Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Prince Philip has died

royal.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 553 posts

Re: Prince Philip has died

#501

Post by smcl »

andrepd wrote: post #152
crossroadsguy wrote: post #32

Rest in peace! I have always felt strongly against monarchy. Especially against the British royal family, more so as I am an Indian. They never apologized for any of the massacres (Jallianwala is just one example) or pogroms committed at their behest and in their name. I do believe they are a disgusting symbol of colonialism, racism, subjugation. It is very disturbing that a good part of the world and an entire natio…

Disappointing to see showers of downvotes for a respectable opinion, burying your thoughts under heaps of comments praising a useless dead monarch.

I only noticed now coming back to this thread that crossroadsguy's comment was flagged and marked as [dead]. I'm really surprised, the comment was absolutely fine. FWIW I vouched for it so it should be visible again.

Re: Prince Philip has died

#502

Post by F1Qy94GJ55 »

spectramax wrote: post #498
F1Qy94GJ55 wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> somewhat irrelevant but harmless relic of a bygone era, about which I am largely indifferent. Many old people, still alive, lived a good chunk of their lives in what was a British colony then and he was the prince then too. Neither was it that far back in history, nor was it harmless :) You can be indifferent like many others and celebrate the British monarchy, but I suppose I cannot, like many others.

A lot of things your grandpa did in 1930s was probably deeply sexist. Are you going to also look at your granpa with vengeful attitude? Society evolves. Forgive the wrong doings of the past, and move forward. Look ahead.

Wow, multiple personal attacks in this thread, all for disagreeing, for saying "...I see him as a wealthy old man from a very influential family who should have done better", speaking about the colonial past in his lifetime". Ugh! Some things never change.

Re: Prince Philip has died

#503

Post by spectramax »

F1Qy94GJ55 wrote: post #502
spectramax wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of things your grandpa did in 1930s was probably deeply sexist. Are you going to also look at your granpa with vengeful attitude? Society evolves. Forgive the wrong doings of the past, and move forward. Look ahead.

Wow, multiple personal attacks in this thread, all for disagreeing, for saying "...I see him as a wealthy old man from a very influential family who should have done better", speaking about the colonial past in his lifetime". Ugh! Some things never change.

I didn’t mean any personal animosity. Most men in 1930s were sexist and it was accepted in the society. Even, Switzerland allowed women to vote 1980’s.

The point is to let go of the decades old past.

Re: Prince Philip has died

#504

Post by teachrdan »

callamdelaney wrote: post #483
teachrdan wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Broadly speaking, the HN readership supports entrepreneurship, novel ideas and transparency; as a result, it tends to be critical of inherited wealth, entrenched institutions and arbitrary and opaque power. The royal family in England embodies all of the latter.[0] Of course there are exceptions! Most people are empathetic and few openly celebrate the death of a 99-year-old. But I think it's fair to say that a large…

Dan, the wealth of the monarchy is widely known; it owns billions in assets - graciously it donated the proceeds of these assets to directly to the treasury. They are literally net contributors on the basis of this alone.

I have to smile at this comment. The monarchy "owns billions in assets - graciously it donated the proceeds of these assets..." Where exactly do you think these assets came from? The monarchy's wealth came from the people and resources of the Commonwealth. The individuals who constitute the monarchy did nothing more than get born to the right people to inherit and control this wealth.

> They are literally net contributors on the basis of this alone.

How can you know this? Without a comprehensive and independent accounting of their donations and expenses, it's literally impossible to say whether they are "net contributors" or not.

It's nice to think that the monarchy is looking out for the people of the Commonwealth. But if that were the case, why would the Queen be lobbying--in secret!--to keep her vast wealth obscured from the public?

Re: Prince Philip has died

#505

Post by teachrdan »

ben_w wrote: post #490
teachrdan wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cant spend their wealth like billioaires What would they spend it on? Fancy houses? Private transport around the world? Lavish vacations? They get all of those things for free already. I suppose it wouldn't do for Prince Charles to buy a 200' yacht. But other than that, I'm not sure how much he, or any other royal, is suffering for not being able to spend their wealth like the rest of the 0.1%.

Once you get over about $10 million per family member, you can have essentially any house, holiday, or private transport you desire. Spending like billionaires means political power or privately funded moonshot projects.

The royal family doesn't need to spend money to have political power--the queen and other members of the royal family already lobby in secret to pass or scuttle laws to their benefit.[0]

Perhaps they can't singlehandedly fund moonshot projects. But if that's the extent to which royals are hampered, then perhaps they have an alright deal after all, what with being born into a system where enjoy a lifestyle that would cost tens of millions to sustain for anyone else.

0. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que...

Re: Prince Philip has died

#506

Post by bobthepanda »

dalbasal wrote: post #368
jermaustin1 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure they have automated a lot of it, so maybe it has progressed in that less man hours are required per message, and on top of that, they are probably in color, with pictures, which is way more than you get with a telegram.

This comment could literally (literally literal) be an imperial apologist in one of Asimov's books... even the concise, urging, commaed style. You promised us instant messaging. All we got is colour postcards. This is the beginning of a dark age.

I feel like people would appreciate a handwritten physical memento over, say, a short SMS.

Most electronic messaging forms are either closed (do you have Telegram? How bout Signal? Or maybe Messenger? Snapchat? Etc.) or basically inundated with electronic spam. If I got an email claiming to be from the Queen of England I’d just think it’d be a more ballsy version of the Nigerian prince scam.

Re: Prince Philip has died

#507

Post by nullsense »

Thorentis wrote: post #81
nullsense wrote: post #17

I really wish we could just do away with all this royal family nonsense. You guys are somehow special because what? Useless social fiction from antiquity.

I find the idea of a royal family far more inspiring and wholesome than the celebrity culture which has overtaken the West. The vast majority of celebrities get far more air time, live in more obscene luxury, and are more condescending, than the entire royal family put together. One of my biggest worries about Meghan was that celebrity culture would begin seeping into the royal family - and unfortunately it looks lik…

Wholesome and inspiring aye?

Does that sentiment extend to Henry VIII?

Monarchy is not something to be celebrated.

Re: Prince Philip has died

#508

Post by nullsense »

pndy wrote: post #76
nullsense wrote: post #17

I really wish we could just do away with all this royal family nonsense. You guys are somehow special because what? Useless social fiction from antiquity.

You might want to educate yourself on Europe's monarchy history, the British monarchy - it's a quite interesting topic and definitely not some kind of... fad. Elizabeth II still holds the throne while American presidents come and go.

Sure. But why is this celebrated?

Today it's seen as almost quaint and cutesy. The history of it all is anything but. The monarchy originally would have gained power like most other cases in world history where someone raised an army and took it by force. That, while not my favourite thing, is legitimate. After parliament became a thing and the monarchy was no longer running the show, what legitimacy does it have? What's the need to keep it? Who would stop anyone getting rid of it? The monarchy themselves aren't in the position to raise an army and conquer the nation again.

What it is today vs. how it originated leave me feeling like there is a big disconnect in how it's viewed. Ask anyone "should we get rid of it?", plenty say no. Ask those same people "should we get rid of parliament then and go back to monastic rule" they will say no. Ok, so you _dont_ like what it used to represent but you like what it represents now? What the heck?

Re: Prince Philip has died

#509

Post by nullsense »

disambiguation wrote: post #384
nullsense wrote: post #17

I really wish we could just do away with all this royal family nonsense. You guys are somehow special because what? Useless social fiction from antiquity.

all laws and governments are social fictions as for celebrities and "royalty", humans are hard-wired to follow hierarchies and thus be fascinated by those at the top

Fascinated/dominated - take your pick.

My whole thing is we used to be _dominated_ by the monarchy without a choice about it. Now that we aren't, what's even the point in being _fascinated_ by it? They're at the top, but of what anymore?

Post reply on HN