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.
she was still working (appointing ministers) on Tuesday
God Save the Queen
If there is a Kingdom of God, I'm guessing God himself may be asking her for a tip or 2 right about now.
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.
This doesn't really address why anyone is "ungrateful"...
All that pomp just makes one pompous.
Nothing arises "naturally"; It's the education and access to vast support resources that creates exceptional people, and if you want more of those, you should want to ensure that the greatest number of people have access to enough resources that anyone can have a chance to make the most of their inborn advantages (whatever they may be) regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
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.
I don’t doubt your sincerity, but these feelings in you and others were intentionally cultivated by decades of propaganda. There is no such thing as a rightful king or queen, and certainly no such thing as someone who rules by divine right.
> she consciously chose to do so every day and in exchange she and her family was granted an immense wealth
This! Saying that wealth and status is a burden for XYZ always elicits a "but they can give it all up in a singe day if they want to" response from me.
Btw, whilst Hong Kong has fallen and hence I do not expect much there the Hong Kong people like her very much. Called her the “Bossy Granny” and even with a sony on 1997 naming her as the righteous friend that help Hong Kong to trade well by being on the coin, always young and bring prosperity.
Miss her we will. God bless the Queen. RIP.
What about the legal system in the UK/Canada/Australia that have it in constitution that she as a veto to the passing of new laws as a balance.
Could the system be made not to require the monarchy anymore? Sure, it’s purely ceremonial and has been for her entire reign, but to say that the monarch can make that decision at whim on behalf of 15 countries is just not true.
Plenty of monarchs have done just that including her very own uncle.
In the Top10 in every ranking with regards to real estate asset management.
Also all the planes and trains and cars. Top notch brand of each for the last 70 years were provided by the State.
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.
Just in case anyone didn't know, the UK does not have a singular written constitution like you may find elsewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
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.
She was rich because she was part of the royal family; it's not the case that she was part of the royal family and then independent of that had private wealth. There was never a possibility of her being poor as long as she was the queen.
That ‘private’ wealth was acquired because she was head of state
That said, I do think it’s an unrealistic ask of someone who’s entire life and all those around her are dedicated to reinforcing her (absurd) status.
Those I really fault are the BBC who report her term heading this fundamentally antidemocratic institution so uncritically. Monarchy in the UK has majority support, but it is much more evenly split that you would imagine from our media.
Radio 4’s correspondent was on just now fondly telling tales of how the Queen had intervened by “raising an eyebrow” to save a favoured army regiment. If true this should be a national scandal in a constitutional monarchy. That it is reported with so little awareness of the media’s role in entrenching privilege is unforgivable.
Not getting a real day off for 73 years probably had more to do with it. Or, you know, just being 96.
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.
UK is in top-20 countries by democracy index.[1] It is classified as 'full democracy' (as opposed to 'flawed democracy', for example in the US).
[1] https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2021/
UPD pdf version of the linked report: https://www.docdroid.net/xCeDvHc/eiu-democracy-index-2021-pd...
The dominant paradigm is "if it is not permitted it is forbidden".
Those of us in the colonies went a long way to get away from that.
IANAL but I think an act of parliament, ironically signed by the monarch, would suffice to abolish the monarchy in England.
A hell of a way to end the Monarchy would have been to use the royal prerogative to install an anti-brexit Prime Minister a couple years ago (against convention, but that's the point). Presumably that'd be enough to get them to abolish the Monarchy. And it would have been an fitting end to the Monarchy, a legacy of the previous era, to have the Queen, who held it for the current era, expend it's last bit of power to stay in the EU, which might be one of the top players in the next era.
Well that's how it'd be written if it was a movie at least.
>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."
They are not popular concepts these days, but the ideas you're grasping for are duty and service. She did her duty and she served her people.
Also, the Royal Family is not in receipt of taxpayer money. The Sovereign Grant is funded from income generated by the Crown Estate.
Money doesn’t solve all problems. It sure makes them less horrible though.
All that said, the queen was an impressive human. 70 years is a long time. I’d be bored in 3 years and quit
I have, and now more than ever I am convinced Twitter brings out the worst in people. That platform is a carcinogen of the mind.
Ruling by divine right is common and hasn't gone anywhere. Divine rulership hasn't had a real problem to fight in a long time, so we leave the governing up to parliament. Not an absolute parliament, mind you.
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.
That's true, back then she'd have to move to the Bahamas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallis_Simpson#Second_World_Wa...
I can’t begin to imagine how many times she must have had to bite her tongue over the last 73 years.
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.
Oh gosh. It’s the exact opposite. The a principle of Common Law is ‘everything which is not forbidden is allowed’ (the US for example has done reasonably well on that principle).
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 found your point valid. Where other al say she was had no choice and did well under circumstances. I rather saw her end the monarchy all together, or at least step out of it herself.
Tourists would still want to see Buckingham Palace and visit the royal gallery even without a sitting royal family.
She didn't, Louis XIV is still up there.
Which was a giant diplomatic incident. It wasn't without consequence.
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
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.
0: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/canadian-support-for-monarchy-hits-low...
1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-m...
Constitutional monarchs do have their uses; it's good that someone can fire the head of government, especially if the people can invest in the head of state instead.
The US should have one picked from the top 10 Spotify chart. Even if half of them are Canadian.
If I were moderating myself I would now point out that the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate intent: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....
I couldn't care less which side you guys are on re monarchs! If you want to make thoughtful critique, go for it. Just remember that the bar for that is rather high when it comes to a topic so filled with bombast as this one.
The idea that we'd be trying to preserve the royalist status quo and the elegance of railway travel is just so silly that I can't believe I have to say that. Clearly it was my mistake, though—that was no splash-free dive.
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.
Can't the Brits abolish royalty, how they abolished slavery?
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.
Basically he never wanted to be King, and seemed totally unsuitable for it anyway.
I've never heard of one.
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.
Frankly, we don't.
Can't the Brits abolish royalty, how they abolished slavery?
We could. We won't, not yet.
I say this as a Brit in favour of an elected head of state. It's probably best we get out of the Brexit quagmire first, before we set off another political crisis that splits the country in two.
You're right that it would require international cooperation, though: the British parliament doesn't legislate for the other Commonwealth Realms any more.
I would like to choose the duty of being fabulously wealthy and literally immune to criminal or civil prosecution, too.
She was holding on to get rid of him.
It's not exactly poverty, but the 'classist' arguments, to the extent they are rooted in 'wealth distribution' are ridiculous and naive with respect to Constitutional Monarchies.
The 'Head of State' gets a nice home, oh well, it's a drop in the bucket.
That's fundamentally different than some fat oligarch.
BTW Charles will be a fine King. He's nerdy and awkward and everyone loved the beloved Dianna because she was pretty and breezy, which is fine, but I don't believe that 'Instagrammable' qualities are those that fill the role.
His actions among others weakened British image in the world. He was also a nazi sympatizer.
> ultimately taken from the people and maintained via favourable tax laws
Taken from the people and maintained via favorable tax laws. UK inheritance tax is 40% (over the threshold, which is so low as to be meaningless next to the royal estate). With 5 royal deaths since Victoria, Charles III would have less than 8% of what he actually does if that 40% were taken each time (which is obviously vastly oversimplifying to make a point).
In the UK, our Armed Forces actually pledge alliance to the monarch, not the government. And the monarch is meant to stay out of all politics. In theory, if a prime minister/government decided to go rogue and try to become a dictatorship, the monarch is a last line of defence that can stand in the way and restore order.
Of course one could argue that the monarch is in fact the dictator you’re trying to stop, or that there’s nothing to stop a monarch of bad moral character from becoming a dictator. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. But I no longer look as poorly at Constitutional Democracies as I once did or Republics as richly.
With a Republic you’re basically playing the “wisdom of numbers” card, and hoping that through the various votes, from party elections through to national elections, a person of decent enough moral character is elected into the highest position of power. With the British system, you’re putting faith that the strict rules, customs and ceremonies that dictate the education and behaviour of the Royal Family translate into monarchs that have the moral character to deal with the position. With Liz that worked out extraordinarily well. If it had been someone like Prince Andrew, probably not so much.
When seen through this lens, the pomp and ceremonies stop looking archaic and quaint and start to make a bit more sense. It’s why there’s such a massive divide between the Meghan/Harry camp and the Royal Family. Meghan and Harry see the strict protocols as constricting the individual and they’re completely right. However, that’s the whole point, the member of the royal family is meant to be constrained and molded into the function they’re meant to perform in service of the people as the individual instinct runs the greatest risk of turning the monarch into a dictator.
I would say this is the defining factor between US and UK culture and why there has always been a bit of confusion and misunderstanding of each other, going right back to the war of independence; America values that individual dream more than anything else whereas the Brits distrust it because of its potential dark side to tyranny. Brits gloss over the mental health issues (stiff upper lip) that accompany giving up your individual dreams in favour of slotting neatly into your allocated function in the class system and the Americans gloss over that chasing dreams can sometimes end up being purely self serving.
Based on current trends, the UK (and the world) is trending more towards the US way of things, driven primarily by technology and the internet. 30 years ago, if you wanted to watch anything on TV tonight your only option would have been coverage of the Queen’s death, which is mandated to run on all channels. This would have formed a pretty formidable “group mourning mentality” or “collective consciousness”. Today that is diluted somewhat by the fact that you can stream whatever you want whenever you want; the group no longer holds as much power over the individual.
It’s this ideological and psychological component that I actually think is an argument in favour of Republics or at least reforming the monarchy to enforce retirement at a certain age. Is it really fair to expect someone to dedicate their entire life in service of the people? Elizabeth did it from 25 to 96. She was literally performing duties 48 hours before her death. It’s an almost superhuman level of public service, like Frodo carrying the ring, and we shouldn’t really be asking anyone to do it for their entire lives. Even Sam had to carry it the final distance through Mordor. The woman deserved a rest. But then she loved doing it which is what made her such a great queen.
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.
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)
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".
It’s not edgy to explain something everyone already knows. The royal family benefits from the taxation of UK citizens.
“For a place that claims to be a meritocracy, the UK has some strangely dissonant beliefs”
Are you.. States-splaining.. to me right now?
“Elizabeth was not a passive victim of her birth circumstances.. the UK has some strangely dissonant beliefs”.
I don’t know if you’re from the US or not, but if so this is the most ironically hypocritical thing I’ve ever read.
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.
Nonsense. Cromwell had to fight and win a very bloody civil war to abolish the monarchy. Despite that it was still restored after his death.
The Right of Parliament controls the constitution of the UK and has done since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, not the current reigning monarch.
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.
What would exactly be the problem here? A lot of the people that the queen supposedly represent live in a one room flat.
Correct
>I don't see how choosing that was to her credit.
I can see that.
I don't see how that's true at all, and I've never seen any evidence to support it. Simply asserting it does not make it true.
> He was also a nazi sympatizer
Wouldn't that make him abdicating a good thing for England?
The whole experience has knocked me off the fence and placed me firmly in the republic camp. It has solidified my resolve to leave the UK and start afresh somewhere else which aligns with my philosophical values. I am of the belief that the UK (or more specifically England, I think Scotland and Northern Ireland might break free of this mess soon, not as sure on Wales) is so fixated on the past that it is going to end up eating itself, especially with the technology that’s coming down the pipeline. The mindset that allows this broken system to continue (group think, fixation on the past) is fundamentally opposed to that which technology represents (individual thought, focus on the future) on a deep, deep level. You’re beginning to see it now with stuff like Rees-Mogg’s ridiculous attempts to bring back imperial measurements. Change is the only constant in life. Trying to resist it can only end in tears as history has shown time and time again. Unfortunately, they seem to be the only parts of history royalists want to overlook.