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

531–540 of 553 posts

Re: Prince Philip has died

#531

Post by Symbiote »

teachrdan wrote: post #452
ksec wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>their wealth and privilege may make up for it. These Royals cant spent their wealth like billionaires either. So wealth certainly isn't a thing to be worth considering. And I mean if that is all the stuff we could tell and see, imagine all the other things we dont. In a modern world, most people, even in the high middle class wouldn't want to trade what they have to what is considered to be privilege as Royal.

> 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%.

There was a royal yacht, although it was decommissioned in 1997 and the royal family didn't/don't seem interested in another.

They also have (use of) a royal train.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMY_Britannia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Royal_Train

Re: Prince Philip has died

#532

Post by Symbiote »

callamdelaney wrote: post #512
teachrdan wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 contrib…

My point is not that she didn’t get it through being a part of the aristocracy; my point is that the royal family is a net contributor. 2019/2020 contributions to the treasury were £345,000,000[0] In the same year the monarchy were paid roughly £90m [1]. Last I checked it didn’t matter how one acquired something as long as one owns it. It’s really irrelevant how they came into that land. [0] https://www.thecrownestat…

The land, buildings, seabed etc should belong to the UK, similar to the land owned by the Forestry Commission or MoD.

The sovereign does not own it, but takes part of the profit from it to fund the royal family, and gives the rest to the treasury.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate has a good background.

Re: Prince Philip has died

#533

Post by Symbiote »

andrepd wrote: post #144
dr_dshiv wrote: post #53

Because Prince Charles is heir to the throne (and has been portrayed more negatively in the news media than any other living person), some in the HN community may be surprised to know that he wrote a book on philosophy . https://www.amazon.com/Harmony-New-Way-Looking-World/dp/0061... I found the book to be astonishingly good. It takes a design approach to Platonism and western esotericism. It goes deep into "sacred g…

> Because Prince Charles is heir to the throne (and has been portrayed more negatively in the news media than any other living person) I can sit and name persons more negatively treated for hours and not run out of names. EDIT: Why is my comment collapsed? Genuine question, don't know how this works.

> EDIT: Why is my comment collapsed? Genuine question, don't know how this works.

The monarchists were out in force, and downvoted your comment. I've upvoted it, but otherwise there's not much to do -- I think a lot of people who don't care for the monarchy probably avoiding the discussion.

Re: Prince Philip has died

#534

Post by dmos62 »

ben_w wrote: post #492
BitwiseFool wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the word "Therapeutic"?

Again, depends what for. If someone told me laughter was genuinely therapeutic for clinical depression, I… ok, I would still be surprised, but I could be convinced. If they told me it would cure Alzheimer’s, I’d make a mental note to ignore their opinions in future. “Alternative medicine” is so often snake oil, that anything calling itself that is something I hold in the same regard as Star Trek Voyager’s plot device…

> If they told me it would cure Alzheimer’s, I’d make a mental note to ignore their opinions in future.

Quick thinking has its place, but wouldn't you care why the person believes that? The anecdata about your family history isn't any more credible, if that's all we have to go by.

I think quick think should be addressed with slow think. By thinking speed I'm referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

Re: Prince Philip has died

#535

Post by pjmorris »

noir_lord wrote: post #525
pjmorris wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> British Naval History is fascinating Tell me more. I'm four volumes in to the Aubrey-Maturin series, and will read the remaining 16, but I'm curious about, say, the top two or three non-fiction books for the interested layman.

So many and over such a wide span to narrow it down to 2-3 definitively so I'll cover ground instead. 1) The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain, 1649­-1815[1] (actually book 2 but the first covers an earlier period this covers the period across the Act of Union - when England/Scotland became with Wales the United Kingdom and when the British navy went from "decent" to not just first but first by a hilar…

Fantastic, thank you. I have the same "perpetual "why is the world the way it is" fascination with everything)"

Re: Prince Philip has died

#536

Post by ben_w »

dmos62 wrote: post #534
ben_w wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, depends what for. If someone told me laughter was genuinely therapeutic for clinical depression, I… ok, I would still be surprised, but I could be convinced. If they told me it would cure Alzheimer’s, I’d make a mental note to ignore their opinions in future. “Alternative medicine” is so often snake oil, that anything calling itself that is something I hold in the same regard as Star Trek Voyager’s plot device…

> If they told me it would cure Alzheimer’s, I’d make a mental note to ignore their opinions in future. Quick thinking has its place, but wouldn't you care why the person believes that? The anecdata about your family history isn't any more credible, if that's all we have to go by. I think quick think should be addressed with slow think. By thinking speed I'm referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_a…

> but wouldn't you care why the person believes that?

In the absence of any surprising circumstances, no. I grew up with all the tropes — Catholicism, New Age takes on Wicca, Hinduism, anamism; homeopathy, Bach flower remedies, dowsing, runestones, horoscopes — so I’ve got decent reason to believe I already know why they might believe this hypothetical I’ve literally just made up.

Re: Prince Philip has died

#537

Post by mclightning »

throw0101a wrote: post #478
mclightning wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy? you know, the one that's already in place. Royal families has no direct influence on the democracy of these countries. Correlation doesn't mean Causation.

Canada is already democratic: we regularly vote in municipal, provincial, and federal elections. What exactly would be improved by removing the Crown?

Your mind seems to be stuck on a tautology. Those things you list are a part of democracy, not a result of retaining a royal family. Stephen Fry once uttered that very line about democratic countries/monarch countries...as a parody/irony of sort. Then a lot of people take it as a rational argumentative statement, and repeat it everywhere. It is only an irony of the world we live in. It is in no way related to the actual workings of the democracy.

Re: Prince Philip has died

#539

Post by pjmorris »

noir_lord wrote: post #525
pjmorris wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> British Naval History is fascinating Tell me more. I'm four volumes in to the Aubrey-Maturin series, and will read the remaining 16, but I'm curious about, say, the top two or three non-fiction books for the interested layman.

So many and over such a wide span to narrow it down to 2-3 definitively so I'll cover ground instead. 1) The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain, 1649­-1815[1] (actually book 2 but the first covers an earlier period this covers the period across the Act of Union - when England/Scotland became with Wales the United Kingdom and when the British navy went from "decent" to not just first but first by a hilar…

'The Command of the Ocean, "when the British navy went from "decent" to not just first but first by a hilarious margin", sounds like exactly the kind of thing I am looking for.
Post reply on HN