Queen Elizabeth II has died

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.

I used to take comfort in the idea that all things pass in time, now not so much. Probably because I realised that includes everyone I love, and myself!

I’ve no great love for the monarchy, but this is certainly the end of an era in British public life and likely in UK international relations - I can’t see the commonwealth nations welcoming King Charles as their new head of state.

And it is weird, there are some things you just never expect to change. I’m hardly a spring chicken, but Queen Elizabeth was not only there my entire life, but Queen far enough into the past before I was born to have interacted with historical figures (like Churchill).

Well this is precisely what is about to happen. There may be some hand wringing articles in major newspapers about whether the Royal head of state is still relevant, appropriate, blah blah blah, but there is approximately zero chance that anything will change in reaction to this news.

One thing is for sure. She did leave a mark. Winston God damn Churchill was her first time minister! When I will be old and have grandchildren, I will tell my grandchildren how I became a British citizen. And when they’ll ask me when, I’ll tell them during the reign of The Queen. And they will know who I mean.

God rest her soul.

I’m pretty sure that (for instance) Australia was just hanging on until we could be sure she was gone, the current government have already planned a referendum on it in a few years if they get a second term.

(I say ‘we’, I am a relatively recent British migrant, and not a citizen yet)

"Soap opera situations" seems like a gentle way to put it. Several of her family members have been accused of serious crimes, and associated with some very nasty people. For years they were shielded by their association with her.

"In many [Commonwealth countries] constitutions state that the Queen, specifically, is the head of state. In these countries, constitutions will need to be amended to refer to her successor. In countries such as Jamaica, where there is a strong independence movement, and Belize, these constitutional changes will also require a referendum, according to Commonwealth experts. This is expected to bring about a moment of political peril for the new monarch, who, after Barbados became independent in 2021, could face the loss of another prominent part of the Caribbean Commonwealth."

"People who are not expecting to cry will cry."

Looks like they were right!

Interesting read by the way which touches on many aspects.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens...

leaving a trade bloc (Brexit) is hardly notable by comparison

I think it's a very understandably human urge to hold up someone for emulation. The only odd thing about a noble class in that sense is that we decide the job of "role model and leader" should be hereditary.

But I think it's a very understandably human reaction to feel sorrow when someone who millions of people have invested so much energy into making the best person that can be is still mortal.

Your emotions is a result of imparted and perceived.

She was the last of the best, we'll see what comes next.

May she rest in peace.

I'm not even British and find myself feeling likewise. The Queen has been a fixture for a long time (before my birth and even before my parent's birth as well). It is also probably because of Queen Elisabeth's story was somewhat moving. It will take some time to get used to King Charles III...

before the EU existed

Anyways, it would be more surprising if the Commonwealth didn't lose a couple now and if a couple more didn't make plans for when Charles dies, which won't be all that long from now.

I wish Canada was one of those, but all I'm reasonably hoping for is that we drop monarch icons on our cash.

I've never had strong views for or against the royal family but always felt genuine respect towards the Queen herself.

She always appeared to be a morally strong character who tried to do the right thing.

I always expected this would feel like a very strange moment when it finally arrived. I wasn't wrong.

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.

(Since someone is now about to accuse me of stealth Brexit sideage—no, this is just about the tiny business of moderating an internet forum, and that is all.)

I don't lightly ban a 7-year-old account, but (a) we've warned you many times:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22976700 (April 2020)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20912638 (Sept 2019)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20477028 (July 2019)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19765448 (April 2019)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17865589 (Aug 2018)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17623237 (July 2018)

... and (b) you've broken the site guidelines repeatedly lately.

struck me as unfamiliar.

Nope, it’s been quite familiar to even someone several hundred years ago.

It's quite a different context, however I felt sort of similar about John McCain, mostly for what he endured as a POW, and what he nevertheless went on to accomplish in politics.

I don't think it's odd at all, in fact it's pretty normal when you look at a long stretch of history. I'd wager that heredity based monarchy is probably the most common form of regime.

Losing almost any former colony is not going to make the top ten list of problems for the new King and might solve a few problems.

(in the same way the United States absorbed the obligations and responsibilities of Great Britain in the 13 colonies)

(regardless, I got my dates wrong, I was thinking of Nice...)

I think there are probably a lot of people like me who, while anti monarchy in general, were not particularly anti-Elizabeth. However now that she’s passed I would quite like the whole thing to be further de-emphasised, de-legitimised and removed from any remaining levers of power, however ceremonial or theoretical, and any remaining state subsidy, palaces and lands to be taken into public ownership etc etc.

How many are of these opinions I am unsure.

In the grand scheme of things, Brexit and its consequences were much alike to what I imagine would happen were $STATE to leave the USA.

Whether it's the most common form of government is unclear. In modern times, democracy is most common. I think what was most common historically might be a complicated question and changes in terms of how it's asked (in terms of distinct governments, total territory controlled, or total population loyal to?).

It's like wondering what 4chan thinks of this.

Ironically, Commonwealth is actually getting bigger. The last commonwealth games was surprisingly well attended and celebrated.

Monarchy is still the most common form of organization as well. For instance, every corporation is a monarchy with a board that acts as the king/queens court and executives that represent the remaining nobility. Same with Military arrangements. It's probably a reason that these forms of organization tend to dominate others, like collectives, etc. Strong leadership from the top will always be optimal. Of course, weak leadership from the top is fatal.

I'll add:

Consider there are 3 forms of organization:

Rule by 1, Rule by some, and Rule by many. These can be broken into 6 implementations, 2 for each form. Monarch/Tyrant, Aristocracy/Oligarchy, Democracy/Populism. There's interesting relationships between these 6 and what some historians believe are natural transitions from 1 to another: Monarch->Aristocracy->Democracy->Oligarchy->Populist->Tyrant

In 70 years, the number of gaffes/crises linked to her person (rather than other members of her family) are few, perhaps the only dents were the Diana incident and the secret influencing of the law by the crown ("royal consent" and "royal assent" - e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...).

And, of course, that centralization carries good and ill. At different points in time, it can be detrimental to centralize authority so. But even countries like the United States, which generally pride themselves on decentralized democratic rule, have various emergency powers abilities for wartime consolidation of authority behind the Executive (and President specifically).

Apart from that note, I agree with everything here.

Not sure how much truth there was to all that but it was a family member who told me and they follow this stuff a lot more than I do. It sounds plausible at least, and if that's how he does things, and then William becomes King, the monarchy might stick around for a while longer yet.

And I realised that's exactly what she was. She was iconic in the religious sense - an embodied icon of a nationalist religion.

This suddenly made a lot of things about the current state of the UK much clearer.

There is no practical sense in which she was genuinely "grandma of the nation." That personification goes one way only - from the population to what psychologists would call a parental projection.

Objectively she paid almost no attention to her subjects, except for a tiny number who were socially or financially notable.

She may have been witty and personable socially - as reported by many people - and perhaps the most interesting thing about her as an individual is that she trained as a mechanic during the war, taking delight in a job that women didn't usually do, and continued that interest through her life.

But I find the crypto-religious elements of the UK's (actually mostly just England's) relationship with her very unsettling.

And I genuinely believe she could have done far more for the people of the UK than she did. Especially recently.

Monarchy is a strange thing. When I flew to Bali on a Thai airline in the 90s a fair few pages of the inflight magazine were full of carefully manicured praise for the talents of the reigning monarch.

It seemed bizarre and alien. But over time I realised the UK has a similar relationship with its monarchy.

And where Heads of State are nominally expected to work for the Greater Good, it seems to be assumed that monarchs do the same, mostly by modelling social ease and extreme privilege.

This is all quite odd. I'm sure there are reasons for it - possibly evolutionary - and I suspect they're not obvious.

Or are countries *joining* ?

All kinds of republicans(anti-monarchists, not American republicans) are content.

Europeans civilization are 1000s of years old, America is a baby compared to them, the history and memory are very different.

No... Not at all. Not that many large cap corporations(large capital organizations, not Mom and Pop Inc) have one exclusive owner. None of the publicly traded corporations are monarchies at all.

I'm not sure what point you're making here. I'm not claiming England has never had a King before, I'm pointing out that I'm used to seeing "Her Majesty the Queen" rather than "His Majesty the King" all over.

HN exists (partially) to surface interesting news and foster discussions of that news - flamebait is never interesting and it doesn't lead to interesting discussions. We of the internet discovered, during the usenet days, that reducing a conversation to a shouting match is boring - so to promote a more healthy dialog HN specifically removes inflammatory comments unless they bring an interesting topic to light (and even then it's just nicer to communicate in a polite manner) - as this is the goal for this private forum it's completely within its right to restrict discussions that go against that goal and restrict users that repeatedly violate that goal. The internet is a large place and there are plenty of other forums that cater to other forms of expression - the first amendment exists primarily to make it illegal for the government to say such places can't exist - it doesn't obligate all places to act in such a manner nor mandate the existence of such places.

Private entities are allowed to do whatever they want with their platform regarding speech. Twitter, HN, etc. are not obligated to give everyone a megaphone.

There's no way you don't know this already. It comes up every week.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwea...

(This is not the same as her mother being Queen Elizabeth I, which was the tudor queen from the 1500s, wife-of-king queens don't take up a number).

It's a weird bit of asymmetry to the husband-of-queen title being decided on an adhoc basis, having been a prince of denmark, prince-consort of the united kingdom and prince of the united kingdom respectively.

It has been co-opted fairly recently -by some- to mean that no one can silence you anywhere. This is a new interpretation, and unrelated to the USA constitutional right to free speech.

This has never been the case. If you say something offensive to me in my house, I can rightfully remove you. You can continue to say the thing somewhere else, just not in a private house.

Hacker News -in this instance- is a private house. If they allowed unlimited free speech, they would have to allow personal attacks, spam, off-topic submissions, etc... Part of the value of HN is that the speech IS NOT free.

You and I can come here and trust that the conversations will meet a standard, banning people who flagrantly abuse that standard is also a form of free speech.

edit: after seeing your edit, it looks like this is a disingenuous question intended to start a flamewar. If that isn't your intention, you should be careful about how you phrase things.

This is meta navel-gazing and is generally not considered on-topic or useful here. That's probably the main reason for the downvotes.

To try to answer the question though, since we're already here:

There are two (at least two) definitions of "free speech" in the US. The "strict" one related to the Constitutional principle enshrined in the 1st Amendment which basically means that the government can't make certain speech illegal and then put you in jail or otherwise punish you for what you say. For better or worse, the courts have generally ruled that there are limits to that though, hence the old saw about "yelling fire in a crowded theatre".

Beyond that, some people look at free speech in a colloquial sense as meaning something like "I can say anything I want, anywhere I want, anytime I want, and nobody can interfere in any way with my doing so". This would mean, for example, that a private web-forum like HN banning an account could be seen as a violation of "free speech". This is not even close to a universally accepted definition, but at this point I guess we could say it's close to being "widely adopted" at worst.

I think most Americans though, accept that as an individual no one of us has standing to compel another individual, or private organization, to assist in transmitting, propagating, relaying, or distributing our speech. So HN banning an account may be distasteful to some people, but it's not a violation of the principle of "Free Speech".

YMMV.

As a person making this claim, you are failing miserably to make a case that CEO is a monarch. (Mostly because you don't know what it means to be CEO or a monarch)

Less theoretical than many seem to think: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

They do this in secret, to preserve the illusion.

I myself, am in agreement however. If governance of the UK would modernize, the removal of generational status like what a monarch represents would be a step in the right direction. Why one would do that, and loose the history in the process? Not sure if the UK populous is ready for that, since its still a beloved part of the country and outwardly is a hallmark of the country's brand.

I digress. I am probably just speaking ill of the dead to some, but just glad to be in the US for our representation structure of legislation and executive by proxy. Direct Democracy is the red headed step child of mob rule, and I'm content to not have that either.

Likewise, I would caution you about your own phrasing, particularly << So, there--the enlightened, FREE Western man or woman or "it", please tell me, is your freedom of speech an illusion and only applicable to Moslems? >>

You have had your question answered thoroughly, but you have escalated to examples that have already been explained (in one sentence: private companies can choose what to publish (Hebdo) and what not to publish (HN, Twitter) without government interference), and chosen a phrasing that is generally acknowledged to be insulting to non-gender conforming individuals.

This isn't a debate in intellectual good faith.

I've unbanned you now. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and mitigate the ways that you've been breaking the rules, that would be helpful so we don't end up in this boat again.

---

That may be, but you still have to follow the rules. You broke them here, have broken them elsewhere, we've warned you many times, and I've just told you how to get unbanned if you want to.

The answer to your question is that HN is just a specific type of web forum a specific set of rules. It's not an anything-goes place and never has been, and it's hardly the "western world".

Who decides whether the guidelines are fair? well, that has to be someone's job and it happens to be my job, so for now it's I who decide.

Since you've broken them badly in all kinds of places recently:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32671575

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32660805

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32659189

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32648075

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32646308

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32628649

(and that's just a few examples), I've banned your account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.

They all have massive limits on their powers as compared to a CEO. They work with parliaments, etc. They can be vetoed easily.

I'll grant it isn't a perfect analogy. A CEO doesn't have unlimited power granted by god and has to answer to a board and therefore shareholders. But in essence, the idea of having a singular ultimate decision maker/leader rather than having a small group vote on decisions or have the entire company vote makes it a de-facto monarchy.

Dangs top post irritated me because it felt like this has to be the time to remember the whole life - not just the fantasy we are typically sold.

My general sense is that of respect for the Queen as a symbol. She did it right and wasn't a useless numpty like ... oh... all of the rest of them. Primarily nothing but B list celebrities. William and Kate seem fine enough, Harry and Meghan are .. irrelevant except to the nonces who have no actual lives, and let's not discuss Andrew...

Hopefully Charles will use the "soft power" he supposedly has to corral the professional sociopaths destroying this country (e.g. wind and solar power, given his supposed environmental leanings) but I don't know.... it very well may be all downhill from now. England (and by extension all of the UK) is destined to become a failed state.

Which is why I am looking hard at moving to Scotland (soon to be independent!) or even the EU to get the F out of here ASAP. It really is a transitional point.

I realize there's a critique of gardeners which argues that nobody should ever pull weeds, or even label any plant a weed—but I think most people come here for the flowers, and for that there needs to be a shit-ton of weed-pulling.

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.

I mean, the Queen could just as well have been a made up figure to you or me, given the vanishing possibility she would affect any of our lives directly. Yet after watching those stories about her life, the monarchy, it manipulates your neurons to actually have a person to mourn. Funny, isn't it? And the length of her life certainly gave enough material to feel some story.

I imagine that before QE2, much state/people mourning of the sovereign was just symbolic, and though perhaps somewhat heartfelt (I daresay, but more for loss of the symbol), not deep. For all their quirks and personality problems revealed to us on TV, it actually caused them to mean more to us.

people who do nothing but shout their arguments without engaging in good natured discussion are therefore equally not welcome. as a community we need the ability to stop those people from derailing our discussions.

the problem with flaimbait is that it is that it motivates people who like to shout. in a perfect community where noone engages in shouting matches, flaimbait would be unable to start any fights. it would therefore be harmless and ignored. but rarely is a community perfect, and so it is helpful to remind people to not do that.

to know why this particular comment was flaimbait it may be necessary to learn more about the topic and what kind of responses it draws out. understanding this is the job of the moderators. and while the moderators aren't perfect either, they are doing a god job so far, and instead of rejecting particular moderation actions it would be better to find different, less controversial ways to approach the topic in question, which in this case surely did happen. the topic brought up by the banned account has been discussed on this site multiple times in a more civilized form.

right here we have an example of an engaged civilized discussion. this is as it should be, however it is off topic, so people would still be in their right to downvote all of the comments in this subthread, including mine. we can and should have this discussion, but not here where the topic is the death of the british queen and not freedom of speech.

Grateful am I. But mate, you do sound like you need a holiday!

Reducing evolution and time down to a steady state worldview, doesn't work.

For now, at least. I think we are all underestimating just how much Twitter impacts public perception. Not just on topics, but how people feel, act, and interact with others. Twitter seems to have a cancerous negativity it inflicts on its users.

Not really. The Greeks, the Arabs, yes. But 2,000 years ago the Europeans were were not "civilised" in the sense that we think of.

As a Canadian, the idea that she's gone is... strange? Every single time I've ever held a coin (in Canada), she's been on it. Every dime, every cent, every ten dollar bill. I have a difficult time with visual memory, but I know what those images look like because I've seen them a hundred thousand times.

Now it's going to be someone else? It makes sense, but it doesn't feel right.

Has there been any real progress towards another referendum on independence? I know SNP still has the lion’s share of seats in Scottish parliament, but what else? As a Scottish ex-pat of sorts (born UAE, to Scottish parents, but raised and educated in the US), I have nostalgic notions of moving to Scotland. Then I remember its dark much of the year and rains a fair bit. Heck, it even snowed in June the last summer I visited (yes, that was up Glenshee, but still).

I defer to the historian Niall Ferguson who said (I paraphrase) that purpose of monarchy is to protect the people from its government. From a UK perspective, it seems to work.

It starts with “this is a call to revolution…”

A philosopher king!

The problem is, the mods at Twitter may have a disagreement with a user and ban them arbitrarily, like they did with Peterson. Pretty soon, you will not be able to read anything except what appeals to the Twitter mods. Your thinking will be forced and re-defined and you won't be able to say what you think, because of the repercussions.

[...]

In a world where you can only say what you are allowed to say, people will stop thinking and everybody will say similar things. I hardly call that "freedom" and "pursuit of happiness".

i agree with your general sentiment, which is why i pointed out the difference of how germany treats its freedom of opinion. a few years ago a new law was enacted that requires the swift removal of online hate speech and one of the first people blocked because that law was someone making anti-muslim comments. so no, there is no allowed hate speech there.

the difficulty is to figure out what is to be considered hate speech and what isn't. some of that we may have to learn through trial and error.

the new law is controversial because it forces companies to act on mere notification without a court order. which, while considered normal in the US, is not how germans like to do things.

Unless you're saying there are countries not in the Commonwealth that have her as the head of state which is news to me, but maybe i am mistaken.

Which is fully appropriate where it exists.

I would be 100% against the US having a 'Constitutional Monarch' but I'm 100% in support of the UK Constitutional Monarchy, given that it has come from their long established culture, nearly a 1000-year-old 'contiguous-ish' institution.

FYI in 1258 the Monarch signed documents which required him to 'Confer with Parliament' when changing rates of taxation. That's only 40 years past Magna Carta, and the first reference to 'Parliament'.

- https://slendertroll.tumblr.com/post/66114152363 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Town_(Specials_song)

"Naivete can also be detected in my supposition that it would take something as melodramatic as a near-miss nuclear conflict to nudge England toward fascism. Although in fairness to myself and David, there were no better or more accurate predictions of our country’s future available in comic form at that time. The simple fact that much of the historical background of the story proceeds from a predicted Conservative defeat in the 1982 General Election should tell you how reliable we were in our role as Cassandras. It’s 1988 now. Margaret Thatcher is entering her third term of office and talking confidently of an unbroken Conservative leadership well into the next century. My youngest daughter is seven and the tabloid press are circulating the idea of concentration camps for persons with AIDS. The new riot police wear black visors, as do their horses, and their vans have rotating video cameras mounted on top. The government has expressed a desire to eradicate homosexuality, even as an abstract concept, and one can only speculate as to which minority will be the next legislated against. I’m thinking of taking my family and getting out of this country soon, sometime over the next couple of years. It’s cold and it’s mean-spirited and I don’t like it here anymore."

My impression is that William benefited from just not being Charles, and some of the sheen rubbing off from his mother. Both of those things only go so far, and as he moves more and more into public responsibilities, he has more and more chances to bungle up. From the high of the early 2010s, the only way for him to trend was down, and its inevitable. William is, what, 40? Charles wasn't quite reviled when he was 40 too - he grew into that role.

Even if the monarchy isn't abolished outright before Louis or a sibling ascends, it's very possible that the United Kingdom in its current state may not. The unified crowns of England and Scotland may exist in title only, if that.

It's pretty sad because people here come from different cultures and different personalities, and some people just naturally express themselves more assertively, cynically or provocatively.

Some people prefer hypocrisy and softened words and respect for others, while others prefer getting a clear point across, and using cynicism and exaggeration are valid tools for that.

Looking at previous posts of this person, he's clearly naturally cynical. Does that merit ban? Should all cynical people walk on the tips of their toes in HN to avoid "flamebait" ?

In the name of protecting those easily offendable, we're becoming intolerant of those who don't understand subtle nuances. Or those that just have to respond. Or those coming from cultures with naturally less tact.

This poster didn't even open up the problematic subject himself but responded to someone else.

But...

Elizabeth was a remarkable person, filled with evident curiosity and willingness to connect with people despite being a reserved personality. She was a bit mischievous. She wasn't defined by her job, she defined it.

And beyond that, there are just so many constants that are about to change. I keep thinking how lucky we are that we have cashless transactions, because the abrupt switch from the ubiquity of Elizabeth's face would have been much more noticeable 15 years ago (which sounds like a non sequitur, but ... her face is everywhere on money).

Without an objective way to measure "badness", all you're doing it reflecting what the TV told you to feel.

> RNZ stations are instructed not to play punk music, or songs by the band Queen during this period.

Part of the "London bridge down"-protocol for New Zealand

So while you're right that she is styled Her Majesty the Queen Consort, she is the same kind of queen that Queen Charlotte was. I think you're right that people are avoiding the phrase "Queen Camilla" at the moment but I think it will come into use.

(But she is definitely not the sovereign.)

Charles is going to milk his kingship for everything it's worth.

That's not quite how it felt as a 52 year old Brit off of mostly England wot lived here at that time, as well as West Germany. I got the full Cold War experience.

I'm not sure about V for Vendetta - that's a film released in 2005 so a retrospective of {something}. "Ghost Town" by the Specials is of its time and an absolute belter and it does evoke emotions.

I can understand that a Canadian that wasn't even born at the time might find it hard to usefully engage with the past of a foreign country.

However we as Canadians and Brits and many others shared a Queen and she has passed away to all our loss.

I think he was referring to the 1982 graphic novel of the same name that the film was based on.

EDIT for spelling

That really depends on what's your definition of "Europeans" and "civilized". The Catholic church exists for around 2 thousand years,is still alive and well, has its capital in Italy, and has defined western society for centuries.

Huh? Is a six year term rather than a four year term rally that much longer a horizon. Maybe this view made since when the senate seats were an appointed position. but ever since it became an elected position its ceased to have any appreciable difference from a seat in the house.

“2. Act to extend to the Queen's successors

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.”

I’m surprised that apparently many Commonwealth countries don’t have similar.

If you'd like a tale about the 1970-80s then feel free to ask and I'll tell you what I saw. With luck, my memories aren't too shot.

Living in W Germany in the 1970/80s was rather safer than Ukraine now. A threat of nuclear shenanigans back then is nothing compared to a rocket salvo now.

Ukraine is being attacked right now by Russia and has been for months. Civilians are dying daily in this revolting attack on common civility.

I'm not too sure how important V for whatevs is. It's a story.

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

But I feel the exactly same as you do, and it's not even my damn country to boot.

But, we all know why, or at least it seems to me...a lifetime of dedicated service, consistent and steady service to UK and the world both. Calm, cool. Loyal to country, husband, the whole shooting match.

There's a LOT to admire about the woman that has nothing to do with monarchy. But, almost everyone likes tradition. The 60 second minute and 60 minute hour have been around since Sumerian epoch 5,000 years ago. Tradition. We still use the name of the months from Rome 2,000 years ago. When a head of government has been around for 70 years, the person is not a monarch, that person an institution.

So I had a lump in my throat, and felt some tears well up. Especially as I read that there was a double-rainbow as it was announced. I am not superstitious in the least, and still not about that, but still...

That name was inspired by the very real HMSO: Her Majesty's Stationary Office(!): a name that struck me as absurdly pretentious for something really mundane.

It absolutely isn't when that expression is Correct™. You can blather about Brexit horrible and its voters are deluded or selfish, but you have to tread carefully if you voice the opinion that the EU is not roses or Brexit is the better alternative. You must be very polite and non-confrontational about it.

Same as covid. You could rant and rave about anybody questioning the ever-changing official narrative and denounce them as science deniers and selfish, and that was pretty well tolerated. Asking any questions or expressing any doubt would have to be done extremely carefully again.

Same as any topic. This is better than most places I've found though. At least you can be in the minority, question authority, and have "wrong" opinions about many (not all) things. You are definitely not afforded the same privilege as others though. Which shouldn't be a surprise, you have to learn to read a room, especially a room in somebody else's house.

Maybe you're young, but this 'feeling of stability' really has only happened since 1991.

I remember before that, and it was very scary living with the Soviet Union and all those countries with nukes pointed at us.

Also, the 1960s-1980s wrought huge economic change, as the last phase of major 'Democratic Socialist' changes occurred, desegregation/civil rights in the US along with giant leap in crime, and most of the west moved out of a very chaotic political climate only towards the end of that.

1990-2010 was a bit of a calm period.

Also, 'Brexit' is not a net negative thing (I think it's neutral on the whole). The EEC (i.e. trade) is almost all of the benefit of the EU, some of the post EEC i.e. EU artifacts are actually quite a bad thing (though not all of course). Even Euro itself, is probably only 'neutral' in that it has very harsh externalities that are just not obvious.

Notably, we have seen a massive failure in the EU to not only protect itself, 100% dependent on US military defence, even in 2020 - but one of the 'root problems' was the EU powerhouse, Germany, abdicating it's defence responsibilities, and selling out the entirety of the EU to Russian energy dependence which put the EU in an existentially weak position vis-a-vis Russia. If the US did not exist, Putin would be dominating the EU via it's vast tentacles (like it is in Hungary, but much worse, and all over).

Obviously some nations, like France, Sweden and Finland are quite prepared, but on the whole, it's bad.

Europeans are know this, Macron himself has suggested 'something else' for Ukraine and Georgia.

It will literally take decades for Ukraine get into the EU, which is nary impossible for any normal country as they cannot maintain a consistent strategic orientation for that long, which speaks to the gigantic bureaucratic complexity of the EU.

Instead - UK, Turkey, Ukraine, Finland, Georgia, Switzerland will possibly join the 'expanded' EU (by another name), which will mostly be trade focused. The interesting thing about that however, the other nations, notably Spain, Italy, Greece will definitely start to wonder about 'the grass being greener' in those countries.

QE2's death is definitely a kind of geostrategic demarcation, along with the failure of Russia in Ukraine as it's 'last gasp' as a major power, and COVID. The rise of China as well, but that's in phases.

This is kind of a WW1 moment.

As for the future of the Royals? It's hard to say - some progressives may want to think more 'Republican' but I'm not so sure. We are choking on materialism and people are yearning for authentic things.

'Secular Ideologies' including Socialism and Capitalism have brought us some nice things, but we are fundamentally more hollow. 'De-culturlization' isn't going so well, people are spiritually empty, we lack community. Putting a 'Starbucks on Every Corner' of the world is good for the GDP, but it's woefully lacking otherwise. A trip to the suburubs of Toronto where things are actually technically 'good' from a culturally secular perspective (i.e. peace, jobs, people get along well) ... but you'll find it's a kind of cultural death: absolutely no local culture whatsoever, almost the entire population working for 'local offices' of international firms, nothing to even identify the area as belonging to it's actual nation, culture and values being dictated by the marketing rooms of foreign countries, mostly in the name of selling sneakers and iPhones. That's 'materialism' not true 'prosperity'. It's amazing if you were a poor kid from Hyderabad (i.e. to have material stability), but not so good otherwise.

In that context, everything that has cultural authenticity is basically worth more than anything else. Do you know what's exploding in value? Authentic Faberge eggs. As we also realize the value of cultural institutions. Other things, even neat things like iPhones, are ultimately just commodities.

The EU is not without a great many issues, notably the weakness is the central banking mechanisms of the EU/Euro - and the Euro in inseparable from the EU, and tbh, kinda endemic of the issues with the EU. It's an almost country, its missing the accountability of a full country, but still has some sovereign powers. I think the flaws in the EU are fixable, but not without making it look more like a democratic supranational government.

However, for all of the EU's flaws - the UK is hurting now, largely because of Brexit - who knows, in 50 years it may turn out for the best. But I honestly suspect not - only time will tell.

Yes, it's fiction, but the comment you were replying to mentions Alan Moore's foreword to his work where he mentions the context in which he created the comic -- and that context was the despair and hopelessness he felt in the UK of the 70s and 80s.

Alan Moore is talking about the reality that inspired his fiction (and in fact, mentions how his fiction fell short of what actually happened next).

> I'm not too sure how important V for whatevs is. It's a story.

"V for whatevs"? You are being needlessly dismissive. Alan Moore is a highly influential and political comics book author whose work has a lot to say about the 70s and 80s. Just like punk was also a reflection and a product of its era.

I couldn't tell you off-hand how many presidents I've lived through, how many prime minsters I've lived through, how many wars I've lived through ..

But I can tell you I've lived through one Queen.

Even just logistically, to replicate this takes a young start that's getting less and less likely. If we assume Charles has 10-20 years left on him, that'll make William 50-60.

I mean obviously Queen feels more normalized because there's only been a King for 0.002% of my life. But I do think Kings being the minority for the last two centuries adds its own impact too.

So we have two options, pick good cults and cult leaders or live with bad ones. The Royal Family at the moment asks nothing from the devout. Literally, you don’t have to pray, believe ideologies, support politics, almost nothing. Just show up for the weddings, respect the titles and play along with the ceremony.

That’s the best version of religion we can get.

Gotta agree, what the fuck lol

The oath itself wouldn't stop the British Parliament passing an Act of Parliament to abolish the Crown and replace it with some other system. In theory, the monarch could refuse to give their assent to the proposed law but given that would cause a constitutional crisis, in reality the chances are the monarch would assent and the system could be changed.

It seems it would take a republican government in power _or_ huge public demand that the monarchy to be abolished for that to happen which seems unlikely any time soon assuming King Charles III and his successors don't err massively.

What you could blame her for is not doing more to dismantle the monarchy's non-figurehead powers from the inside. But what you're trying to do is something else entirely and rather gross.

The romantic in me likes to believe the Queen would step in if the British parliament tried passing some truly terrible bill. Basically acting as a last stop gap of human and British sensibility. Though with Queen Elizabeth II gone I'd have less trust in the judgement of a monarch.

Part of me does wonder if US politics would've been much different with a ceremonial figurehead. And that'd be a fun alt-history where a great-great-grandchild of George Washington is the ceremonial head of the US government and has to deal with intrigues of Washington politics while just wanting to live quietly on the ancestral Virginian home.

I do think the banned comment was the tired, tiresome kind of thing that people who feel passionately seem to find a way to shoehorn into discussions where they are off topic or add nothing substantive. And I think the comment they replied to was as well.

I don't really see much difference, other than the nature of the opinion. Yes the banned poster did address their parent specifically, but... really the parent put out their opinion about a bunch of things, if that is substantive then it should invite questions or disagreements so addressing them on the topic of their opinions is appropriate, surely.

But the place she sits, is from the blood of millions who were enslaved, robbed and were dealt with a rather inhuman treatment to say the least. In the process empire also justified what they did was in the past and cautiously moved away from that without an inch of guilt. It is sad to see people in India/Pakistan/SriLanka mourn for her death, a pity case of Stockholm syndrome.

If as you say, she has done good in her life, she should have relinquished the power, disowned the wealth which was directly a result of the horrific colonialism and imperialism. Or at least have some decency and apologise, give back the stolen wealth as a good gesture. Now I wonder, if she would have given up imperialism out of her own volition if she was in power during that period. I am inclining towards No.. it was convenient she didn't have to oversee those horrors.

It has been more than 70 years and even now, they hold their crown so precious adorned with the Diamonds taken away forcefully from our lands. What an absolute shame!

There are unheard horrors from the colonial countries, which will ache even the stone hearted. Bringing all this in perspective, we don't think she's Kim, but we have the same respect or the lack of it for anyone in their legacy.

The commonwealth nation should also do that. It time for the UK to move into a new era.

Totally fair criticism. But that's not what I've been seeing from any of the criticism until your post.

What I've been seeing has been collective filial guilt assignment. The same psychological process underlying racism and other forms of collective guilt assignment. Hatred directed to the Queen little to do with what she did or didn't do, but because of what British Imperialism did in past before she got the job. The post above ours exemplifies this.

No disagreement there, the glib angry stuff people insert into a conversation tend to flatten all reasonable conversation into vitriolic bursts of outrage or anger.

The hatred though is coming from unresolved hurt, which the modern British era is trying hard to forget and won't be easy until they take some sensible directions towards reparations and an honest apology at least from whomever even got to witness, including the late Queen. She had a chance to resolve or ease it in our memories. We'll remember her as someone who lived their life in power, saw the horrors their parents designed upon others and didn't even have courtesy to apologise.

So much for the British decency..

Edit: Sorry for the rant. My Grandpa and his kin suffered a lot and was in freedom struggle, it is that lasting impact. I've put it here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32775488 If you're a brit, please know that I am not against you or anybody for that matter. Just the monarchy's horrific past.

There is no clear '4 years to election' as they have in the US.

In my home country, Canada, it gets dicey as we wonder sometimes just what the 'Governor General' (Queen's rep in Canada) will do.

I don't think the Queen is going to be interjecting on any 'legislation' unless there is something fundamentally unconstitutional about how it was passed; but there's definitely some question marks about 'how and when government falls and is formed' - and especially, how 'minority governments' are formed. If there's no obvious winner, then minority situations form, and it can get weird.

That's still a thing.

I suggest the US would have been a better country were the American revolution to not have happened. Sounds totally crazy, but true. I think the US would have healthcare, be a bit more socially minded, slavery would have ended a lot sooner, and the US still have all of the 'good parts' (except a cool national anthem).

How do you want to agree on a common set of values with, say, the Taliban and the CCP?

Would you yourself rather live in a giant dormitory with a thousand other people, everyone eating the same breakfast, than in your own house according to your needs and wishes?

It is not that different with nations.

The reality is that it’s consistently been the House of Lords that save us from the nuttier ideas.

But let’s take one example: the monarchy and the ludicrous rules and conventions that go with it to govern parliament are just one way working class MPs are intimidated and given the information that they are not really welcome in the corridors of power.

Let’s remember also that the British people have not sacked Boris. Conservative mps worried for their personal survival sacked him and 300,000 old white people from the south east of England have, for the third time in recent years, made Truss our PM. She has no regard for the manifesto that her party was elected on. Everything is by convention in the UK, which means people with privilege can do whatever they like.

All totally reasonable things to say.

> The hatred though is coming from unresolved hurt

Yeah, that's the explanation, but we shouldn't confuse that with justification.

What puts me off about the reaction I'm seeing is more abstract than the details of this particular case. It's the same feeling I have when I see casual anti-White racism, justified as legitimate only because of the existence and history of white supremacy. It's filial guilt and collective guilt put on one individual who didn't perpetrate the crimes that are the actual source of the anger. And it's the cultural normalization and even promotion of such perverse group-based moral systems that I am speaking out against.

The asymmetry derives from an asymmetry in the titles themselves: the title "King" outranks the title "Queen", rather than those titles being of equal rank. You can't have someone other than the monarch outranking the monarch, so the husband of the reigning Queen can't be a King.

True equality comes when we realize both men and women screw up just as much, and have just as much good potential IMO.

Yeah, no. Countries don't care about who is on the throne. They nod along to the British monarchy because they value diplomatic relations with Britain. Just like how they put up with Trump's children.

> I can’t see the commonwealth nations welcoming King Charles as their new head of state.

If you meant the Commonwealth of Nations, Charles was confirmed as the successor in CHOGM 2018. If you meant Commonwealth Realms, their close economic and military ties to Britain are not going to change anyways.

I get that this is an emotional loss to Britain. But let's not pretend there's going to be a material difference.

Celebrities don't wield any power comparable to that of rulers or monarchs. We allow unbounded accumulation of wealth but that's a facet of our political and economic system.

Most social animals imbue their elders with some level of authority but this is easy to explain as an evolutionary habit to make use of lived experience and thus, hopefully, expertise. It's obvious why you'd ask the person with the most experience or the best domain knowledge for their assessment or even to lead you in that domain. It also makes sense to appoint a leader during times of war when the battlefield requires split second decisions that don't allow for consensus seeking.

But human nature is cooperative if nothing else. We resort to exclusion, hierarchy and domination/obedience only under duress, which our current system helpfully maintains perpetually.

Yet Thatcher is basically remembered as the devil.

I can't fathom the complete cognitive dissonance of people who believe these two things at once.

The expected value of a post includes the subthreads that it generates: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... You can't just evaluate each comment atomically and then sum up the values of the atoms.

This is the real reason for the dynamics that you and throwawaylinux are talking about—not cultural or ideological bias by the mods. That's just the reason people tend to reach for because it's simpler and feels like it must be the reason.

We do what we can to mitigate such effects but there's only so much we can do. In the end, this is one big community system and people are responsible for the effects they have on it. That's one of the more counterintuitive and little-noticed aspects of how things work here.

Here are a couple of older comments explaining more about this, in case anyone wants more.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28932445

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19277858

As for people preferring William to his father - I think if you give an inch to the notion that the public should have some choice over their head of state then the idea of a hereditary monarchy starts to look pretty absurd.

Reminds me of when when the rules of succession where changed so that the first-born child would inherit the title (rather than the first-born son). Any attempt to reconcile the monarchy with the concept of equality seems a kinda humourous to me.

Having said that while I am not the kind to wish for heads to roll I think it is a good time to realise you might not wish to allow someone else take her place and be an expensive parasite now =)

I don't know, if I never had a job I am not sure I would want one at 76!

And I am against putting the blame on someone to feed our emotions, the hatred isn't going to serve any. This is unhealthy and what I am seeing at anti-white racism is absolutely narrow minded full of obtuse morals. I will support you and several others against such foolishness.

On a side note, this particular case is just one among many, many such happenings for over two centuries of british rule. The worst of the Black Racism and its horror history has mostly ended, and same is the case of colonial countries. But the scars run deep in both the camps, any person who has the decency and courage to come up say sorry and treat as equals would be welcomed with open arms.

Although, should George have children when he comes of age (which he most certainly will), they would be before Charlotte and Louis.

Reduction of UK public debt by Thatcher (visible in the second half of the eighties):

https://ercouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/ercchart171...

Increase of US public debt throughout the eighties by Reagan:

https://zfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/US-National-De...

I think it's perfectly plausible that one day the UK could be silently couped by elites using the monarchy as cover - much like Thailand was. The legal framework is all there. If the monarchy is on side, the army is on side.

Yes, my house is older than the United States. We found pieces of journals talking about the General Bonaparte. It's pretty common to find stuff from several centuries ago in old buildings.

There is no 'massive' failure in the EU to protect itself as it has no such objective nor a mandate to protect itself. It's up to individual countries to spend on their armed forces as was up to Britain to spend when it was part of it and the EU didn't stop it, it did so just fine. If the US did not exist that would have been taken into account by the member countries themselves and acted accordingly.

> Instead - UK, Turkey, Ukraine, Finland, Georgia, Switzerland will possibly join the 'expanded' EU (by another name), which will mostly be trade focused. The interesting thing about that however, the other nations, notably Spain, Italy, Greece will definitely start to wonder about 'the grass being greener' in those countries.

Spain, Italy and Greece have all joined the Eurozone (Italy is a founding member btw) for their own good reasons. If they wanted less integration they could have not adopted the Euro just like a number of other countries. People seem to forget what inflation looked like for their national currencies of these countries before getting the Euro and it was not very green.

The 70s were crap because of high inflation and fuel costs. Winter of discontent etc.

The 80s were crap because Thatcher basically dismantled the working class.

Is it dissonance about Germans complaining about interwar issues and complaining about the leader they ended up with?

The Romans built roads, aqueducts, houses with central heating and massive great walls across the landscape.

They might have been violent but it’s hard to claim they weren’t a civilisation.

Indeed. It is amazing to not starve and live a prosperous yet "boring" lives. Wouldn't have it any other way.

You have to remember how old she was. The Queen's first Prime Minister was Winston Churchill, born in the 1870s. A staunch Empire man to the last, he was one of only two Prime Ministers for whom the Queen attended their funeral. He is famous for successfully defeating Europe when it was united under a dictator determined to reduce Britain to rubble and ship its population to labour camps. She was Queen as the British Empire wound itself up and became the Commonwealth. She saw the nationalization of the British railways and then the re-privatization of them decades later. She saw the birth of the European Coal and Steel Community, she watched as it evolved into the European Economic Community, and then into the European Union. She saw Stalin fall, then she saw the Berlin wall fall, and then the USSR. She observed passively as millions of people from the former Eastern Bloc then moved to the UK a decade later to make a new life. She saw the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. She saw the space race. She was Queen throughout the Troubles, living with the constant threat of being assassinated by the IRA, who at one point dropped a concrete breeze block on her car. She visited over 100 countries. She watched as countries fell to communist revolutions. She watched her country be brought to the brink during the Winter of Discontent, she watched as European nations transitioned from dictatorship to democracy. She watched global COVID lockdowns. She watched the Euro debt crisis and a thousand other crises come and go.

In short, she saw political institutions far larger and more important than British membership of the EU rise and fall over her lifetime, and far more dramatically. She saw the UK join the EEC, she saw it transform into the EU and then she saw the UK leave it again. Of all the things she's seen and done, of all the life and death battles she witnessed or even took part in, EU related events were surely some of the less memorable and important, especially given the relatively imperceptible changes Brexit so far brought about.

If you really want to engage in speculation about the Queen's views on Brexit and the EU, consider this. I already said Churchill was one of only two Prime Ministers the Queen honored by attending their funeral. The other was Margaret Thatcher. Both had complex views on the merits of European integration, with both being positive in their earlier years but coming to regard it as a mistake in their later years.[1][2] Both were strongly committed throughout their lives to the strength and independence of the United Kingdom regardless of what Europe did.

[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2639328

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55454106

Doesn't stop them from inheriting their parents assets though.

At this point it's just a real estate company with an opera front, at some point the brits will wake up and see it for what it is

There has been a lot of speculation over the years about whether Charles might be a more activist monarch, but I’ll be really surprised if he actually tries to exercise any of his theoretical powers. He might be a bit more outspoken in public, and do a lot more lobbying in private, at most.

And the long-term negative effects of Thatcher's legacy (much like Reagan's in the states) are being felt now. The homeless situation is (in large part) a product of Thatcher selling off public housing and turning actual care into "community care".

1. There was a sense of loyalty to Liz personally. She did a good job of Queening and it seemed almost rude to interrupt that.

2. No-one wants Charles as king. He's very weird, and has ideas that he actually wants to do things with.

I fully expect the referendum to be brought forward because of her death, and for it to get a strong "yes".

I think it's hilarious how the average person thinks that "the taxpayer" pays for the monarchy whereas realistically it's their family's holdings that pay for it. If they don't like that then strip them of their land, but strip everyone of their land; no inheritance for anyone.

And even then, whilst they have _some_ personal holdings, the majority of the royal estate cannot be sold by them for personal gain, it _must_ be passed down, it's not your typical inheritance.

As well as that, sure they live a cushy royal life, but I wouldn't want it for me. They are bound to royal duties, to act a certain way, do certain things, follow certain protocols - doing otherwise is shirking royal duties and that comes with its own consequences.

At the same time I think QEII was the last "true" royal. She was the last royal who exhibited at least some of what we would expect from the royals of old, King Arthur, etc. The modern royals, CIII onwards is the start of their decline, imo.

She lived for so long and through so much. Maybe she could have done more to help the everyman - but her power was limited, which is what the people chose - the Glorious Revolution.

Incidentally, we don't need you to change any of your views, nor do we need you to conform to the majority here (which, although highly international, is certainly mostly Western). But we need you to follow the site guidelines, which means using the site for intellectual curiosity and thoughtful conversation, avoiding name-calling and personal attacks, avoiding flamebait, and not using an account for a mostly-political agenda. There are other places on the internet to fight those wars. We're trying for a different sort of forum here.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Early on, the Swedish king was elected at the Stones of Mora. The Holy Roman Emperor was nominally elected by prince-electors (who most of the time elected a Habsburg).

And even withing a hereditary framework, there are other alternatives to retirement in addition to outright abdication. An elderly monarch could for all intents and purposes retire and a let the crown prince (and I suppose in current British succession order, crown princess) rule, appointing them as a co-ruler.

“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”

Maybe it is not so universal, but an actual predictor of civilizational decline?

There is no place in modern society for a family who got all their wealth from wars and stealing it. Only to parade it around infront of millions of people in poverty.

Lets get rid of them. Start by turning the palaces into social housing.

She is adored in some of London and all the Home Counties where her polices led to increased wealth and life outcomes.

In the rest of the country, she is the person who destroyed communities and the fabric of what it was to be British for many.

This is not cognitive dissonance. It's different experiences by different people.

Given this is a thread about HRH Queen Elizabeth II, it's worth noting that she herself and her family were no real fans of how Thatcher conducted herself in relation to some of her policies that were _actively hostile_ to many working class communities.

When the Royal family quietly whisper that they think someone is a snob, well... that's saying something, eh?

Some people who were working class may have done well, but the working class as it was basically ceased to be.

Maybe they know better than you. At the end, they live there. What you claim to know from North Korea and all that other countries from the "axis of evil" comes from TV.

And even by the most forgiving measure, took three centuries to become anything you might historically call "European".

Bookmakers price a referendum before 2025 at about 10% probability. I think that's too big a number - I'd say 10% chance by 2030.

Let's suppose it happens in 2025, though. At that point, the UK and EU will still be at loggerheads over the border with NI meaning the SNP's central premise - that Scotland should be able to rejoin the EU - will look more and more like a dangerous and economically calamitous poison pill. Even pro-independence financial analysts will warn of a deep recession with house prices falling off a cliff. That'll make independence about as popular as mouldy bread.

In addition, the EU will be quite feckless and tone deaf to what that SNP promise of independence is centred on, and during any campaign will confirm confidently that yes, Scotland could rejoin the EU, all it'll take is adoption of the Euro (non-negotiable), and a complete adoption of all protocols and laws that the UK - including Scotland - will have mostly dismantled by that point (for better or worse). The timeline will be a decade or more, and the estimated costs will be in the billions, but the EU think it's still value. Meanwhile Scottish voters will wonder if a generation of being out of the UK _and_ the EU is worth the candle.

The idea that against that backdrop the SNP think their argument for independence is stronger, not weaker, is strange.

I think you'll also see a slight shift in polls in coming days and weeks because of the death of the Queen. Operation Unicorn is designed in a small way to allow Scottish unionists to show what the United Kingdom is all about. Sentimentality has been proven time, and time again, to be incredibly powerful in changing people's minds quite irrationally.

Coupled with Charles' political will - as you note, towards radical environmentalism and architectural protectionism that aligns neatly with a decent proportion of the Scottish populace - you might find Sturgeon and the SNP looks more and more marginal as time goes by.

The Queen oversaw a decline in Empire and a rise in the British believing in - and committing to - a people's right to self-determination. And so it will be in Scotland, just as it has been for so many countries that have gained independence from British rule in the last 75 years. But the backdrop right now is firmly that the SNP is about to slide, independence will become less popular to many, and Scotland will either be part of the renaissance we are all hoping for, or is coming down with the rest of us.

This is especially annoying when one sees facist trolls using the misdeeds of the empire to excuse the horrible actions of their dictator of choice.

No justice, no peace indeed.

First - change EU to Europe and the point is more clear: 'Europe' failed to defend itself.

Second - Though you're right, EU is not a defensive pact, it's inexorably irresponsible for EU to not provide for defence. Defence is an existential concept - one that involves parts of the state.

How can there be 'ever closer union' and 'open borders' if nations can't even provide for their own defence.

This is 100% clear with Germany's 'sellout' to Russia: Germany, the leading 'political' block in the EU, gave Russia massive leverage which has put Estonia, Latvia etc. at huge risk, and effectively handed over Ukraine do the hungry dogs.

In that dsyfunctional dynamic, 'Sovereign Europe' is still dependent on the Anglosphere: USA, UK and even Canada (!) all of whom have provided much more support than France, Italy, Spain etc (!) in defence of Europe.

"People seem to forget what inflation looked like for their national currencies of these countries before getting the Euro and it was not very green. "

"If they wanted less integration they could have not adopted the Euro just like a number of other countries."

Inflation is much more preferrable than the current straight-jacket death of a hard currency. The lack of inflation relative to Germany is killing Europe.

As for 'adopting and not' - there's no way for them to adjust otherwise. The EU is a 'one size fits all' regime and also a 'Hotel California' (i.e. cannot leave) game.

The Euro won't work without political and fiscal integration and that will never, ever happen, so it's probably better to find something a bit looser.

https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1568157931538989056

Either your typical bottom-up social media fake news, or the usual MO of certain intelligence agencies to sow division in the anglosphere.

Imagine kids in Hyderabad having the stability, economic opportunity, 'decent government', clean air of Ontario ... but in Hyderabad.

I think that's 'easy to imagine' and 'much better'.

I mean, different strokes for different folks etc. but to me it seems fairly straight forward.

I think it is more of an indicator of overall prosperity, which may, in fact cause civilizational decline. I'm reminded of the mouse utopia[0], and my own family.

[0]: https://www.drhpod.com/blog/mouse-utopia

I remembered, just too late to edit: 'streamlined' is how he's put it. Close family/'heir line' only, such as seen on more recent balconies.

I don't expect it's unusual for a monarch to be something of a philosopher though - they're somewhat inherently well-educated, thoughtful, devoting time to deep thought, etc. Less usual (in modern times anyway) is to hear their thoughts in public as we did while he was Prince of Wales; we'll see to what extent that continues - he has said he's 'not stupid' and that he recognises the role of sovereign is different. If I had to bet though, I imagine he does see a bit more room for public commentary than Elizabeth II made.

Otherwise, we might need a 'Supreme Parliamentary Council' to basically enact those duties, and if any members of Parliament didn't agree on the outcome, they'd take it to the Supreme Court who would rule on it kind of thing. Something that would only happen 'once in a century'.

Where there are Presidents, it's generally straight forward: the Dude with the most votes (of whatever type) is the Dude and that's it. There can be voting shenanigans but generally not outcome shenanigans.

I'm fine the way it is in the UK and Canada, I wouldn't change a thing.

If we want reforms, we can do that at more operational levels, aka 'governance by blockchain' to put it in 2019 Valley terms.

> ... She passed the Brexit bill ...

> Of course she passed the Brexit bill

> not sure what the point of this comment was

It was to point out the absurdity of picking out this particular example given her long life and the many, many events and bills you could describe as 'terrible' along the way. If she was going to have broken her convention and tried to assert real power, that would be have a really odd one to pick.

BTW I didn't assert any opinion on Brexit itself, only that the level of hatred of it reached by some people is irrational.

> the Queen was ... a closet Tory

You don't actually know what the Queen's politics were. She lived through several Labour governments and never stopped their bills or expressed opinions on them either, that's just not the sort of monarch she was.

Or one of the Children that her son raped and who she protected.

And so on and so forth.

One less evil person in the World.

Not what I claim to know but what I know. The difference between these two is that I don't claim to know what I know while not actually knowing it. The things I know about North Korea may be only part of the truth but there is no doubt about me knowing these things nor a necessity for me to claim knowledge I do not possess.

> all that other countries from the "axis of evil"

Where does that come from? I did not say anything about any axis of evil.

> comes from TV

I do not even remember the last time I watched television but I know it is more that 24 years ago since I had one of those contraptions. Nope, I do not get my information from television and have not done so for a very, very long time. What I know about North Korea comes from a diverse mix of sources on the 'net, from books on the subject, from interviews with North Korean escapees and from the odd travel report from people who went there - yes, some people actually visit the place. Satellite imagery provides proof of the existence of camps where escapees said they were so I tend to believe their descriptions of live in that state more than the denials which are thrown their way.

How much did the inhabitants of the Soviet Union know about the conditions in GULAG? Those who went through the system and survived to return to society were not eager to tell the tale for fear of repercussions. It took the death of Stalin and Khrushchev's subsequent speech “On the Cult of Personality and its Consequences” at the last day of the party congress of 1956 for some of the information - but only some, and only until Brezhnev came into power - to be the subject of discussion among Soviet citizens.

> Maybe they know better than you.

Stalin was a monster but to many people in the Soviet Union he was like a god - just like the Kim dynasty in North Korea has a god-like status to many North Koreans. They don't know any better, yet. Let's hope they will get to know the truth, soon.

Talking about Stalin, he is a very respected figure today in Russia. In fact, polls say that he is more popular than ever, and a majority of Russians think he played a positive role for their country. Although we may think he was a monster, that doesn't mean that people can't worship him. Why can't they? If some random guy starts crying for a queen that couldn't care less about him, in the case of these leaders it makes even more sense.

But no I think it's even simpler and it's not about what should be. People are generally fairly close minded and are easily upset by hearing about opinions contrary to their own. That's it. It's just the human condition.