Most active commenters
  • throwaway894345(4)

←back to thread

Queen Elizabeth II has died

(www.bbc.com)
2827 points xd | 27 comments | 08 Sep 22 17:33 UTC | HN request time: 0.642s | source | bottom
Show context
saberience ◴[08 Sep 22 17:52 UTC] No.32769157[source]▶
It's weird, I've never considered myself a "royalist" but this news has affected me quite strongly. I just burst into tears unexpectedly on hearing this news and I don't quite understand why I feel so very sad. I guess I have grown up and lived my whole life (as a Brit) seeing and hearing the Queen, singing "God save the Queen" etc, and this news made me suddenly feel very old, very nostalgic, with the sense that all things pass in time, which makes my heart ache deeply.
replies(53): >>32769288 #>>32769344 #>>32769392 #>>32769424 #>>32769632 #>>32769695 #>>32769757 #>>32769765 #>>32769782 #>>32769842 #>>32769907 #>>32769929 #>>32769937 #>>32769977 #>>32770020 #>>32770034 #>>32770079 #>>32770147 #>>32770183 #>>32770184 #>>32770249 #>>32770466 #>>32770670 #>>32770772 #>>32770887 #>>32770970 #>>32771210 #>>32771531 #>>32771721 #>>32771782 #>>32772054 #>>32772527 #>>32772762 #>>32772809 #>>32772870 #>>32773117 #>>32773349 #>>32773536 #>>32773875 #>>32773895 #>>32774201 #>>32774387 #>>32774546 #>>32775599 #>>32776134 #>>32776363 #>>32776880 #>>32777708 #>>32778852 #>>32780752 #>>32780854 #>>32788005 #>>32799830 #
BoxOfRain ◴[08 Sep 22 18:33 UTC] No.32769929[source]▶
The words 'God save the King' in the national anthem are going to feel very alien for a while I think, I feel a genuine sense of loss with the Queen's death. I think it comes from a place of national identity in general rather than royalism specifically, royalist or republican it can't be denied that Queen Elizabeth played a significant role in how the UK sees itself and to an extent how the rest of the world sees us and now she's suddenly not there.
replies(2): >>32770059 #>>32777679 #
1. throwaway894345 ◴[08 Sep 22 18:40 UTC] No.32770059[source]▶
Honestly even the phrase from the article "In a statement, His Majesty the King said" struck me as unfamiliar.
replies(2): >>32770219 #>>32771494 #
2. jesuscript ◴[08 Sep 22 18:50 UTC] No.32770219[source]▶
In most of our lifetimes we will also utter “The King and Queen of England” since Charles is already 76. British seem to treasure this tradition, where as we Americans definitely got rid of a Jefferson stature somewhere recently.

struck me as unfamiliar.

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

replies(3): >>32770773 #>>32770943 #>>32771018 #
3. secondcoming ◴[08 Sep 22 19:27 UTC] No.32770773[source]▶
I don't think Camilla will become Queen, but I'm not 100% sure of the arcane rules
replies(3): >>32771049 #>>32771130 #>>32771159 #
4. amachefe ◴[08 Sep 22 19:39 UTC] No.32770943[source]▶
There are many things (more than monarchy) that sets Americans and UK apart... even Europe generally.

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

replies(2): >>32771980 #>>32776549 #
5. throwaway894345 ◴[08 Sep 22 19:44 UTC] No.32771018[source]▶
> Nope, it’s been quite familiar to even someone several hundred years ago.

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.

replies(1): >>32773024 #
6. mizzao ◴[08 Sep 22 19:47 UTC] No.32771049{3}[source]▶
I think GP may have been referring to Prince William and Catherine.
7. bregma ◴[08 Sep 22 19:53 UTC] No.32771130{3}[source]▶
She is styled the Queen Consort. She is not a queen.
replies(1): >>32773439 #
8. Macha ◴[08 Sep 22 19:55 UTC] No.32771159{3}[source]▶
Queen Elizabeth's mother was also "Queen Elizabeth" as wife of the king, until her daughter took the throne and she became the "Queen Mother" to distinguish which Queen Elizabeth.

(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.

replies(2): >>32772102 #>>32776104 #
9. KaiserPro ◴[08 Sep 22 20:17 UTC] No.32771494[source]▶
it seems to me anachronistic Kings in Britain felt to me from another period. (save for 50 ish years post 1901.)
replies(1): >>32773547 #
10. worik ◴[08 Sep 22 20:56 UTC] No.32771980{3}[source]▶
> Europeans civilization are 1000s of years old

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.

replies(4): >>32773344 #>>32773366 #>>32773793 #>>32776761 #
11. jesuscript ◴[08 Sep 22 21:08 UTC] No.32772102{4}[source]▶
Imagine it was as simple as Royal Member Level 2 and Staff Royal Family Member.
12. epolanski ◴[08 Sep 22 22:44 UTC] No.32773024{3}[source]▶
Also all the stuff like Her Majesty Ship for every british navy vessel.
replies(1): >>32773355 #
13. umanwizard ◴[08 Sep 22 23:17 UTC] No.32773344{4}[source]▶
Sure it wasn’t modern but the Roman Empire, which did exist 2,000 years ago, was in many ways the prototype for European law, culture, politics, etc.
14. throwaway894345 ◴[08 Sep 22 23:19 UTC] No.32773355{4}[source]▶
I was just watching a British crime show and learned that the prisons are part of Her Majesty’s Prison System (or some such).
replies(2): >>32774515 #>>32776086 #
15. throwaway894345 ◴[08 Sep 22 23:20 UTC] No.32773366{4}[source]▶
There were still lots of tribal federations, but the Roman Empire was still in full swing.
16. wlonkly ◴[08 Sep 22 23:29 UTC] No.32773439{4}[source]▶
I know it's getting into technicalities, but "consort" modifies "queen", like "pro" modifies "airpods". The opposite is a queen regnant. Both are queens.

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.)

17. gizajob ◴[08 Sep 22 23:43 UTC] No.32773547[source]▶
prepare to shift your paradigm then. It's anachronistic because there hasn't been a King for such a long time due to QEII's epic reign so it's not part of our vocabulary, but nevertheless, Britain is getting Kings in the 21st Century, because Charles will likely be followed by William and then Louis. Might be the 22nd century before we get a Queen again!
replies(3): >>32773951 #>>32775046 #>>32776481 #
18. arinlen ◴[09 Sep 22 00:15 UTC] No.32773793{4}[source]▶
> * But 2,000 years ago the Europeans were were not "civilised" in the sense that we think of.*

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.

replies(1): >>32777828 #
19. smegger001 ◴[09 Sep 22 00:38 UTC] No.32773951{3}[source]▶
assuming the institution last that long.
20. sangnoir ◴[09 Sep 22 02:15 UTC] No.32774515{5}[source]▶
I daydreams of becoming an indie game developer and publishing under the name Her Majesty's Pencil Service

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.

21. soneil ◴[09 Sep 22 03:40 UTC] No.32775046{3}[source]▶
Not just QEII - Elizabeth was the longest reigning British monarch, but that record was previously held by Victoria. So the last 185 years were book-ended by two epic Queens, with a few short Kings between them.

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.

22. caf ◴[09 Sep 22 06:47 UTC] No.32776086{5}[source]▶
Hence the phrase "detained at Her Majesty's pleasure".
23. caf ◴[09 Sep 22 06:51 UTC] No.32776104{4}[source]▶
It's a weird bit of asymmetry to the husband-of-queen title being decided on an adhoc basis...

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.

24. iamtedd ◴[09 Sep 22 07:44 UTC] No.32776481{3}[source]▶
No, Princess Charlotte - William's second child - will get the throne before Louis.

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

25. Fiahil ◴[09 Sep 22 07:54 UTC] No.32776549{3}[source]▶
> America is a baby compared to them, the history and memory are very different.

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.

26. Lio ◴[09 Sep 22 08:25 UTC] No.32776761{4}[source]▶
There’s a Roman town near where I live that’s roughly 2000 years old.

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.

27. morelisp ◴[09 Sep 22 11:17 UTC] No.32777828{5}[source]▶
> The Catholic church exists for around 2 thousand years

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