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

Queen Elizabeth II has died

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: Queen Elizabeth II has died

#681

Post by murphyslab »

markhahn wrote: post #195
dijit wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's understandable, she's been a constant vague presence for a lot of British people. It feels like a minor part of our personal history died. I definitely feel saddened, even if I don't have a connection with royalty.

Not just British people. Canadians, for instance, still have a role for the head of the commonwealth...

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.

Re: Queen Elizabeth II has died

#682

Post by dleslie »

munk-a wrote: post #532
kypro wrote: post #333

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 co…

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…

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.

0: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/canadian-support-for-monarchy-hits-low...

1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-m...

Re: Queen Elizabeth II has died

#683

Post by ertian »

bambax wrote: post #539
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #198

I was born in the UK, in 1963. Because of my step-father's love of first-wave UK punk, the first thing I did on hearing this news was to play the Sex Pistol's "God Save the Queen". 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 m…

> We might still want the whole concept destroyed 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.

I've been thinking about this for a while. Watching a swing towards autocracy around the world, it strikes me that republics seem somehow more vulnerable. The existence of a monarch, even as a functionally ceremonial role, creates a sort of conceptual top spot--and fills it. You _can't_ rise to the level of the head of state in a monarchy, that position is taken and can only be gained by inheritance.

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.

Re: Queen Elizabeth II has died

#684

Post by shp0ngle »

secondcoming wrote: post #543
shp0ngle wrote: post #324

Fun fact about English royalty 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.

Well yes, Catholics are/were considered to be loyal to Rome. But I'm pretty sure Tony Blair's government successfully repealed that restriction.

Technically, Boris Johnson converted to Catholicism during his time as PM, while Blair did afterwards.

So BoJo was the first English Catholic PM, I think

Re: Queen Elizabeth II has died

#685

Post by jmull »

braingenious wrote: post #599
dang wrote: post #329

All: please don't post flamebait, including ranting against monarchy or railing against "the nobility" like it's 1770. Such reflexive comments are not on topic here. We want curious conversation. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . This story is on topic because it's a major historical event and history has always been on topic here. If it doesn't produce an intellectually curious respons…

> please don't post flamebait, including ranting against monarchy or railing against "the nobility" like it's 1770. I am kind of curious about what this means exactly. Is any criticism of the monarchy off limits? Is the purpose of this thread for people to air their positive thoughts about this lady? For example, I find non-British people that are genuinely sad about her passing to be pretty bizarre. It’s a fascinati…

Hey, I'll respond at a general high-level...

You use words like "odd" and "bizarre" to describe many people's reactions to the QE's passing...

I humbly suggest that it's it is simply that you don't understand a certain perspective here. That's totally fine -- completely fine -- because there's no reason to expect we all could or should share the same perspective on this.

I humbly also suggest that, while there are certainly many criticism that could (and should, probably) be leveled in good reason against monarchies in general, and perhaps this monarchy in particular, today is maybe not the right day to do it.

Today a lady who was very meaningful to many people has passed. Why not let them grieve?

Imagine someone important to you died today. They surely weren't perfect, but is today the day to harp on their negatives? The monarchy has been around for centuries. If your criticisms have any merit, they will still have impact a few days from now.

Anyway, whether you're lucky enough that no one important to you has died (yet) or because you don't have that sensitivity, let me assure you: today isn't the day to pursue your criticisms of those that have passed today. Hang on to it for now andtell everyone about it later. If it's really something worthwhile, it will have legs later, too.

Re: Queen Elizabeth II has died

#688

Post by jackfruitpeel »

dang wrote: post #142
jackfruitpeel wrote: post #42

Sad on a human level, but she spent her years as the figurehead of an inherently fascist, racist institution — royalty. "Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees.”

Please don't take HN threads into political flamewar or on tedious generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Apologies. In retrospect a comment that didn't add much.

Re: Queen Elizabeth II has died

#689

Post by astrange »

akudha wrote: post #637
kypro wrote: post #333

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 co…

Agree with what you say. But your job, however hard it might be, is more palatable when you have people at your call and when you’re insanely rich. Contrast this with the lady at CVS near my home - she is at least in her 70s, looks frail and tired all the time. It is sad that she has to work at her age. Money doesn’t solve all problems. It sure makes them less horrible though. All that said, the queen was an impressi…

When retirement was invented (rather recently) people tended to die shortly afterward IIRC. Not having anything to do can be even worse than working.

Re: Queen Elizabeth II has died

#690

Post by netsharc »

rurban wrote: post #460

Interestingly the details of the planned operation London Bridge https://www.politico.eu/article/queen-elizabeth-death-plan-b... were posted today on some British news site before her death, when all others confirmed her stable health. Some insiders obviously were in the know earlier today.

But that article is dated September 2021. The Guardian also wrote about it in 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens...

The articles probably landed on the top 10 list of most read articles (due to Google hits) after the Buckingham Palace statement this morning that the doctors are recommending continuous monitoring of her health, which probably was British understatement for "Her situation is bad".

Post reply on HN