least as if not more appealing than following the story's actual main character.
Sample chapter where she appears (look for "queen", it's down the middle of this chapter): https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/35398/monroe/chapter/84715...
* Matilda (Rarely listed)
* Jane (1553 for 9 days)
* Mary I (1553-1558)
* Elisabeth I (1558-1603)
* Mary II (1689-1694, joint with William III)
* Anne (1702-1714)
* Victoria (1837-1901)
* Elisabeth II (1952-2022)
Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II (joint monarch with Willam III), Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II.
It will be very interesting to see how the population J curve flatlining affects global society. We live in interesting times.
At current continual growth rates (assuming the decline comes to a dead stop and remains steady), we will see 10 billion people late 2044.
If the decline of the last 10 years continues indefinitely, humanity would go extinct around 3913.
Australia had an example of this where the Governor General (the Queen's representative in the Australian government) sacked the government and formed a caretaker governmen tin the 1970s.
The American system of relying on centuries of tenuous interpretation of a fairly short document just isn't as much of an improvement as you think.
The Australian constitution allows for the Governor General to have "reserve powers" without specifying what they are.
Ultimately all these systems rely on trust.
It's wild to think the Queen began her reign with having weekly chats with Winston Churchill all the way up to appointing Liz Truss just this week. Her father fought in World War I. She lived through World War II. It's wild to think about.
It's also wild to consider the Queen never had an exepctation of ruling. An abdication caused that to happen. The happiest and freest time of her life may well have been living on Malta prior to that, living a fairly normal life with her husband and young family.
Institutions exist to protect the people, not the institutions themselves. Never forget that.
False dichotomy. Getting rid of the monarchy does not mean you have to follow the US model.
> Australia had an example of this where the Governor General (the Queen's representative in the Australian government) sacked the government and formed a caretaker governmen tin the 1970s.
Australia was ruled by a Liberal/Country coalition from the 1940s to the end of 1972. Finally the workers of Australia elect a Labor PM, and he was thwarted for three years and then removed at the behest of a hereditary monarch thousands of miles away. That sounds like abuse, but not of the type you mean.
You forgot to mention the part where Australia immediately held an election. The poor victimised Labour party, who you would have us believe was wrongly removed, lost the vote by a landslide.
If the people wanted Whitlam's government, and thought it was a grave injustice, they would have voted them back in. They were clearly unpopular given the election results. The end result was decided by the people, not the Queen/Governor General/Liberals.
Having an unelected, unaccountable individual who leeches off the tax system: this is anachronistic but fair, it's about balance of powers, its an important part of our cultural heritage, it doesn't even cost that much why do you care.
Having strong founding principles and rights that are cautiously amended: this is tenuous, this goes too far, free speech too extremist, why bad man own gun.
My only source is the show The Crown but I'm fairly certain her uncle abdicated the throne when she was still a child, putting her in line for the throne. It was not after she was married to Phillip.
>>Queen Elizabeth II doesn’t even have a driver’s license. As Queen, she doesn’t need one
Didn't know that either.
It's also true that she cannot be prosecuted for any crime except that of treason against the British people, but that's contestable. Since crimes are prosecuted in her name.
Yes, but I don't think the gender-neutral titles are official quite yet!
The succession is all men:
Charles (10 - 20 years of reign puts us in the 2030s)
William (30 - 50 years puts us between 2060 - 2080)
George (30 - 50 years puts us between 2120 - 2140)
The next possible female monarch is if George dies for some reason (passing onto Charlotte) or if George has a daughter first which would mean she'd take the throne well into the 2100s.
Amusingly, Queen Anne was the last female head of state of America, too.
> 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.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/08/behind-queen-elizab...
And that is in the first world countries, god help those in the 3rd world countries.
I'm aware commenting on moderation/appropriateness of submission is also outside of guidelines, but I think given the gravity of this event and the clear slant evident in top comments resultant from the difficulty of moderation "crap comments" it does seem worth mentioning that this doesn't feel like it belongs here in the HN community.
Statement of my own biases: from a country that suffered the horrific hand of British colonial forces, both preceding and under Elizabeth's rule and finding the comments here repulsive. Positivity can be just as "crap" as ad hominem when expressed with such ignorance.
In practice, pretty much any topic where people can remain civil is generally ok.
This includes all nobility and royalty titles.
Historically and traditionally, nobles are/were the owners of the land. Shoddy job they've done at taking care of the environment. Overpowered by the industrialists, the new ruling hegemonic class (since the aftermath of WWII); who have been clever to stay out of the public view, unlike these historical noble and royal icons.
Never forget that Beth used all of those skills to further enrich herself and her family, and protecting her pedofile son.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(for anyone rushing to post 'oh so you support $hideous-thing do you' – no, just trying to have an internet forum that doesn't suck)
I have strong feelings about her, and exactly because this is HN I chose to not air them in this forum.
Arguably ignoring the negative aspects is spreading fake news disinformation, which is a problem on the Internet in general nowadays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgQpcC-ne64
In case you don't know what Paisley sounded like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ME45v08fQ0
It’s technically easier for a muslim to become king/queen than for a Catholic.
Catholics are the only ones who are banned by law to become English royals.
So BoJo was the first English Catholic PM, I think
Unbelievable the history she was a witness to.
Churchill faced down (figuratively) Hitler and Mussolini, which makes him a heroic and legendary figure. (He was also a racist monster). Until yesterday, she was a living person who had actually talked to him at length, regularly when he was alive. That's amazing to think about.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769222
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769043
Once that sort of comments were no longer so prominent, people thought I was asking them to say nice things about the monarchy. It took me a while to realize what was causing the misunderstanding, and once I did I demoted my post. It was basically a victim of its own success.
But seriously, this is a momentous day for Britain and the world. She was a titan of public life, known to billions. The world will never be the same without her. I don't know what these means for Britain but I expect it will be quite destabilising.
May she rest in peace. Long live the king!
Definitely destabilising.
I suspect a collective mourning and unity of the country followed closely by civil unrest the likes of which hasn't been seen in living British memory.
For instance, I just found out that Norway, for instance, also has a monarch. So does Sweden (?), and several other countries. But they — the Nordic monarchs — are unheard of in my country, and don't seem to have the same level of influence internationally.
Is that your experience as well?
(FWIW, my country was a former British colony but the British royalty is NOT my country's head at all).
I imagine the reason is because the Queen is part of the national identity of the UK, much more than the other European countries.
Millions visit London annualy to visit Buckingham Palace - the Queen is a symbol of Britain.
This monarch and the following one will also witness great changes and they may play some role in it.
This would make for a good read and understanding of how the royalty works.
On the topic, I think what Queen Elizabeth has done despite of the challenges within her sovereignty is being a living example on how to rule and govern, without negatively interfering with how the affairs and progress of the state needs to be carried out.
Allies against the Nazism . It’s peak tension between the West and Russia now but maybe a impromptu occasion to finally get to Peace
I am against monarchies by principle.
Unfortunately the king/queen of England is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England which goes against my principles as well since I am an atheist.
I do not wish ill will on the royal family, but as a humanist who believes that every man, woman and child born on this planet is equal in rights, I cannot accept nor promote a system of governance that deems certain people to be above others by simply being born in the right family.
I am sorry for the loss caused by her death and I feel sad for her loved ones but that loss should not stop people form pushing for the creation of genuine republics in the countries within the commonwealth.
https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1568157931538989056
There's a history of monarchist sympathy in Ireland, partly stemming from the history of anglo-irish wealth in Dublin (readers of this journalist's paper) but also the political party that's been in power for the past 11 years would be historically sympathetic (as I guess would some subset of their voters).
That said, none of the above is broadly representative of a majority, and apart from the one example she posts there of a tweet being shared out of context, there's been a very loud and varied anti monarchy sentiment expressed within Irish (not American) media and circles today. Much of the reportage is in fact not misinformation.
HN is NOT an unbiased, unaffiliated, open forum. They make no effort to hide that fact, but so many people here put it on a pedestal instead of understanding that it's just orange reddit with good moderation.
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.
India alone had $45 trillion dollars of wealth looted from the country: https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/how-britain-stole-dollar4...
Literally millions of Indians died as a result of deliberate policies of colonization and economic enslavement by the British.
Their history in Africa is too chilling to even recount here.
In 7 decades as a figurehead and leader of her people, she never apologized for these crimes, and continued to quietly benefit from the spoils of war.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-koh-i-noor...
