Prince Philip has died(royal.uk)

471 pointsby longdefeat5 tahun yang lalu511 comments

https://www.royal.uk/

551 comments

kitd5 tahun yang lalu

Story about him (from the Guardian, via Reddit):

Hargreaves was a yeoman aboard the destroyer HMS Wallace on which Philip, son of Prince Andrew of Greece, had been appointed first lieutenant - second-in-command - at the age of 21. In July 1943, engaged in the Allied landings in Sicily, the ship came under repeated bombardment at dead of night and its crew realised that they would probably lose their lives.

It was then Philip conjured up a plan to throw overboard a wooden raft with smoke floats that would create the illusion of debris ablaze on the water. As he hoped, the German plane was fooled into attacking the raft while the Wallace sailed to safety under cover of darkness.

Hargreaves recalled the terrifying events of that night on the website: 'It was obvious that we were the target for tonight and they would not stop until we had suffered a fatal hit. It was for all the world like being blindfolded and trying to evade an enemy whose only problem was getting his aim right. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that a direct hit was inevitable.

'There was no question but to accept that on the next run or the one after that we had little chance of survival. I had been through so much that the feeling of anger and frustration was as great as the fear I and everyone else felt.

'It was less than five minutes after the aircraft had departed and - if the previous space in time was approximately the same - we had about 20 minutes to come up with something. We couldn't steam far in that time, not even far enough to make the aircraft think we had moved.'

He continued: 'The first lieutenant [Philip] went into hurried conversation with the captain, and the next thing a wooden raft was being put together on deck. Within five minutes they launched a raft over the side - at each end was fastened a smoke float. When it hit the water the smoke floats were activated and billowing clouds of smoke interspersed with small bursts of flame gave a convincing imitation of flaming debris in the water.

'The captain ordered full ahead and we steamed away from the raft for a good five minutes and then he ordered the engines stopped. The tell-tale wake subsided and we lay there quietly in the soft darkness and cursed the stars, or at least I did. Quite some time went by until we heard aircraft engines approaching.

'The sound of the aircraft grew louder until I thought it was directly overhead and I screwed up my shoulders in anticipation of the bombs. The next thing was the scream of the bombs, but at some distance. The ruse had worked and the aircraft was bombing the raft. I suppose he was under the impression that he had hit us in his last attack and was now finishing the job.

'We lay there waiting for him to leave, which he did, and, in view of the solitary attacks so well spaced apart, we were convinced he would not return. It had been marvellously quick thinking, conveyed to a willing team and put into action as if rehearsed.'

pjmorris5 tahun yang lalu

The raft may have been purely quick thinking, and it may have been influenced by a knowledge of history. Thomas Cochrane was a celebrated Royal Navy captain during the Napoleonic wars.

Here's Cochrane from his autobiography [0]: "Before they had fairly renewed the chase night was rapidly setting in, and when quite dark, we lowered a ballasted cask overboard with a lantern, to induce them to believe that we had altered our course, though we held on in the same direction during the whole night. The trick was successful, for, as had been calculated, the next morning, to our great satisfaction, we saw nothing of them, and were all much relieved on finding our dollars and his Majesty’s ship once more in safety."

Patrick O'Brian modeled his Jack Aubrey character after Cochrane, in part, and the raft decoy is woven in to the novel 'Master and Commander.'

[0] Cochrane, Admiral Lord. The Autobiography of a Seaman

jmartrican5 tahun yang lalu

The Brits storied history at sea must give them access to tons of tactics to pull from.

noir_lord5 tahun yang lalu

British Naval History is fascinating - in a lot of ways the reform of the navy into a modern (for it's day) naval force has interesting lessons about people management and harnessing technological developments as a force multiplier.

Things like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_sheathing gave the navy a marked advantage against it's peers.

kitd5 tahun yang lalu

Indeed.

For the 18th and much of the 19th centuries, the Royal Navy was the organisation to join if you wanted to be at the bleeding edge of adventure and exploration. A bit like NASA today, but with a military mission.

noir_lord5 tahun yang lalu

Agreed.

From taxi-ing Darwin all over the planet in HMS Beagle to encouraging truly accurate marine chronometers (the Harrison Watch), steam propulsion (and the maximisation of power from volume) through to research in health - 19th century equivalent of NASA is a good way to think look at it.

pjmorris5 tahun yang lalu

> British Naval History is fascinating

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

noir_lord5 tahun yang lalu

So many and over such a wide span to narrow it down to 2-3 definitively so I'll cover ground instead.

1) The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain, 1649-1815[1] (actually book 2 but the first covers an earlier period this covers the period across the Act of Union - when England/Scotland became with Wales the United Kingdom and when the British navy went from "decent" to not just first but first by a hilarious margin - the only modern analogue that sorta fits is the US navy compared to everyone else post-WW2 up to well right now)

2) Dreadnought[2] which covers the late 19th early 20th (Birth of Queen Victoria to the start of WW1) - when the Dreadnought type-class battleship was considered the premier strategic weapon of it's day.

For the rest it's a vast field (that I've barely scratched - history is a hobby for me part of the perpetual "why is the world the way it is" fascination with everything) as always wikipedia is your friend :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_18th%E2%80%931...

For more modern naval stuff (where modern equals ~a century ago) I can heartily recommend the https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4mftUX7apmV1vsVXZh7RTw Drachinifel - he has a way of providing information dense content in an entertaining way - his video on the technological arms race in metallurgy for ships armour for example is superb.

[1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Command-Ocean-History-Britain-1649-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought_(book)

pjmorris5 tahun yang lalu

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

pjmorris5 tahun yang lalu

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

cheaprentalyeti5 tahun yang lalu

I feel I should add that one should be careful to not get him mixed up with Alexander Cochrane, who was also an admiral...

krembanan5 tahun yang lalu

Rest in peace. 99 isn't a bad age to go, what a life he had.

nickkell5 tahun yang lalu

Narrowly missed getting a telegram from his wife

Erwin5 tahun yang lalu

She looked at the message

she'd crafted and penned -

A letter to Philip

that she'd never send.

From reddit's resident poet, "poem_for_your_sprog": https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/mnerwn/prince_ph...

bgroat5 tahun yang lalu

By the 2nd line of your comment I had lost my shit.

I thought The Sprog had emerged on HN

gumby5 tahun yang lalu

She sent the card (it’s a card now) to her mother (also Queen Elisabeth) when the latter turned 100.

I believe my grandmother waited around for this, at the end. She had never been particularly interested in the monarchy, I’d thought, but when she got older and had trouble reading I noticed that among her large print gardening books were a couple on the monarchy.

blackshaw5 tahun yang lalu

The question I want answered is, if she lives to 100 will she send a card to herself?

corobo5 tahun yang lalu

Her royal assistant will get stuck in a loop sending thank you for contacting the queen messages

gumby5 tahun yang lalu

And the halting theorem says there is nothing to be done about it!

Jouvence5 tahun yang lalu

The UK civil service agrees.

skinkestek5 tahun yang lalu

The UK civil service is actually fairly good, isn't it, or is it just the Internet facing side of it that gets great reviews?

gumby5 tahun yang lalu

I have also long wondered about this Bertrand Russell paradox.

atulatul5 tahun yang lalu

You get the tele-message (not a telegram) from the Queen when you turn 100. But it seems you have to apply for it.

https://youtu.be/7Quyte7zN70?list=PLkX9Ba6AAK_2g3Y9Y8MdLbbcT...

[deleted]5 tahun yang lalu

toomanybeersies5 tahun yang lalu

You also get one on your 60th wedding anniversary.

I organised one for my grandparents a couple of years back. They also received a card from the Prime Minister [of New Zealand], the Leader of the Opposition, their local MP, and a couple of other random politicians and dignitaries.

It's not something that I thought about at the time, but I'm quite happy that it's something you need to apply for. It would be a bit disconcerting if the Queen had access to the birth, death, and marriage records of everybody in New Zealand.

nicoburns5 tahun yang lalu

Are birth, death and marriage records not public?

skissane5 tahun yang lalu

I don’t know about New Zealand, but nowadays in Australia recent births deaths and marriages records are only available to their subjects and close relatives. Two reasons (a) privacy (b) helps prevent identity theft, since birth certificates (and sometimes also marriage certificates) are often accepted as identity documents

d1str05 tahun yang lalu

Yes but localized and rarely digitized

OldHand20185 tahun yang lalu

For people in the states, you can get appropriate cards from the White House for important occasions.

I sent Bill Clinton an invitation to my high school graduation party, and got a letter back from the White House telling me to work hard in college.

But mailing a birth announcement to the White House is a much better idea. They send a card back to the child welcoming them to the world. You can file it away and then give it to your kid when they are an adult and tell them this is the first letter they ever got.

taejo5 tahun yang lalu

In Germany, the first letter a child gets is one that gets sent automatically, assigning them a tax number. A letter from the President is much nicer. However, German parents can apply for the President to be the honorary godfather of their seventh child.

eproxus5 tahun yang lalu

The funniest thing with this tax letter is that on the envelope it says “Karriere mit Zukunft” meaning “careers with a future” like they completely seriously expect your newborn baby to start working for them 18+ years down the line.

spzb5 tahun yang lalu

It hasn’t been a telegram for at least 20 years. She sends a birthday card these days.

dalbasal5 tahun yang lalu

Does this count as a technological regression?

jermaustin15 tahun yang lalu

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

dalbasal5 tahun yang lalu

This comment could literally (literally literal) be an imperial apologist in one of Asimov's books... even the concise, urging, commaed style.

You promised us instant messaging. All we got is colour postcards. This is the beginning of a dark age.

bobthepanda5 tahun yang lalu

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

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

skinkestek5 tahun yang lalu

Actually these days you can send coloured images with Telegram, it is really really smooth although I don't think the Queen will want to depend on it ;-)

Angostura5 tahun yang lalu

You also get a card on your 60th wedding anniversary

ant6n5 tahun yang lalu

...with only two months to go for the three digits.

gumby5 tahun yang lalu

Base 10. Nobody so far has gotten to the more interesting 7 digits.

867-53095 tahun yang lalu

pretty sure she gave him a signal

DigitalSea5 tahun yang lalu

Underrated comment.

k_sze5 tahun yang lalu

GP completely flew over my head. Care to explain?

Hamuko5 tahun yang lalu

https://www.gov.uk/get-birthday-anniversary-message-from-que...

cookingoils5 tahun yang lalu

“The official website of the Royal Family is temporarily unavailable while appropriate changes are made.“

Nicely poetic approach to put the website in a sort of mourning state. Curious what changes need to be made.

JohnHaugeland5 tahun yang lalu

They've been ready for years. None.

cookingoils5 tahun yang lalu

So it's just symbolic? Seems odd to not have a click-through then.

Edit: Just checked some subpages and they forward to the announcement. I guess they really mean unavailable.

Symbiote5 tahun yang lalu

It is both: the process will have been planned in every detail for decades, but part of that process is to show a "mourning" website.

[deleted]5 tahun yang lalu

boomboomsubban5 tahun yang lalu

As I can't be the only one curious, the South Pacific tribe that deified him plan to worship Charles now. To me, signifying that they are doing it for the publicity now.

https://nypost.com/2021/02/27/islanders-who-call-prince-phil...

dalbasal5 tahun yang lalu

I wasn't part of the curious, and I don't know where/when defiance comes into the story but... There's enough in this article to make me curious. It feels a little mean to assume "only for publicity" without hearing some of these people commenting on it themselves.

“One of the oarsmen taking them ashore was a chap from Tanna called Chief Jack,” former Buckingham Palace spokesman Dickie Arbiter recalled to The Post. “He thought Philip was a warrior from a long time ago who had come down from the mountains and gone off to England in search of a bride."

This part of the world has some very unique culture, particularly their takes on politics, religion and such. At first glance, it's easy to be derisive of (literal, original) cargo cults. A more nuanced view takes you to interesting questions about the unique political philosophies of people with a deep island and mariners' history.

If they were wearing suits and commenting on these same ideas in a philosophy journal, in some cases it might be brilliant outsider thinking. A lot of it relates to an assimilation of outside political cultures outwardly, but with a totally unexpected internal meta.

jffry5 tahun yang lalu

> I don't know where/when defiance comes into the story

I think you misread "deified" (with the extra i, meaning "To worship or revere as a god"). I did too the first time

dalbasal5 tahun yang lalu

Ah yes. thanks.

bidirectional5 tahun yang lalu

Why does it signify that? I mean they probably are, but it also seems like the logical step to worship his heir?

boomboomsubban5 tahun yang lalu

They worshiped Philip because he visited and made a real impact on their life. To my knowledge, Charles hasn't done that, their only connection to him is through the journalists worshipping Philip has attracted. Logically, someone like Karl Pilkington should be the replacement.

Y_Y5 tahun yang lalu

> Anne, Princess Royal, visited Tanna Island in October 2014. She is the only daughter of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.

She sounds like a good candidate to me.

boomboomsubban5 tahun yang lalu

Agreed, if they had chosen her I would not count their motives as much.

boomboomsubban5 tahun yang lalu

*doubt, not count. Damn phone.

koboll5 tahun yang lalu

Once you get Internet access, legitimate cargo cultism probably fades quite quickly. Why revere John Frum when Jeff Bezos lets you buy in one click?

hkt5 tahun yang lalu

Then if you have internet access for long enough you can learn to code, and experience a new world of cargo cults..

cratermoon5 tahun yang lalu

QAnon has entered the chat

Rule355 tahun yang lalu

It seems more like WallStreetBets' thing. Pay the islanders to build a giant statue to a Doge.

ksec5 tahun yang lalu

It wasn't that long ago he recovered from an infection [1]. And I remember reading he is only a few more months from 100 years old!. Spending his life serving the country.

Rest In Peace

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56172496

F1Qy94GJ555 tahun yang lalu

> Spending his life serving the country. Rest in Peace.

The man was almost 100 years old, almost 30 when India and many other countries got independence from British after a long multi-decade struggle, with many many innocent dead. Frankly I see him as a wealthy old man from a very influential family who should have done better. Am I wrong that this was my first though after seeing this comment? Am I supposed to feel sorry for the royal family and their lack of "freedom"?

Milner085 tahun yang lalu

I think you can feel sorry for them as people, while also being unhappy with their actions over the years and their position of power.

To me the reaction in the UK (for example all BBC radio stations are broadcasting the same crap news about him all day) has been way more over the top than I expected, but I can see the impact he has had on UK diplomacy over the years but it still seems highly out of proportion.

Symbiote5 tahun yang lalu

There is a dedicated complaints form, if you wish to write to the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/death-duke-of-edinburgh-tv-cov...

Fazel945 tahun yang lalu

It is in answer to "spend his life to serve the country" part, thus a totally called for clarification.

dr-detroit5 tahun yang lalu

Most people on HN are temporarily emberassed billionaires who see the royals as peers.

TrevorJ5 tahun yang lalu

>Am I wrong that this was my first though after seeing this comment?

Yes.

F1Qy94GJ555 tahun yang lalu

why?

simonh5 tahun yang lalu

Let's just say it tells us an awful lot more about you than it does about him.

F1Qy94GJ555 tahun yang lalu

Am sorry if this touched a nerve because not everyone sees the British royal family as perhaps you do, I suppose I cannot reward service and loyalty to a cause alone, specially when the cause was colonization and oppression of many many other people.

ksec5 tahun yang lalu

>colonization and oppression of many many other people.

There are probably valid reason why Indian hate the Brits. But not all period and all colonisation are bad and involves oppression. And I am sure there are some good involves that people excluded for their own interest. AFAIK Modern India is united to become one because of the Brits. The Turks also at one point ruled India.

simonh5 tahun yang lalu

Personally I see them as a somewhat irrelevant but harmless relic of a bygone era, about which I am largely indifferent. Philip certainly had his flaws, but he was also a brave and resourceful man. The only way he directly touched my life is that both my daughters took part in the Duke of Edinburgh Awards Scheme, which they thoroughly enjoyed and had a very positive influence on their lives.

Thanks Phil.

F1Qy94GJ555 tahun yang lalu

> somewhat irrelevant but harmless relic of a bygone era, about which I am largely indifferent.

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

spectramax5 tahun yang lalu

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

F1Qy94GJ555 tahun yang lalu

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

spectramax5 tahun yang lalu

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

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

Fazel945 tahun yang lalu

Most men in 1943 didn't took part in govs taking the food in such a scale that cause a famine with 2 million dead. So I would give them a pass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India#Bengal_famine_...

Veen5 tahun yang lalu

It’s not for disagreeing or holding a different opinion. It’s for being rude. Whatever your opinion, sometimes it’s good manners to moderate how you express it.

TrevorJ5 tahun yang lalu

If you think someone disagreeing with you is a personal attack then I don't know what to tell you. You tried to dunk on a recently dead guy, which is generally considered bad form, and got called out for it.

[deleted]5 tahun yang lalu

jariel5 tahun yang lalu

You can think anything you want.

The man had a very difficult upbringing, risked his life fighting Nazis and then did his family duty for the rest of his life. He was witty and funny until the end.

Gandhi was a pedophile who slept with young boys and girls almost his entire life, and who refused 'foreign medicine' (antibiotics) on the basis of principle for his dying wife, but took 'foreign medicine' (quinine) to save his own later. At the same time, leading a major liberation movement. History is complicated.

TwBJHghcam5 tahun yang lalu

One mention of a relevant but unpopular opinion and we find ourselves at whataboutism and denigrating someone totally different targeted loosely based on a guess of the op's nationality (but guess this won't be flagged / taken down)

ksec5 tahun yang lalu

Then why do it in a new and obscure account?

stjohnswarts5 tahun yang lalu

Not really, no more wrong than people who do think they will miss him. As with most things in life it's about context.

andrepd5 tahun yang lalu

> Spending his life serving the country.

More like spending his life having the country serve him.

robbiep5 tahun yang lalu

In Ottawa in 1969, as premier Pierre Trudeau chipped away at Canada’s royal connections, Philip bluntly observed, “I think it’s a complete misconception to imagine that the Monarchy exists in the interests of the Monarch – it doesn’t. It exists in the interests of the people: in a sense – we don’t come here for our health, so to speak. We can think of other ways of enjoying ourselves … I think that the important thing about it is that if, at any stage, people feel that it has no further part to play, then for goodness sake let’s end the thing on amicable terms without having a row about it.” He had said the same thing of Australia in 1967. “If the monarchy is of value, retain it ... If not, get rid of it.”

Robert Lacey claims that Prince Philip’s immediate response to the outcome of the 1999 republic referendum was, “What’s the matter with these people? Can’t they see what’s good for them?”

If it’s not clear to non-Australians, in the 1999 referendum we voted to keep the monarchy (though probably more through the phrasing of the question in the opinion of some)

From https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/prince-philip-duke-of-ed...*

Someone5 tahun yang lalu

It’s made of gold, it’s big, but it still is a cage.

nicky05 tahun yang lalu

He did more for me than I did for him.

simonh5 tahun yang lalu

I couldn't agree more. That's true of anyone who served in WW2 of course, from naval officer to an RMP like my grandfather, but that doesn't diminish his contribution.

danielrpa5 tahun yang lalu

It cuts both ways. The life of a British Royal is better than almost anyone else's. At the same time, they don't really have a lot of freedom in the usual sense - a lot of ceremonies, formal parties, events etc. You might have a better life as an retired, anonymous millionaire with some US$5M in the bank (which would also make you extremely privileged).

blackshaw5 tahun yang lalu

True. The royal family aren't just our rulers, they're our prisoners. Can you imagine being a high-ranking member of the British royal family? Your life isn't your own - you can't pursue the career of your choosing, you have an enormous amount of obligations and you have all the usual downsides of fame, and this is all by accident of birth, not something that you chose. The job might have its perks but I'm still glad to be a commoner.

It's the minor royals who have it best, I think. Zara Tindall could walk down most roads in Britain and not be recognised - she gets the riches and privileges, but only a tiny fraction of the downsides experienced by her grandmother.

Balgair5 tahun yang lalu

Meghan Markle talked about this:

"In the car ride over, however, the importance of the meeting sunk in as Harry asked Meghan, "Do you know how to curtsy?" She told Oprah: "I thought genuinely that that was what happens outside. I thought that was part of the fanfare. I didn't think that's what happens inside. I said, 'But it's your grandmother.' He goes, 'It's the queen.' That was really the first moment that the penny dropped.""[0]

Per her telling of the story, we may concluded that Harry really never had a grandmother like many other people do. It seems it's always been 'formal' in the royal family. That the ideas of duty and royalty have come before family. That's not a life that I would want to live or a family I would want to have. That said, their wealth and privilege may make up for it. But it's not perfect.

[0]https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/meghan-markle-oprah-inter...

ksec5 tahun yang lalu

>their wealth and privilege may make up for it.

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

teachrdan5 tahun yang lalu

> cant spend their wealth like billioaires

What would they spend it on? Fancy houses? Private transport around the world? Lavish vacations? They get all of those things for free already.

I suppose it wouldn't do for Prince Charles to buy a 200' yacht. But other than that, I'm not sure how much he, or any other royal, is suffering for not being able to spend their wealth like the rest of the 0.1%.

Symbiote5 tahun yang lalu

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

They also have (use of) a royal train.

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

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

ben_w5 tahun yang lalu

Once you get over about $10 million per family member, you can have essentially any house, holiday, or private transport you desire.

Spending like billionaires means political power or privately funded moonshot projects.

teachrdan5 tahun yang lalu

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

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

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

[deleted]5 tahun yang lalu

Tronno5 tahun yang lalu

Nobody forces them to treat their own family that way. It is a choice they've made for themselves.

jariel5 tahun yang lalu

It's unbelievable that a woman would marry into a 1000 year old family institution an head of state without taking a moment to grasp what that meant. It's so shockingly naive I can hardly believe it.

A 'curtsy' for your grandmother, the Queen, is a obviously a bit formal but it's not remotely irreproachable. It's literally just a form of greeting.

Japanese culture has a zillion of elements of common formality - literally entire modes of language - that are an every day occurrence.

fastball5 tahun yang lalu

They can leave whenever they want.

Golden handcuffs are not actual handcuffs.

maccard5 tahun yang lalu

No, they can't. See Harry & Meghan for what happens when you leave.

krapp5 tahun yang lalu

>See Harry & Meghan for what happens when you leave.

You stay rich, wealthy and influential and parlay your newfound celebrity into millions of dollars' worth of streaming media and book deals?

Oh no wait, sorry, they're just wealthy now but no longer obscenely wealthy. The horror.

fastball5 tahun yang lalu

Yeah, I'm pretty confused by the disconnect here. Harry and Megan was who I had in mind as a great example of how easy it is to leave. You just say "bye" and you get on Oprah, get exec positions at startups, get media deals... where is the downside?

atat70245 tahun yang lalu

This comment may not age well.

The truth is, we may never know the psychological pressures they've endured, or will.

fastball5 tahun yang lalu

> we may never know the psychological pressures they've endured

That could be said about literally everyone ever. So instead we look at the things that can actually be quantified, where I see nothing but net.

toomanybeersies5 tahun yang lalu

> They can leave whenever they want.

Not to imply equivalence in magnitude, but people say say the same about people trapped in abusive relationships.

fastball5 tahun yang lalu

Um, not sure what you're trying to do here. People saying the same thing about two different situations does not in any way make the situations similar or equivalent, and the fact that you are even making the connection is kinda gross tbh.

danielrpa5 tahun yang lalu

Do you ever really leave? No matter what you do, the media will be after you. Not a day of complete peace of mind.

LightG5 tahun yang lalu

There are many low-profile Royals. Some I never ever hear about.

Unfortunately, Meghan seems to have captured the imagination for some reason.

mothsonasloth5 tahun yang lalu

The codename for his death is : "Operation Forth Bridge"

pta20025 tahun yang lalu

What does this mean?

iso16315 tahun yang lalu

In the pre internet days, when communication went through various manual means like telephone exchanges, there were codewords known by various people to announce royal deaths without it leaking. The death of the Queen for example has to be announced to all commonwealth country leaders at the exact same time, which means coordination, which means following certain plans, but limiting the information to make sure it's not leaked.

Of course with the internet means they code words are widely known (they were also named on The Crown) - and indeed trending on twitter, which is amusing given how some documentation still says they are super secret. The information can't be easily kept underwraps now as the chance of someone scooping it on twitter increases with the number of people aware of it and the time taken, I suspect there's only a few minutes between the palace announcing it to bbc/sky/itn and the embargo time - certainly BBC didn't have enough time to get Huw Edwards in for example (he's in now)

Other bridges includ(ed)

Menai (Charles - Price of Wales, Menai Bridge is from Bangor to Anglesey)

Tay (Queen Mother, near balmoral which I think was her ancestral home)

London (Queen, London being the captial)

Forth being the bridge at Edinburgh, so makes sense for the Duke of Edinburh)

Not sure if William has one, maybe it would be the River Cam.

SamBam5 tahun yang lalu

Funnily enough, I just watched the episode from the Crown yesterday when the Queen explains to Philip that they all have bridge code names, and what his is.

aaronax5 tahun yang lalu

Since the code words are related to what they reference in some way, I find it difficult to believe that they were ever intended for a serious purpose. Maybe they are useful for clarity of communication in some way, but certainly not for secrecy (which would probably require randomly selecting names from a word list).

iso16315 tahun yang lalu

"Secret" is a relative term, up until about 10 years ago I suspect very few had heard of it, I'd be interested in anything online before 2016 referring to them (there was big media coverage in 2017)

The specific details however aren't public knowlege, with various secrecy levels, and there are various different plans depending on the situation (what happens if the queen was on a plane that crashed for example, or what if Charles died in an avalanche in Austria), and plans of course are constantly changing (what happens if there's a massive pandemic which means people can't congregate in their millions to pay respects as they did with Diana, what happens if the news is leaked on twitter before coordinated official announcement)

dingaling5 tahun yang lalu

Tangential but that's also a key difference between US and UK codenames for military operations. uK names are picked from a list of deliberately neutral words ( SHADER and NEWCOMBE being two currently active ).

nmeofthestate5 tahun yang lalu

"Operation Forth Bridge" is the name for the BBC's plan to cover the death of the Duke of Edinburgh. One of the weirdest things about any British royal death is the pre-planned over-reaction of the BBC. For example, programs like tonight's final of a cooking contest are being cancelled. When Diana died, all BBC news bulletins started being prefixed by "this is the BBC, from London" (from London is the bit they added, perhaps because they expected people from all over the Empire to be watching).

45ure5 tahun yang lalu

It is a unique codename for the plan to be enacted, in the event of a death of a senior royal. A long read but worth it -- illustrates the complexity and planning required.

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

arethuza5 tahun yang lalu

Operation London Bridge is the codename for the plan for what happens when the Queen dies.

Philip had the title of Duke of Edinburgh and the Forth Bridge is a large bridge near Edinburgh.

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

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

Edinburgh sits on the south side of the Firth of Forth:

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

limograf5 tahun yang lalu

The Forth Bridge is a very long bridge that is permanently being painted. "Like painting the Forth Bridge" is a job that (feels like it) will never end.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/be+like+painting+the+Fo...

zentiggr5 tahun yang lalu

Thank you for this - the most interesting comment of everything I've read in this thread

sleavey5 tahun yang lalu

I'm afraid this is an urban legend [1] (the painting, not the long bridge).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forth_Bridge#Maintenance

mothsonasloth5 tahun yang lalu

All members of the Royal family have Bridge names or landmarks in the UK as their codenames for their death.

QE is - Operation London Bridge

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

blackshaw5 tahun yang lalu

Churchill's death was anticipated with a codename too:

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

dijit5 tahun yang lalu

The 'Forth Bridge' is a bridge in Scotland.

Usually when there are preperations for a future event to hide the markers of what it is there are code names.

Operations for preparing the necessary for the deaths of heads of state are typically named bridges.

The Queens death is (or was) Operation London Bridge.

bot415 tahun yang lalu

Weird to see all the non-pro Royal family comments censored on here. Why? What has the royal family got to do with Hacker News and why does it matter if people on here are pro or anti Philip?

callamdelaney5 tahun yang lalu

Most of those comments are / were vitriolic. Basically attacking Prince Philip because of status rather than any legitimate criticism of him as a person. I'd guess this is why - it's not facebook.

teachrdan5 tahun yang lalu

Broadly speaking, the HN readership supports entrepreneurship, novel ideas and transparency; as a result, it tends to be critical of inherited wealth, entrenched institutions and arbitrary and opaque power. The royal family in England embodies all of the latter.[0]

Of course there are exceptions! Most people are empathetic and few openly celebrate the death of a 99-year-old. But I think it's fair to say that a large percent of the community here has reason to not be overly sentimental about the passing of Prince Philip.

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

"The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her “embarrassing” private wealth from the public, according to documents discovered by the Guardian."

dave3335 tahun yang lalu

On the other hand the Duke of Edinburghs Award Scheme could be considered an early prototype of YCombinator.

https://www.dofe.org/

callamdelaney5 tahun yang lalu

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

teachrdan5 tahun yang lalu

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

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

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

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

Veen5 tahun yang lalu

> Where exactly do you think these assets came from?

Where did your assets come from? If you own land, you bought it from someone. They bought it from someone. Go far enough back in history, and you'll find the beginning of that chain starts with someone being fucked over violently. Generally, we put it down to "time immemorial" and leave it at that. But if you want to give up your assets to those they were stolen from, go right ahead.

callamdelaney5 tahun yang lalu

My point is not that she didn’t get it through being a part of the aristocracy; my point is that the royal family is a net contributor. 2019/2020 contributions to the treasury were £345,000,000[0] In the same year the monarchy were paid roughly £90m [1].

Last I checked it didn’t matter how one acquired something as long as one owns it. It’s really irrelevant how they came into that land.

[0] https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/media-and-insights/ne...

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/372882/uk-royal-family-e...

Symbiote5 tahun yang lalu

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

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

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

callamdelaney5 tahun yang lalu

I think it's a potentially slippery slope to run around deciding who should own what; isn't it?

imranhou5 tahun yang lalu

Finally true RIP, away from the constant spotlight

watersb5 tahun yang lalu

I find that I am deeply saddened by this news, and wish for the Queen some measure of condolence that his passing is truly felt even here.

gre5 tahun yang lalu

For a second I thought it said Phillip Glass and I was sad.

crossroadsguy5 tahun yang lalu

Rest in peace!

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

But again, he was a fellow human being after all - I hope he finds peace if at all there's something after this and I hope he was at peace and content towards the end.

nindalf5 tahun yang lalu

I think it’s interesting that you’d blame this family for the horrors of colonialism. They haven’t had a say in British policy for around 2 centuries. Although the monarch meets the Prime Minister every week, they cannot tell the PM what to do, unless it affects the royal family personally. The PM listens to what they have to say but charts their own course.

If you’re looking for someone to blame, Churchill deserves some. Many Prime Ministers before him as well.

But I don’t think Philip deserves any. You call them a symbol, that’s all they are. They’re someone to point at and say “yeah that’s our country”, so no single politician can claim that mantle. As an Indian you must be aware how easy it is for a politician to claim they’re the personification of the nation (“India is Indira and Indira is India”). That cannot happen in the UK because the PM is merely a temporary caretaker appointed by the monarch. The symbolism matters.

Source: The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot (1867)

s_dev5 tahun yang lalu

>I think it’s interesting that you’d blame this family for the horrors of colonialism.

Heres the opening for Patrick Freyne in the Irish Times on the British Monarchy:

"Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown."

>You call them a symbol, that’s all they are.

Yet swastikas are illegal in Germany. Symbols have meaning and the British monarchy does represent imperialism and colonialism even if it makes British people feel uncomfortable.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/harry-and-me...

TheCoelacanth5 tahun yang lalu

(1)

yakubin5 tahun yang lalu

(1)

wozniacki5 tahun yang lalu

  From 'bidirectional' above :
  It should be noted that the 'staying out of politics' is
  a public phenomenon. In her weekly meeting with the Prime
  Minister, The Queen makes her political stance well known
  (that is the entire point of the meeting).[1]

  While you say:
  They haven’t had a say in British policy for around 2 centuries.
  Although the monarch meets the Prime Minister every week, they
  cannot tell the PM what to do, unless it affects the royal
  family personally. The PM listens to what they have to say but
  charts their own course.

Well, it cannot be both - for all intents and purposes. Either the Queen has a sizeable influence on the general political direction of the country or she does not.

One would think her influence particularly would have gone unquestioned to a larger degree, by the PM or politicians & their constituencies in general, in that era - when the royal family enjoyed far greater popularity than it does now.

So the OP isn't too far off the mark to assume they deserve ample blame.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26749513

elliekelly5 tahun yang lalu

You might find the book Midnights Furies interesting. It’s about The Partition of India[1] and the royal family was indeed very closely involved. They saw India as a critical component of the British Empire and feared not for the welfare of the people but for the monarchy’s future.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

sn415 tahun yang lalu

“India is Indira and Indira is India” is just a sign of the tendency towards personality cults that the polity suffer from. In fact, it was not Indira who coined the slogan, but rather a particularly oily sycophant, D. K. Barooah [1].

In fact, in some sense, there is an attempt to try to deify/lionize the PM as a royal. I don't think that it is a symptom of the failure of parliamentary democracy, rather it is a tendency among people.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._K._Barooah

nindalf5 tahun yang lalu

Nothing you’ve said contradicts my comment. It’s definitely a problem with people that is solved by having a separate non political head of state.

Thorentis5 tahun yang lalu

Unfortunately people are very quick to assign "generational guilt" these days. It's as if we've gone backwards, and are no longer capable of being individuals. "Oh, you're white/black/related to x/decended from y, did you know your ancestors did *that*?"

andrepd5 tahun yang lalu

Excuse me? Generational inheritance is the basis of the entire monarchy. It's how they justify their position and privileges. Invoke generational privileges when it suits them and cry about generational guilt when it does not??

Accacin5 tahun yang lalu

But he's not just talking about the Royal Family. How far do I go back before I don't feel guilty anymore? Should the Italians feel guilty for the Roman Empire slaughtering native Britons?

For me there's little point making people feel shame for what country they happened to be born in - we do not get to choose. However it's important that we do not forget what caused these awful atrocities and make sure that we never let them happen again.

Personally I feel that we do not learn enough about these atrocities at school in the UK, and would be happy if we focused on them more but I wouldn't want people to feel too guilty about things that could not control.

TheCoelacanth5 tahun yang lalu

If you continue to directly benefit from the atrocities, then you should feel guilty.

andrepd5 tahun yang lalu

The GP comment was about the royal family.

lordvegazo5 tahun yang lalu

It was Queen Victoria who gave patents to explore. They came and plundered our lands and created unrest first in the name of east india company and then the British Empire. We just dont know how the subcontinent would have evolved without their interference - because of their divide and conquer policy we have an extreme distrust between the muslims and the hindus that had resulted in one of the worst (and ridiculus) land partitions in 1947 and created a conflict that will go on for generations. They interfered where they had no business to be in and made a mess of everything. People argue that his hands are clean because all the bad stuff was done by his mother-in-law and the PMs. But he directly benifitted from the gains (as will his decendents) of the genoide and plunderings and won't even acknowledge. The monarch should pay the subcontinent back for the damages they have caused[0, 1].

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjTSgP6Lm0A

shankr5 tahun yang lalu

Because people take generation credit all the time. We "french/english/<insert any nationality>" did this and that. So if we are not trying to being hypocritical, it makes sense you share the associated guilt also. We haven't gone backwards, it's just we have become bit more consistent in our logic

dragonelite5 tahun yang lalu

As long as people from the global south suffer from Anglo European imperialism. Anglo Europeans should carry that generational guilt just as the global south has suffered for generations and still suffers to this day.

Here's a interesting tweet about how the global north is sucking dry the global south: https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1377180178690940934

bojan5 tahun yang lalu

They are quick to assign generational guilt because they still have to live with the consequences of what happened those generations ago.

kmlx5 tahun yang lalu

because it’s much simpler for people to find external causes to their misery than looking at their own actions.

nothing new, see “religion”.

andrepd5 tahun yang lalu

Yes, history is a figment of our imagination, every person's misery is due to their own actions. /s

JoeAltmaier5 tahun yang lalu

Oh, did he say something about the atrocities then? In a very public role as the moral backbone of the nation? Did he apologize? I missed that.

nindalf5 tahun yang lalu

By no means am I defending colonialism, least of all the British Empire in India. I’m an Indian, FWIW.

I see two main obstacles to this apology.

1. Teaching kids history. Currently British kids learn all about Henry VIII’s wives ... and then it’s straight to the World Wars. It’s hard to tell a nation of 70 million people to reckon with their past when they know nothing about it.

2. Philip himself was quite old. He grew up at a time when the Empire was a great thing, something that helped resist the tides of Nazism. Britain could not have managed it without the colonies. And later, he became old. I’m willing to give older people the benefit of the doubt - they can’t change their minds easily.

But if his grandson can’t come to grips with it either when he becomes monarch, I won’t be making any excuses for him.

brainwipe5 tahun yang lalu

We did Celts (Bronze and Iron age), some on ancient Greece, Romans, Vikings, Tudors (briefly, we didn't do Henry VIIIs wives, more about Shakespear), Spanish Armada, colonialism, slave trade, and then loads on WW1 and WW2.

I do agree that more should be taught about the details of colonialism but the idea that British history started with Henry VIII and skipped to WW1 is nonsense.

Agr0tera5 tahun yang lalu

It might be worth noting that your experience can differ from theirs without it being untrue.

I can say that I did Ancient Greece, Romans, Tudors, touched a little on the Spanish Armada before skipping straight to WW2.

Neither of the two schools I attended touched on Colonialism in any recognisable degree, and Slavery was more "We stopped slavery, good job england", when in reality it wasn't done from a place of morality, and instead was driven by mass slave revolts, a decline in plantations culminated by an era of overproduction by slavery, which was leading to economic decline.

Nursie5 tahun yang lalu

I think there was at least some morality at play from the likes of the Quakers, Wilberforce etc. It seems unnecessarily reductionist to say only one or the other force was present, and probably historically inaccurate.

Agr0tera5 tahun yang lalu

I should clarify my earlier statement, I didn't mean to say there wasn't some form of morality involved, as you pointed out it's likely to some degree there was, just that I don't personally believe it to be a major contributing factor. Just that it was what I was personally taught, that England suddenly realised they were being immoral and sought to right that.

Nursie5 tahun yang lalu

I think it's part of the picture, but like you I wasn't educated enough in the colonial period of British history to have any great certainty.

When we were very young it was the tudors and earlier, then there was a little social history where we covered things like the building of canals and the invention of the spinning jenny, the industrial revolution, enclosure etc, then Cold War history IIRC. Big blank spot where colonial history might have been. You'd think it might be relevant...

bigbillheck5 tahun yang lalu

The Empire was never great, and the best you can say about it is they weren't always as terrible as the Belgians in the Congo.

dkarp5 tahun yang lalu

Recent history in England is taught only really in Key Stage 3 and there is a lot to cover...

It is mandated that pupils learn about "ideas, political power, industry and empire: Britain, 1745-1901" [1]. Some examples schools can choose are the transatlantic slave trade, the American civil war, Ireland and Home Rule and the development of the British Empire with a depth study (for example, of India).

For 20th century history, only learning about the Holocaust is actually mandated. But Indian independence and end of Empire can be chosen by schools and is quite a common choice.

Kids are learning about these things. Maybe not as much as they could be and likely with some bias, but it's not true that it jumps from Henry VIII's wives to world wars.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curricul...

SamBam5 tahun yang lalu

> a time when the Empire was a great thing, something that helped resist the tides of Nazism.

I feel like "The Empire was great otherwise we would all be living under Naziism" is a poor take.

It assumes that whatever features of the world existed then must have been necessary to accomplish whatever was accomplished.

Imagine the US was still a British colony, and Hitler was still defeated. It would stand to reason then, that it was because the US was still a British colony that Hitler was defeated, right?

In a made-up timeline when Britain had already voluntarily broken up the empire, we're in a very different world, once that perhaps wouldn't include Germany trying to expand its power and/or wouldn't have felt itself under threat from the surrounding pre-WWI European empires.

smcl5 tahun yang lalu

As a Brit I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph.

Re your second, you are a much more mature and compassionate person than I am about this. I am completely ambivalent about his death. He was a very old man who lived a spectacularly privileged life and had little to no worries. I care not a jot whether he found peace.

ephextom5 tahun yang lalu

> "had little to no worries"

- As an infant, was evacuated from Greece with his (and his family's) life in grave danger. Spent his childhood mostly estranged from his family

- As a young man, served on a naval ship as part of the campaign to defeat fascist Germany and Japan. At least once helped save his ship's crew from a German bombing attack. Probably faced many other threats to his own life and to his comrades.

- Spent the rest of his life as an ambassador for his family and country, and counsel to his wife whose job it is to ensure the country and Commonwealth continues to function with stability and prosperity, including through political/economic crises, national emergencies, local/global cultural shifts, etc.

- Attended 22,000 official events and delivered 5000 speeches. Was an early advocate for environmentalism and animal welfare. Conceived and headed a youth development organisation for most of his public life.

- Endured family tragedies, relentless media/public scrutiny and criticism, and constant campaign against his family's wealth and role in the political system.

You may not like him. Fine. I didn't care much for him, and I don't hold a great deal of pity for him for the difficulties he and his family have faced.

But "little to no worries" is a giant leap.

smcl5 tahun yang lalu

I'm not going to debate the pros and cons of a dead royal. It is indisputable that he led an incredibly privileged existence, try to think what the life of your average commoner also born in 1921 was like if you are not sure.

ephextom5 tahun yang lalu

You brought it up and keep replying, so you've clearly got an axe to grind. Not a single person is denying he was privileged. Your implication is that a privileged life is a life of "little to no worries", which is frequently asserted by people who seek to attack the wealthy simply for being wealthy, but it is a deep misconception in most cases, and particularly so for a sovereign leader. I understand you feel it's important to express contempt for a rich person at the time of their passing, but that doesn't excuse falsehoods.

smcl5 tahun yang lalu

I mentioned it and got attacked, so of course I'm going to reply. Both you and "gadders" have gotten your knickers in a twist over absolutely nothing. I've already spent more time in this thread thinking or talking about Prince Philip than I have in the last 3 decades, I think that is quite enough for me - I'm out.

gadders5 tahun yang lalu

(2)

monkey_monkey5 tahun yang lalu

Agreed.

I'm fairly sure many people of more actual worth die every day with no one here giving a shit. The monarchy is a relic that really should be dismantled.

andrepd5 tahun yang lalu

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

cryptica5 tahun yang lalu

Rich people are all equally useless. They're all parasites who profit from the exploitation and monopolization of people and economic resources.

There is no such thing as a 'self made' millionaire or billionaire. They just got lucky and most of the time somebody helped them.

smcl5 tahun yang lalu

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

dr_dshiv5 tahun yang lalu

Because Prince Charles is heir to the throne (and has been portrayed more negatively in the news media than any other living person), some in the HN community may be surprised to know that he wrote a book on philosophy.

https://www.amazon.com/Harmony-New-Way-Looking-World/dp/0061...

I found the book to be astonishingly good. It takes a design approach to Platonism and western esotericism. It goes deep into "sacred geometry" but steers clear of woo or religion. He adopts a Pythagorean perennialism and advocates for an ecological "spirituality" that is integrated with science. It contains examples from his own urban design projects. I was reeeeally surprised to find this kind of thinking coming from the Prince of Wales.

ubermonkey5 tahun yang lalu

Extremely famous people frequently "author" books, usually with ghostwriters. Charles' book is credit to him "with" two other people (Tony Juniper and Ian Skelly who, I suspect, did most of the heavy lifting.

Charles has for years been sympathetic to all sorts of woo, such as "alternative" medicine; his book was met with broad criticism for its cherry-picking of scientific findings to support his environmental agenda but ignoring evidence against alt medicine, etc.

oneplane5 tahun yang lalu

I don't think there is such a thing as 'alternative medicine'. There is medicine, and there is not-medicine. Just like there is treatment and there is not-treatment.

Calling things 'alternative' puts them on the same level, which they are not.

lotsofpulp5 tahun yang lalu

I agree. I guess people use “alternative” to refer to “treatments” that have not been, are not able to be, or have failed proper trials.

dmos625 tahun yang lalu

Is laughter a treatment? It depends. A treatment is something you use to treat. Not something that is effective. If you want to summarize evidence or present opinion, do so, but don't play with language.

oneplane5 tahun yang lalu

We could expand the word to the context it was used in if that is what you desire: medical treatment. We're not talking about treatment in itself, since that would also cover unrelated issues like 'waste water treatment', which isn't exactly related to the conversational context here.

BitwiseFool5 tahun yang lalu

How about the word "Therapeutic"?

ben_w5 tahun yang lalu

Again, depends what for. If someone told me laughter was genuinely therapeutic for clinical depression, I… ok, I would still be surprised, but I could be convinced.

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

“Alternative medicine” is so often snake oil, that anything calling itself that is something I hold in the same regard as Star Trek Voyager’s plot devices. Indeed, one such “alternative medicine” is what my mother used religiously to stave off old age memory problems — she got Alzheimer’s about 16 years younger than her mother, who didn’t use them.

dmos625 tahun yang lalu

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

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

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

ben_w5 tahun yang lalu

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

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

sbuk5 tahun yang lalu

“You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? - Medicine.”

― Tim Minchin

starfallg5 tahun yang lalu

Part of the issue is that the practice of medicine predate scientific medicine (which is known as just 'medicine' today). For example, many medicinal herbs used in traditional medicine are effective for a variety of ailments, and some have been proven scientifically. So how do we reconcile that with scientific medicine without stigmatising possibly effective remedies.

u801e5 tahun yang lalu

> many medicinal herbs used in traditional medicine are effective for a variety of ailments, and some have been proven scientifically. So how do we reconcile that with scientific medicine without stigmatising possibly effective remedies.

If those treatments have been studied in a scientific manner, then the reconciliation, so to speak, has already happened. But, how do we define the effectiveness of treatment? In some cases, using a placebo has shown some effect, but that's because the hypothesis about the effectiveness of a proposed treatment didn't pan out.

oneplane5 tahun yang lalu

To be fair, a placebo can be helpful in its own way. And a 'good' placebo might need to have various methods, tastes, shapes, sizes etc; on the other hand it would be more psychotherapy than what people think of when thinking 'medicine'.

Something that 'helps' in a measurable way with no drawbacks is a useful tool to have. It does of course not mend broken bones or suture cuts in the skin.

msla5 tahun yang lalu

As others have said: We do the trials, and, if something from the pre-scientific era passes muster, we figure out the best way to make it as safe and efficacious as possible with the least variability in effect and fewest side effects.

I'm not saying that eating a plant is ineffective, but plants don't come with dosage information for the active ingredient printed on the stem, and knowing how much of the useful (and potentially deadly) substance you're ingesting is important. Vitally important, if you're taking something like digitalis, which comes from foxglove: Get a digitalis dosage far enough wrong and it kills you.

starfallg5 tahun yang lalu

Yeah, but by stigmatising traditional medicine as 'not medicine', the damage has already been done. Lots of people would be turned off a remedy just because it's 'not medicine', even afterward it was proven scientifically. It is medicine, just not scientific medicine. Compare with the issue of getting people to trust in vaccines when the news headlines are all about very rare side effects.

Keep in mind that there are traditional treatments that we haven't yet isolated the cause of action or the understand the pharmacology due to it being the interaction of different compounds.

I'm not supporting traditional or alternative medicine, but I also don't think that the issue is so black and white, and treating it as such turns people away from the subject entirely.

oneplane5 tahun yang lalu

The issue is with the devaluation of mudding of words and language. (which might not be the correct wording)

I don't think it has to be stigmatising, but I do think that calling things by their specific name helps with everyones mindset.

Some words like 'helpful' are fine, because it does wat it says it does. But calling disparate things by the same name leaves the door open for people to mentally align those things to 'be' the same thing, which they aren't. Distinction is important, even if the differentiation isn't black-and-white. Taking some aspirine vs. drinking a nice cup of green tea can both help with a slightly sore throat, but they are not the same thing. (at the same time, I'd argue that it's better to take that nice cup of tea, take a nap, eat healthy, get to bed on time etc instead of covering the symptom with aspirine)

Turning people away from a subject in itself isn't a bad thing; if someone is swayed that easily, they should probably not be entering a world of non-repeatable non-measurable non-transferable items and activities, especially if the people involved can't be held responsible for their actions. It also isn't a pharmacology thing on its own. While pharmaceuticals can help with certain issues, it's not the core of medicine and in certain cultures it's mostly just abused to cover up symptoms instead of used to mitigate or resolve root causes.

But it's a tricky comparison. In the end we're comparing something measurable with something based on feelings and traditions. Those are generally not that reconcilable.

tacc7285 tahun yang lalu

“Lots of people would be turned off a remedy just because it's 'not medicine', even afterward it was proven scientifically.” Not sure when that has actually happened?

Willow bark to aspirin is a great example of an extremely old “traditional” treatment becoming medicine. Same with quinine for malaria, etc. Tons of real medicines originated by isolating compounds found in nature, even if the final pill form you see is purified or even synthetic. Most people are unaware or just fine with this fact. Sure there are probably many natural treatments out there that are effective (and many that aren’t, or are downright dangerous). We should do the work needed to study them scientifically, and turn the good ones into medicine. Not just promote alternative treatments indiscriminately.

rodelrod5 tahun yang lalu

We do the trials.

ubermonkey5 tahun yang lalu

I agree, I was just using term as it is normally used.

The pithy joke about it is this:

"What do you call alternative medicine that works?"

"Medicine."

BitwiseFool5 tahun yang lalu

From what I understand most "Alternative Medicine" can be chalked up to the placebo effect combined with a self fulfilling prophecy of patient expectations.

michaelcampbell5 tahun yang lalu

> and has been portrayed more negatively in the news media than any other living person

Uhm, what?

[deleted]5 tahun yang lalu

AnimalMuppet5 tahun yang lalu

Yeah. Some guy named Trump would like a word about being portrayed negatively...

chanmad295 tahun yang lalu

Deserved or not, the coverage he gets has been a balancing act to all the generally sympathetic coverage that Diana gets.

JohnHaugeland5 tahun yang lalu

Please be serious.

He's not even the worst treated person in the British royal family, and Diana has been off of the television for decades

The Prince was largely irrelevant even on British television, let alone the rest of the world

If he was the worst treated person on TV, we'd have heard a whole lot more about his Epstein time

chanmad295 tahun yang lalu

You're right. Meghan appears to have been treated worse than PC. My understanding is that there is an overall negative image of PC, but he does not constant coverage, so that helps his case I guess.

afandian5 tahun yang lalu

I'd never heard of this, but I do note that it has two co-authors (Tony Juniper, Ian Skelly).

AndrewOMartin5 tahun yang lalu

Just in case anyone was skim reading a bit too quickly. This is written by Charles, not Philip.

de_keyboard5 tahun yang lalu

https://www.insider.com/poundbury-prince-charless-nostalgic-...

bencollier495 tahun yang lalu

What a wonderful comment. Thanks - I didn't realise that he'd written a book like that, and the fact that it incorporates Platonism and Western Esotericism is even more impressive. Thanks for the comment.

dragonwriter5 tahun yang lalu

> Because Prince Charles is heir to the throne (and has been portrayed more negatively in the news media than any other living person)

Unless your scope of attention is limited to the British Royal Family, I’m not sure how you come to approximately that conclusion. And even if it was, Prince Andrew easily beats him out.

And if we’re going by intensity of negative portrayal, and considering just the British media, the Duke and especially Duchess of Sussex is at least in close competition with him, too, and probabyl way ahead if we are just looking at current coverage.

throwaway595535 tahun yang lalu

There is also a BBC documentary on architecture[1], and his multiple interventions on the subject [2]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=891qV-7Y42w

[2] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFoke4cads8VNAi1pbi7IkM7p...

rogerthis5 tahun yang lalu

I think he was friend of Martin Lings, who was very close to the Perennialist School (René Guenon, Frithjof Schuon).

mateus15 tahun yang lalu

Just goes to show how interesting and creative life would be, were we not wage-slaves like Philip.

k__5 tahun yang lalu

As the next head of a big church, some philosohical work is probably expected from him.

cbfrench5 tahun yang lalu

As an Anglican priest, I can confidently say that our expectation and hope runs rather the opposite direction, given the—ahem—somewhat questionable mental faculties of many who’ve served as Supreme Governour of the Church of England since the Act of Supremacy, lol.

digitalengineer5 tahun yang lalu

"sacred geometry", esoteric, Pythagorean and holistic? It certainly sounds freemasonry-like. Was he a Freemason?

JohnHaugeland5 tahun yang lalu

Uh. What?

Sacred Geometry is an ancient Greek concept that has nothing to do with Freemasons. Pythagoras was the most famous person to push it. It's that thing where they thought the world was made out of the Platonic solids, tried to explain the planetary orbits in terms of polygons, et cetera. It remained huge through Greece and Italy until the 1400s. The Leonardo piece "Vitruvian Man," where the guy has his arms at a couple of angles, and all the describing shapes behind him? That's Sacred Geometry. People used to think those shapes were evidence of design by God.

This was extremely common throughout Europe, especially in Christian churches and cathedrals (much like Islamic) until the late 1400s, when an Italian named Alberti wrote a book that basically pushed religious architecture forward 100 years in ability to make safe large buildings.

That book pushed for a return to circles and the cross, and most of Europe followed. However, that was also 60 years before the Anglican split, and about how long it took things to move from one end of a continent to another back then, so when it was getting to England, England decided to say that the rest of Europe was losing the beat, and stuck to the more complex Greek styled visuals

Most of Europe removed the Sacred Geometry, but England (and Italy) kept theirs. England in particular sees this as a tie to historic legitimacy; one of the things that makes Their Church Different And Better (tm). "We didn't forget the old ways" kind of thing.

Freemasonry? This isn't the Flintstones.

digitalengineer5 tahun yang lalu

Im sorry but what do you think the ‘G’ stands for inside the Freemasons logo? Also: Flintsones? The Queen’s cousin is the most senior Freemason in the hierarchy.

robbiep5 tahun yang lalu

It most commonly refers to God, or the great architect of the universe. It may be considered to refer to geometry but that’s not usually the default and not what I’ve seen discussed or referenced most commonly from masons

digitalengineer5 tahun yang lalu

God or geometry, that is one of the great debates. The letter is present in French freemasonry as well. The letter D would be more appropriate (Dieu). Geometry however would still hold. Anyway without going into detail, geometry has important place in freemasonry. The question then is geometry of what exactly? But we are getting off topic.

Apocryphon5 tahun yang lalu

It’s probably a mystic tradition that Freemasons adopted after the fact.

bencollier495 tahun yang lalu

I believe Prince Charles may have been made a mason, but I don't think he's active, unlike several of his relatives.

samstave5 tahun yang lalu

Like who?

Anyplace to read up on it? Obviously their ceremonies are full of masonic and other esoteric pagan ritual. THey are a pagan Germanic-druid hybrid after-all.

bencollier495 tahun yang lalu

That might be pushing it a bit. Prince Edward, the Duke of Kent is the Grandmaster of the Grand Lodge of England.

Freemasonry isn't pagan in any major sense. It's pretty solidly Abrahamic, and parts of it are explicitly Christian. The closest you'll get to paganism is a continuation of themes and symbolism which are shared in common between ancient cultures.

https://www.ugle.org.uk/about-us/whos-who/12-governance/155-...

andrepd5 tahun yang lalu

> Because Prince Charles is heir to the throne (and has been portrayed more negatively in the news media than any other living person)

I can sit and name persons more negatively treated for hours and not run out of names.

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

baybal25 tahun yang lalu

> Because Prince Charles is heir to the throne (and has been portrayed more negatively in the news media than any other living person)

The UK should quickly tweak their royal succession laws, and give the crown to Edward, or Anne, while the queen is still alive.

If Charles abdicates, the line of succession dispute would be rather funny under the current succession laws.

akjssdk5 tahun yang lalu

I have never heard about this, do you have a link that elaborates? I love weird succession lines.

baybal25 tahun yang lalu

If Charles abdicates, his children receive the baton. But Harry's, and William's succession is under question with both being known not to have that much enthusiasm with the royal business.

If they too decline, line goes to their children below the age of majority, and the icky question of regency appears.

The regency in question notionally gives quite a lot of power, as the crown itself. If regency goes to the executive branch, it will throw out the last check on the Downing st. for may many thing, including the use of UK's nuclear weapons.

rrss5 tahun yang lalu

Can the UK just get rid of the monarchy if it turns into a mess? It doesn't make much sense to me to continue to have a "royal family" if the whole family refuses to be the monarch.

alistairSH5 tahun yang lalu

Is there any law that speaks to regency? Does Parliament pick the regent? Or Kate? Or somebody else?

baybal25 tahun yang lalu

Yes, the parliament will appoint one as per historical precedent.

alistairSH5 tahun yang lalu

Were he to abdicate, wouldn't the crown pass to his eldest son?

baybal25 tahun yang lalu

Yes, but William's own unwillingness to sit on the throne is well known.

Symbiote5 tahun yang lalu

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

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

nanna5 tahun yang lalu

> (and has been portrayed more negatively in the news media than any other living person)

Bold statement.

076ae80a-3c97-45 tahun yang lalu

Considering Prince Andrew exists, it's a false statement.

b14765 tahun yang lalu

> (and has been portrayed more negatively in the news media than any other living person)

Um, did you forget about his first wife?

ben_w5 tahun yang lalu

Well, she is dead. I would suggest that both Andrew and Megan (for very different reasons!) are treated worse in the media than Charles, and that’s just within the royal family. Does even one British newspaper like Theresa May?

neaden5 tahun yang lalu

Are you thinking of Diana? She was Charles' wife.

rrss5 tahun yang lalu

comment is about Charles...

neaden5 tahun yang lalu

Oh you're right, in which case I'm not sure why the parent is bringing this up.

Thorentis5 tahun yang lalu

galuggus5 tahun yang lalu

I wonder if he's read it.

JohnHaugeland5 tahun yang lalu

> (and has been portrayed more negatively in the news media than any other living person)

They really do love making victims out of their predatory world leaders, don't they?

Trump fans do this too

1cvmask5 tahun yang lalu

Famous quotes by the Prince:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/04/prince-phili...

nullsense5 tahun yang lalu

I really wish we could just do away with all this royal family nonsense.

You guys are somehow special because what? Useless social fiction from antiquity.

Thorentis5 tahun yang lalu

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

christophilus5 tahun yang lalu

I find both disappointing but unsurprising.

truthr5 tahun yang lalu

nullsense5 tahun yang lalu

Wholesome and inspiring aye?

Does that sentiment extend to Henry VIII?

Monarchy is not something to be celebrated.

Grustaf5 tahun yang lalu

It's obviously not a social fiction, regardless of what you may think about monarchy in general.

They have power because they inherited it from someone that conquered it. Just like people may inherit companies and fortunes.

bidirectional5 tahun yang lalu

Not at all in the case of Elizabeth II. She holds the throne because parliament gave it to her ancestor, George I, to avoid a Catholic inheriting the throne.

Grustaf5 tahun yang lalu

Well, George I was born a duke of the Holy Roman Empire and a relative of the queen, so it's not like the picked someone off the streets.

Besides, to a modern democrat, what could be more legitimate that receiving something from parliament?

baybal25 tahun yang lalu

Yes, another tidbit, UK barely avoided getting a German monarch by 2 years. Otherwise they may have ended with a Prussian on the throne

cygx5 tahun yang lalu

Instead, the heir now descends from the houses Battenberg ('Mountbatten') and Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha ('Windsor')...

Grustaf5 tahun yang lalu

Surely George I _was_ German?

andrepd5 tahun yang lalu

Yes, that is indeed the point.

samizdis5 tahun yang lalu

I'd suggest that centuries of tradition have value, not least for the older generations of Brits, but especially for the tourist dollars drawn to the pageantry. Yes, it's a bit Disney, but it has a little more class and visitors seem to love it.

nindalf5 tahun yang lalu

France got rid of their monarchy some time ago. They still get plenty of tourism. I can give plenty of other examples where the royal family was let go and tourism continued to flourish. The important thing is that all of the palaces and castles would still exist and become open to the public as museums. If anything, tourism would improve if people could visit Buckingham Palace like they visit the Palace at Versailles.

samizdis5 tahun yang lalu

That's a good point, and well made, but it is still the case that royal-themed souvenirs fly off the shelves and also that overseas visitors flock to any royal/state spectacle when in the UK; mostly, I reckon, for the sheer anachronistic oddity and weirdness.

But we probably have no need to get rid of our monarchy, the family seems to be doing that job for us. When that happens, we can see whether tourist revenues go up or down :-)

evgen5 tahun yang lalu

Maybe if you did a bit of basic research you would learn that the public _can_ visit Buckingham Palace and tour various rooms that were basically mini-museums containing parts of the royal collections. Last time I popped in was soon after watching Tim's Vermeer when I learned that the picture in question had been rotated into the collection on display.

It is absolutely amazing to see so many people who obviously have no skin in this particular game crawling out from under their rocks to share their strongly held beliefs about the royal family, as if the rest of us give a toss about your opinion...

zpeti5 tahun yang lalu

Yeah, that getting rid of the monarchy thing, that worked out well in France.

oblio5 tahun yang lalu

If you're trying to be ironic, you have to keep in mind France is and has been a republic for 160 years.

So yeah, getting rid of the monarchy seems to have worked.

pndy5 tahun yang lalu

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

nullsense5 tahun yang lalu

Sure. But why is this celebrated?

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

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

disambiguation5 tahun yang lalu

all laws and governments are social fictions

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

nullsense5 tahun yang lalu

Fascinated/dominated - take your pick.

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

iso16315 tahun yang lalu

Kardassians seem to have more adoration

Ygg25 tahun yang lalu

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/Guldukat.jpg

They got nothing on Gul Dukat.

_Microft5 tahun yang lalu

> Kardassians seem to have more adoration

There are two different typos possible here and I am undecided which one is funnier ;)

celticninja5 tahun yang lalu

So you are suggesting they take over from the royals or from the US president?

MagnumOpus5 tahun yang lalu

While Cardassians are far more popular than the Windsor Royals, they are fictional.

Which has advantages, admittedly -- far lower expenditures and a far lower rate of child-rapes among them -- a lot of the British royalists might object to a change of rulers on that basis.

cblconfederate5 tahun yang lalu

They earned it tho

pndy5 tahun yang lalu

Each time I'm catching myself reading it as Cardassians

bb1235 tahun yang lalu

Personally I think are (or used to be) a useful cohesive agent for the country. If the alternative is Trump and the Kardashians then the Royal family doesn't seem too bad.

Proven5 tahun yang lalu

truthr5 tahun yang lalu

swen-rekcah5 tahun yang lalu

(2)

bobthechef5 tahun yang lalu

That's a bit of a childish remark. The celebrity stuff exists in every culture and every country, so there's nothing particular to monarchy in this regard. The British monarchy, is, of course, a castrated monarchy in the sense that it has little power, but it still functions as a unifying force for the UK. Some argue that monarchies are generally more tolerant than republics. Monarchy can be argued to be a more natural or default form of government in principle than republicanism because the monarch (the king) is a kind of paternal role. The dynastic component adds continuity, responsibility (you don't want your heir to bear the burden of your bad policies, do you?), and hedges against both short-term thinking (like we see among elected officials) and the dangers of meritocratic ambition ("I EARNED my power!" vs. "I am saddled with this responsibility to serve."). Of course, in practice, republicanism can become more attractive because of royal corruption and abuse of power, but the notion that republicanism is immune to these just because it takes different forms is absurd.

Remarks like "useless social fiction from antiquity" come across as uninformed, provincial snobbery motivated by some kind of superficial progressive mythology. There are forms of government that are objectively bad, others that are poorly suited to time and place, but the notion that the best form of government is the democratic republic, everywhere and in all times and places, is silly.

bergheim5 tahun yang lalu

This is an actual honest question; why is this on hacker news?

RHSman25 tahun yang lalu

Because even nerds get bored of compilers and deepfakes.

drewcoo5 tahun yang lalu

Because libertarian technologists are attracted to power and rules. Vote me down, but the comments bear me out.

dang5 tahun yang lalu

Please stop posting unsubstantive comments.

74d-fe6-2c65 tahun yang lalu

Because HN is going yellow press ... I mean there are all the time debates about what belongs here and what not. Bottom up - if something reaches the front page it belongs here. Top down - this definitely does not belong here. It's simply irrelevant. You say because he did something with computers once - great - then we'll have obituaries about every body soon on here.

mumblemumble5 tahun yang lalu

Because at least 203 people, as of this counting, thought it was interesting enough to either submit the link or click the up arrow.

speed_spread5 tahun yang lalu

Prince Phillip invented the Internet

qshaman5 tahun yang lalu

Prince Philips owned the rigs that pre-mined the shitcoin that john2602 will sell you on signal.

akmarinov5 tahun yang lalu

And co-founded Tesla.

s_dev5 tahun yang lalu

Hacker News is a forum for anything of interest to nerds. It doesn't have to be technical or scientific or academic.

The death of a royal may be of interest to nerds.

brudgers5 tahun yang lalu

The criterion is “intellectually interesting.”

Jenz5 tahun yang lalu

More out of curiosity than judgement; why is this on HN?

ghaff5 tahun yang lalu

Apparently mostly to be a lightning rod for people to rant about the British monarchy and get flagged in the process. Threads like these have a certain car wreck quality in that it's hard to look away but you really shouldn't expect much of quality,

ggm5 tahun yang lalu

He has a tenuous link to computing. He visited Edinburgh's department of computer science in the early sixties not that long after it opened (the BBC used a different department doorway to the entry in Buccleuch Place because the front door was too shabby) and he and the queen had email boxes from pre-internet British telecommunications before it was cool on prestel.

He served on British warships and almost certainly used analogue computers to do fire calculations for the big ships guns.

wombatmobile5 tahun yang lalu

> More out of curiosity than judgement; why is this on HN?

Maybe because in human networks monarchy is one of the major legacy operating systems?

corobo5 tahun yang lalu

I got into computers while skiving off during Duke of Edinburgh awards periods in school if that helps any

jiriknesl5 tahun yang lalu

Maybe there are lots of people from the UK here.

iso16315 tahun yang lalu

The biggest impact is that all TV and radio shows are cancelled for the forseeable.

Will be interesting how it's dealt with due to covid. Will be especially interesting in Northern Ireland, which is currently inflames because of the fallout from a funeral for a republican figure which had many people attending it in breach of lockdown rules, but with no police action (which, combined with Boris's Border, has led to a narrative of "the other side {republicans} are winning")

arp2425 tahun yang lalu

> The biggest impact is that all TV and radio shows are cancelled for the forseeable.

Indeed, 12-year old me found this the worst part of Diana dying: all the cartoons in the morning were pre-empted! I was looking forward to watching Pinky & The Brain :-(

bb1235 tahun yang lalu

Eh? I'm watching TV in the UK right now. Nothing is cancelled.

iso16315 tahun yang lalu

BBC One, Two, ITV and I think channel 5 all have stuff on

But yes, channel 4 does look like some trashy auction show

cameronh905 tahun yang lalu

Switch to the BBC.

[deleted]5 tahun yang lalu

ed_elliott_asc5 tahun yang lalu

I guess if it doesn’t belong here then it will be off the front page soon enough

sturza5 tahun yang lalu

aaaand it’s gone

davidcollantes5 tahun yang lalu

We are a diverse bunch.

swilliamsio5 tahun yang lalu

Though not everything on HN is tech related, you could argue Prince Philip was a bit of a tech icon as this article did: "Prince Philip, inadvertent father of the Computer Misuse Act, dies aged 99" https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/09/prince_philip_obituar...

criddell5 tahun yang lalu

It was upvoted often enough and quickly enough that the algorithm put it on the front page. Prince Philip is a public figure of some prominence, so I'm guessing the people who run the site (dang and maybe others?) let it be unless the comments turn to shit.

I, for one, am glad that it has lasted this long. I've learned a bunch of new things and added a book to my reading list.

gadders5 tahun yang lalu

A lot of people in the UK and Commonwealth have a link with the Duke of Edinburgh via the awards scheme that teenagers undertake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Duke_of_Edinburgh%27s_Awar...

cblconfederate5 tahun yang lalu

I guess he was an influencer? Or maybe he got hacked, one of the two

S53Vflnr4n5 tahun yang lalu

(1)

dcminter5 tahun yang lalu

(1)

krapp5 tahun yang lalu

I don't know. I'm opposed to obituary threads on principle but at least some of them lead to interesting discussions about the era and field the person lived and worked in.

There's a reason celebrity and mainstream stories are off topic unless they present evidence of a new and interesting phenomenon that sparks intellectual curiosity - discussions tend to wallow in maudlin sentimentality, political snark or pop culture nonsense otherwise. A person's death alone, while unfortunate, doesn't meet the quality bar.

tazjin5 tahun yang lalu

See also: https://royal.uk

ta202104055 tahun yang lalu

Truly end of an era. Imagine the things that have come to life in the century that he was alive. Transistors, home air conditioning, laptops/PCs, jet engines...

calltrak5 tahun yang lalu

andred145 tahun yang lalu

controlweather5 tahun yang lalu

atc5 tahun yang lalu

arminiusreturns5 tahun yang lalu

I wonder if he will get to be reincarnated as a deadly virus that contributes to the "overpopulation problem" like he wished. (yes, for real)

I find the many servile and naive responses here really quite pathetic. The man was evil both personally and as part of the structure of the monarchy. I understand that many simply don't know about his history, either as outsiders with a strange fascination with royalty but only at a superficial level (as many Americans confusingly are), or as part of a learned and willful ignorance required to be modern monarchist.

Jimmy Saville was a good friend of his, just as one in a myriad of examples. At least two of his sons have a reputation as of the same inclinations as Saville. This only scratches the surface.

While I hesitated to say this, as gloating over the death of even an enemy I find rather unbecoming and crude, but lets not make any mistake such people and institutions deserve no sympathy, as they have presided over horrors that would boggle the mind.

On the topic of monarchy, I'm mostly with Diderot that mankind will not be free till the last king is hung with the guts of the last priest...

cryptica5 tahun yang lalu

How is the monarchy more evil than the current corporate oligopoly? The latter does far more damage to society.

Ericson23145 tahun yang lalu

I might not be more evil, but the monarchy is he linchpin upon which Britain's immense woes with social class rest.

arminiusreturns5 tahun yang lalu

Dont fool yourself, the monarchy and capitalism are hand in glove, and not in opposition...

nprateem5 tahun yang lalu

Let's not forget he was (allegedly) famously racist

Rule355 tahun yang lalu

Did he ... do anything ... that is racist? Like, ban blue people from medical service? Refuse to play Foxes and Hounds with green people?

Because then you wouldn't have to say allegedly.

DanBC5 tahun yang lalu

He's dead, and so you don't need to say allegedly, because dead people can't sue for defamation.

5334745 tahun yang lalu

99 years of tax subsidies, he surely had a good life without many regrets. It's beyond my comprehension why humans still keep these hereditary regimes, constitutional or absolutist, alive

dang5 tahun yang lalu

Please don't take HN threads into predictable flamewar. It's tedious and not what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

toiletfuneral5 tahun yang lalu

Honest question Dang, why is it ‘flame war’ to denounce racist monarchs?

dang5 tahun yang lalu

That sounds more like a loaded question than an honest one, but here you go: generic ideology plus repetitive indignation equals flamewar. Other things equal flamewar too, but that's a big one. 10x for shallow one-liners.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

yardstick5 tahun yang lalu

They are just figureheads these days. No role in politics aside from ceremonial.

They draw in crowds of tourists to the UK, and they aren’t that expensive to maintain.

Their £67m yearly grant[1] works out to about £1/year per person in the UK. That’s pretty cheap for a fantastic PR service. Yes there is probably added costs on top like police/security but overall/net they don’t feel like a massive burden on the finances. Maybe £5-10/pp in the UK? (Just me guessing!)

1. https://britishheritage.com/royals/royal-family-cost-british...

nprateem5 tahun yang lalu

That and the (alleged) billions they apparently don't want you to know about

> No role in politics aside from ceremonial.

Except when it comes to defending their interests. Remember that the 'spider memos' now can't be revealed under FOI requests, for one example?

(The Guardian have been covering Queen's Consent recently which should shatter any illusions that they aren't involved in politics)

pseudalopex5 tahun yang lalu

The French Republic is the number 1 tourist destination in the world. The UK is number 10 with less than half as many visitors. The only other monarchies in the top 10 are Spain and Thailand.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings

yardstick5 tahun yang lalu

So what you are saying is without the monarchy more or less people would visit the UK?

London hosts more visitors than Paris[1], although France overall hosts more visitors than the UK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_internatio...

pseudalopex5 tahun yang lalu

I'm saying the implication the royals are important to tourism should be quantified and supported.

The city statistics include business travel. And I don't know what point you're trying to make with them.

yardstick5 tahun yang lalu

The royals appear to be net contributors to the economy.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-fea...

pseudalopex5 tahun yang lalu

> Viewed from that perspective, the additional royal-related revenues start to look somewhat trivial.

> Moreover, we should treat even estimates of economic activity linked to the royals with a large dash of scepticism.

> The economic boost from visits and festivities related to royal celebrations should certainly be treated with caution given these can displace economic activity as well as create it.

> In the end, the question of whether the Royal Family is worth it, or not, is probably less a financial question than a political, moral and aesthetic one.

ceilingcorner5 tahun yang lalu

Because not everyone thinks that Americanism or forced-Americanism is the absolute best form of government. Comparing the history of France to England should make it obvious that a monarchy often checks out of control populism.

sweezyjeezy5 tahun yang lalu

Because a lot of people get enjoyment from it (e.g. my mum), and removing it wouldn't save much money.

sleavey5 tahun yang lalu

It perpetuates the idea that you cannot rise beyond the class you're born into; indeed also that class still exists and still commands respect.

parenthesis5 tahun yang lalu

Sting, "Dressed in his Sunday best and brandishing a union jack, … waved to [The Queen Mother] as she passed in her black Rolls Royce and she looked straight at him and waved back, he remembers.

"That was when I got infected. That was when I thought: "I don't want this life: I want that one. Once I'd found a guitar to play I found a friend to help me get there," he told the Guardian.

Quoting from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/10306480/Stin...

shard5 tahun yang lalu

Even without a monarchy, society can self-organize into self-perpetuating classes. See "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System" by Paul Fussell.

api5 tahun yang lalu

As an American I've spoken with a number of other Americans who have worked in the UK and are shocked by how strong the notion of class still is.

Example: I know an engineer and process optimization (six sigma) expert who worked with a major US aerospace manufacturer that had operations in the UK. He observed that in the UK the management and much of engineering was from elite UK schools like Oxford and Cambridge, and that these people basically refused to mix with the regular shop floor folks. He had to drag these upper crust UK people kicking and screaming into donning proper gear and walking out onto the shop floor to look at shit. In the US he hasn't encountered nearly as much implicit classism, though there still is a little. The US has its own elite university system but he says it's nowhere near as powerful as in the UK and its strength diminishes (in the US) as you move West.

I can attest to the latter point. I have lived in Cincinnati, Boston, Asheville (NC), California, and now I'm back in Cincinnati. The further you get from "BosNyWash" (the Eastern Seaboard) the less often anyone ever asks where you went to school. In Boston it's the first question, and I got the sense there that if you didn't go to a top-ten school there was a ceiling for your career. In California I was never asked about where I went to school in eight years of working and living there. I've only rarely been asked in Cincinnati and NC and it's mostly about "where are you from?" than class distinction.

Edit: this is in-re a peer of the parent post but it wouldn't let me post it so here it is... thought it was interesting enough to copy/paste here.

A friend who went to Harvard in the USA once told me that the #1 thing he got from Harvard was "permission" to excel. "At Harvard they tell you you're the best, so you try to be the best." That stuck with me.

Search for research on social self-limitation. There have been some interesting experiments, like putting A students in a class and telling the teacher they're C students and vice versa. Hint: the students tend to conform to expectations.

This is part of why I am so skeptical of people who try to put too much weight on IQ and draw vast conclusions from it. IQ is a mushy psychometric number with a lot of variance within the same person, not a hard physical measurement like mass or distance. It's also why I am open to ideas like "internalization of oppression" and the idea that eliminating discriminatory rhetoric from society might help people who have been historically told they're inferior. When someone is told they're inferior, maybe they believe it and act accordingly?

Lastly I have this weird speculation that this may be a reason that psychopathic personality types often rise to great heights (if they don't end up in jail). A side effect of their antisocial nature may be that they do not self-limit. No idea how you'd test that, but I wonder about it. Same goes for some high-functioning autistic types.

throw0101a5 tahun yang lalu

> It's beyond my comprehension why humans still keep these hereditary regimes, constitutional or absolutist, alive

7 of the Top 10 democracies are constitutional monarchies:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#By_country

As a Canadian, I have no particular issue about getting rid of the monarchy, but anyone pushing for that will have to demonstrate that the new system will keep us in the Top 5 (or at least 10).

mclightning5 tahun yang lalu

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

throw0101a5 tahun yang lalu

Canada is already democratic: we regularly vote in municipal, provincial, and federal elections.

What exactly would be improved by removing the Crown?

mclightning5 tahun yang lalu

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

MattGaiser5 tahun yang lalu

At least in Canada, it will cause a constitutional crisis as all provinces would need to agree.

pwillia75 tahun yang lalu

Because we need myths, stories and institutions to keep alive and have everyone agree on the 'legends' we've made up in the world. https://erenow.net/common/sapiensbriefhistory/8.php

zokier5 tahun yang lalu

I suspect big reason is that untangling the mess that is the personal/private dynasty of Windsors, the Crown, and the State is far too much more trouble than keeping the status quo. We are kinda past the times when we could have just heads roll, and lands and castles seized.

cjblomqvist5 tahun yang lalu

PR. At least that's the message that's conveyed in Sweden. (and according to those messages, perhaps even studies(?), it apparently pays off in spades, at least in Sweden)

cryptica5 tahun yang lalu

What is the difference between being born lucky versus getting lucky later in life? Name one millionaire who didn't get lucky. The only way to earn that kind of money is luck... They all received special treatment.

Unless you're advocating for the abolition of capitalism as a whole... But then you should focus your criticisms on the rich in general.

msla5 tahun yang lalu

In the words of the eminent philosopher Johnny Rotten, "'cause tourists are money"; there's nothing quite like a royal family to provide high-class galas and tabloid fodder.

PicassoCTs5 tahun yang lalu

Cause we are tribal creatures, and having a powerless pro-forma chieftain, prevents other totalitarian chief-tains to go for a easy power grab.

jacquesm5 tahun yang lalu

Seconded. We have a bunch like that here in NL.

nabla95 tahun yang lalu

It served a purpose once. Constitutional monarchy was peaceful way to move from brutal inherited caste system into democracy.

Imagine the same path today. Kim Dynasty in North Korea could turn into constitutional hood ornaments gradually. Or Chinese Communist party would become the House of Lords. 100 years from now people wold admire them just like they do royals now.

sktrdie5 tahun yang lalu

RIP but how's this Hacker News related?

toiletfuneral5 tahun yang lalu

(1)

Markoff5 tahun yang lalu

swen-rekcah5 tahun yang lalu

(1)

utxaa5 tahun yang lalu

(1)

oraphalous5 tahun yang lalu

(1)

celticninja5 tahun yang lalu

(1)

Graffur5 tahun yang lalu

donohoe5 tahun yang lalu

(3)

thiago_fm5 tahun yang lalu

(4)

S53Vflnr4n5 tahun yang lalu

1cvmask5 tahun yang lalu

(4)

oblio5 tahun yang lalu

I imagine the next few years will be quite interesting for the British monarchy.

celticninja5 tahun yang lalu

It will only really get interesting after the Queen kicks the bucket. For most non monarchists she isn't a bad sort to be in charge. The rest of them are a shower of shites.

zpeti5 tahun yang lalu

An interesting perspective I've heard is that she should have been more political in a few extreme cases. She is the head of state and her actual job should be to bring left and right together in the very controversial, almost unsolvable issues, and get them sorted out.

She should really be like a couples therapist for political leaders.

She never did this. She always stayed out of politics.

philistine5 tahun yang lalu

I argue that because she focused so hard on being seen positively that she hurt the monarchy in the long run. Her son has nowhere to go but down. She also forced the British Supreme Court to invent the idea that advice given to her can be unlawful, and did not stay out of politics as you said: she was laser-focused on making sure her privileges and money didn’t get touched by denying Queen’s consent. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

She didn’t want to have to wear seatbelts on public roads passing through her property. That’s being involved in politics; it’s just the public didn’t know about it.

sgt1015 tahun yang lalu

"She didn’t want to have to wear seatbelts on public roads passing through her property."

If this is your idea of a political issue then I strongly recommend the reading of newspapers and engagement with local institutions.

Also, I am of "the public" and I knew, due to reading Private Eye which had reported on all this repeatedly for the last 10 or more years.

philistine5 tahun yang lalu

I gave a really stupid sounding example. How about the denial of rights to long-term leasers on her duchies?

Oh and maybe don't attack my character. My ideas can be vilified, but you don't know what I know or don't.

DanBC5 tahun yang lalu

She didn't have to wear seatbelts on public roads through her property. The Queen cannot be prosecuted in England.

myrandomcomment5 tahun yang lalu

She also does not need a drivers license, etc. as they are all issued in her name.

dghf5 tahun yang lalu

> She also forced the British Supreme Court to invent the idea that advice given to her can be unlawful

How did she do that?

jen205 tahun yang lalu

I imagine this is a reference to Jacob Rees-Mogg lying to the Queen [1] about the prorogation of parliament in order to prevent effective debate or scrutiny about Brexit proceedings.

[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49810261

dghf5 tahun yang lalu

I guessed that was the context, but I didn't understand how the Queen "forced" the Supreme Court to rule in that way.

mattowen_uk5 tahun yang lalu

There's a reason for this, I'm a bit vague on the details, but when Parliament took control of the country from Charles II, one of the agreements was that the monarch would keep out of political affairs.

blackshaw5 tahun yang lalu

It's not just about the constitutional precedent - it's a strategy the monarchy follows for its own survival. Politics is by definition divisive; if the Queen publicly takes a side on the issues of the day she'll alienate half the country, which is a surefire way to hasten the demise of the monarchy. She's free to have her private political opinions, but it's very much against her interests to express them.

dghf5 tahun yang lalu

It went on quite a bit longer than that. In 1834, William IV sacked a prime minister for purely political reasons. His successor, Victoria, was probably the UK's first constitutional monarch in the modern sense.

marshmallow_125 tahun yang lalu

i understand victoria did the same. She was a pretty powerful monarch. Maybe even more so than her predecessors.

sgt1015 tahun yang lalu

Well, it was Charles I, it was done with an Axe, and then there was a complicated tooing and froing for a long while until about 1918 when universal suffrage finally came in.

dghf5 tahun yang lalu

> about 1918 when universal suffrage finally came in.

It was 1928.

iso16315 tahun yang lalu

Yes, 1918 allowed some women to vote -- over 30, and property owners (or married to such). In 1918 all men over 21 could vote.

1928 equalised it to everyone over 21

sgt1015 tahun yang lalu

1928 is what I should have written.

iso16315 tahun yang lalu

Most people think "1918" as that was the first time some women were allowed to vote, and later in the year they were allowed to stand for parliament (and Nancy Astor did so in 1919)

Like most things, Suffrage was a scale - before 1835 most men didn't have a vote either, working men got it in 1867, 1918 all men over 21 and property holding women over 30 got the vote, in 1928 all women over 21 and in 1969 everyone over 18. In devloved areas like Scotland suffrage is even lower (16).

Unlike in the US I don't think it's ever regressed

dghf5 tahun yang lalu

> In devloved areas like Scotland suffrage is even lower (16)

Only for certain elections -- local and Scottish parliamentary. You still have to be 18 to vote in elections for Westminster; the same was true of European elections when they were still a thing in the UK.

iso16315 tahun yang lalu

True, I think all of Scotland's elections (aside from Westminster) are relative and democratic too unlike in England

chongli5 tahun yang lalu

Yeah. She dedicated her life to her own likability. A never-ending schedule of official state visits and wreath-layings. Venturing into politics would have pissed off a lot of her fanbase.

zo15 tahun yang lalu

It would have also "forced the issue" of whether or not people want her to have and exercise the power she currently has "on paper". If she were to impose her will and use her power on some sort contentious issue, she may well end up forcing the country/government/people to take the power away from the monarchy entirely.

nmeofthestate5 tahun yang lalu

She's always stayed out of politics, apart from when she "stays constitutionally impartial" wink wink

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29200...

jariel5 tahun yang lalu

"her actual job should be to bring left and right together in the very controversial, almost unsolvable issues, and get them sorted out."

No, definitely not 'bring together'. It's 'stay above'.

Even 'mediating' is 'interference'.

mFixman5 tahun yang lalu

Can you think of a single case where this is true?

King George VI publicly praised Chamberlain for appeasing Hitler and apparently preventing another world war. I'd be wary of making _any_ public statement of that sort as a royal with that kind of precedent.

Eliezer5 tahun yang lalu

People underestimate how much of an honest, plausible mistake this can be if you've lived through World War 1 but not World War 2.

sgt1015 tahun yang lalu

Also Edward VIII was pretty controversial as a political figure. I think that this may have framed The Queens engagement with public life.

hnlmorg5 tahun yang lalu

In fairness, even many in the German military believed Chamberlain and Hitler had reached an agreement too. What happened at that time was exceptional to say the least -- I can't see many people holding current royals accountable to such a precedent.

zpeti5 tahun yang lalu

Didn't know that, thanks. Great point.

bidirectional5 tahun yang lalu

It should be noted that the 'staying out of politics' is a public phenomenon. In her weekly meeting with the Prime Minister, The Queen makes her political stance well known (that is the entire point of the meeting).

bengale5 tahun yang lalu

It feels like the better way to do it tbh. The PM gets the benefit of her experience without having the media use her words to beat him with if he choses a different direction.

Balero5 tahun yang lalu

Or a better way for a very wealthy person with far more power and influence than the average person to, in secret, lobby the leader of the government.

Frankly I would rather have this lobbying out in the open where it can be held accountable.

zepto5 tahun yang lalu

“A very wealthy person” is a weird way to reduce her to nothing.

She is also the only person in the world who has the experience of a weekly conversation with the last 14 prime ministers of Britain. She is the embodiment of the state’s institutional memory.

iso16315 tahun yang lalu

Those secret lobbying meetings with rich and powerful people happen regardless. Compared with most lobbyists the Queen doesn't have power.

bengale5 tahun yang lalu

She’s not just a very wealthy person, she’s our monarch. You can obviously argue the system could be different/better but it’s not, and there is no appetite here to change it. That being the case I think her keeping her political views between the PM and herself is the better way to do it.

gadders5 tahun yang lalu

She's worked with 14 prime ministers, starting with Winston Churchill and going downhill from there. She might know a thing or two.

jen205 tahun yang lalu

> going downhill from there

While the office may have had consecutive local minima, one would be hard pushed to suggest Major, Blair or even Brown - were "downhill" from Callaghan.

gadders5 tahun yang lalu

No, but I was more suggesting that they are all downhill relative Churchill. I'm not implying it's a smooth slope.

arethuza5 tahun yang lalu

She got on rather well with Harold Wilson.

TheOtherHobbes5 tahun yang lalu

The Queen holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister. It's unlikely they make chitchat about the weather.

The monarch also vets laws while they're being drafted and can make suggestions for changes if they affect their interests.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

The Queen isn't just the head of the armed forces - they swear an oath of loyalty directly to the Monarch, not to the people or the country as a whole - she's also one of the richest people in the world, running an organisation with centuries of experience in internal diplomacy, impression management, and PR.

So it's a complete myth that the monarchy is apolitical. The monarchy is the centre around which the (antiquated) British political system revolves.

Angostura5 tahun yang lalu

The Queen is the disabled root user of the constitution. The government are the sudoers.

She doesn’t get to ‘vet’ laws in any meaningful way. She rubber-stamps them. The fact that the armed forces swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen is simply because she is head of state.

Nothing in your comment actually demonstrates politicality.

icegreentea25 tahun yang lalu

The link OP posted is talking about a different process ("Queen's Consent") from the publicly known rubber stamping process ("royal assent").

Queen's Consent happens before parliament votes, and details on what actions occurred (other than the number that were screened) are not known. The lack of knowledge, combined with the pattern of laws she has screened provide the space for making the inference that the Queen may have actively lobbied or modified laws for some purpose. What the purpose is (actively politically, or merely "self-serving") is unknown.

lambada5 tahun yang lalu

If you had read the article the parent comment linked you would know she does actually get some say in how some laws are drafted. She doesn’t, practically, have a veto once both houses of parliament have approved the law but she is sometimes consulted by the government on laws it is drafting to submit to parliament and she does make suggestions that are sometimes incorporated

rangibaby5 tahun yang lalu

The crown is just a rubber stamp, until it’s not, like in the Australian constitutional crisis

blackshaw5 tahun yang lalu

Link for the lazy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...

MichaelMoser1235 tahun yang lalu

but she can't actually use her root privileges too much, like start/stop too many processes (or say anything about brexit)

alistairSH5 tahun yang lalu

The Queen isn't just the head of the armed forces - they swear an oath of loyalty directly to the Monarch...

Interestingly (to me, anyways) is the oath is made directly to Queen Elizabeth by name, not to the crown in general. And isn't made by officers in the Royal Navy, because the navy wasn't created by act of Parliament, but by royal prerogative, so their fealty is assumed.

EliRivers5 tahun yang lalu

I certainly never gave any such oath when I joined (navy), but I've got a feeling the new joiners these days do declare some kind of oath. Might have signed the official secrets act but I bet they've long since lost it; the paperwork was all over the place at that time.

Not that the oath is needed, obviously. If BoJo (or any other such government apparatchik) told me to do something I'd tell him to shove it; if HRH issued a lawful order, well, fair enough your Majesty, I'll see what I can do. Had lunch with her back in 2003 or thereabouts, and a free lunch is always welcome.

speed_spread5 tahun yang lalu

That's very the definition of a regent: no institution is above it. The current Queen of England _is_ the crown. They are one and the same.

tialaramex5 tahun yang lalu

Liz isn't the Crown. This principle was established long ago when one of her predecessors was tried, found guilty, and executed, for treason. It would obviously be impossible for the Crown to commit treason, but the monarch is just a person, and people do crimes.

Also far from no institution being "above" it the Parliament is sovereign and so it can, and has, dissolved the monarchy entirely if it wants to. The reason the UK has a monarchy today is that parliament decided it didn't like it better without one (puritans suck, basically they hate fun, if you're American you may have noticed this already)

myrandomcomment5 tahun yang lalu

It is worth noting that when the Queen passes, parliament will be called back in to session, if it is not already, and each minister will retake their oath swearing allegiance to the new King.

elliekelly5 tahun yang lalu

> [T]he oath is made directly to Queen Elizabeth by name, not to the crown in general.

So when a monarch dies does everyone in the armed forces take a new oath?

alistairSH5 tahun yang lalu

The actual oath is something like "I swear ... to Queen Elizabeth, and her heirs, ..."

I ASSuMEd the oath would more like "I swear ... to the Crown ..."

But, if the Queen is in fact the Crown (as stated by a different response), then I suppose it's a distinction without a difference.

alistairSH5 tahun yang lalu

Not sure why the downvotes, the actual oath is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kin...

I don't think I misrepresented it in any way.

PraetorianGourd5 tahun yang lalu

You are getting down-voted, most likely, because of your "ASSuMEd" comment. It doesn't add to the conversation and detracts from what you were saying.

andrepd5 tahun yang lalu

You don't even need to go into secret meetings. In her public speeches at parliament she interferes and sets a direction for her government (it's hers, not ours). Like calling for more and continued austerity amid the crisis, I don't call that being apolitical (also the irony of calling for austerity from a golden throne shouldn't be lost oje anyone).

steve_gh5 tahun yang lalu

The only speech the Queen makes in Parliament is "The Queen's Speech" at teh State Opening of Parliament. In it she set's out the Government's Agenda for the next session of Parliament.

It's written by the Government; she reads it out. She has no part in its preparation.

mnw21cam5 tahun yang lalu

You know that particular speech is written for her by the government, don't you?

nicky05 tahun yang lalu

vixen995 tahun yang lalu

The monarch can certainly make suggestions regarding laws but so can any of the 600+ members of parliament and indeed countless other people in power while Prime Ministers have strong personalities and minds of their own.

As to her riches, we might note that unlike some of the very richest people on the planet the Queen has no power and seemingly no inclination to use her wealth as a powerful tool to censor publicly expressed views. It's certainly arguable that in an ideal society, a monarchy is an anachronism but that's hardly the situation we're in. Presidential systems are not without their critics.

Seems to be an open question as to whether the 'centuries of experience in internal diplomacy, impression management, and PR' (of the monarchy) are working to their advantage. The word antiquated is perjorative but it can also refer to a protocol that prevails via adaptation. The Brits will see and decide for themselves if it does.

parenthesis5 tahun yang lalu

The stories the Queen could tell, if only she could, from fourteen prime ministers and countless heads of state …

iso16315 tahun yang lalu

I quite like modern day Harry - he seems to have managed to get rid of his upbringing fairly well

marshmallow_125 tahun yang lalu

i think prince william has potential. I'm actually quite excited to see what he will get up to

akmarinov5 tahun yang lalu

I think there was some sentiment as to migrating Canada away from officially being tied to the British crown, even though it's all ceremonial, but they were waiting on Elizabeth to pass on out of respect.

Not sure what the support for that is in Canada.

thefringthing5 tahun yang lalu

Support for abolition of the monarchy is about 53% in Canada, but because of the situation with Quebec, Canada's constitution is effectively impossible to amend, which makes the logistics of becoming a republic pretty daunting.

akmarinov5 tahun yang lalu

Interesting, what's the situation with Quebec?

oblio5 tahun yang lalu

Quebec would very much want to not be a part of Canada, so I imagine that's a big roadblock for any big changes in Canada :-)

cblconfederate5 tahun yang lalu

Years? tabloids will be on fire in the funeral

bigbillheck5 tahun yang lalu

If he does get re-incarnated, let's hope he doesn't get his wish to 'return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.'

samstave5 tahun yang lalu

Isn't it funny that every single person who laments overpopulation never considers themselves to be a part of the problem, and thus, this is why they aren't committing suicide in droves.

bigbillheck5 tahun yang lalu

The dude had four children! That's exactly how you get overpopulation.

rgt945 tahun yang lalu

Why these rich people live so long?

jermaustin15 tahun yang lalu

Money buys a lot of health care, so does royalty. If you combine them, you can get a lot of years added onto your life.

owenmcfadzen5 tahun yang lalu

Let us remember some of his grace:

“If you stay here much longer, you’ll all be slitty-eyed.” (to British students in China, during the 1986 state visit)

“I declare this thing open, whatever it is.” (on a visit to Canada in 1969)

“I hope he breaks his bloody neck.” (when a photographer covering a royal visit to India fell out of a tree)

“Do you still throw spears at each other?” (in Australia in 2002, talking to a successful Indigenous Australian entrepreneur)

“Where did you get that hat?” (supposedly to the Queen at her coronation)

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/04/prince-phili...

k_sze5 tahun yang lalu

“If it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane, and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it.” (at a 1986 World Wildlife Fund meeting)

I really should be offended by this, but... XD

celticninja5 tahun yang lalu

Well its not far off the mark today, let alone 3 decades ago.

eis5 tahun yang lalu

So supposedly they're eating tables, angels and boats? :)

ed_elliott_asc5 tahun yang lalu

Also when he visited a driving school in Scotland and asked how they kept the natives away from alcohol long enough to team them

JUNGLEISMASSIVE5 tahun yang lalu

That is almost certainly banter.

Hamuko5 tahun yang lalu

As a Finnish person, I can appreciate the straightforwardness.

Redoubts5 tahun yang lalu

Sorry, could you explain what’s straightforward about the first quote?

Hamuko5 tahun yang lalu

Mostly the racism.

b1125 tahun yang lalu

Was curious as to the 'whatever' it was, took a bit of Googling, so:

http://bytesdaily.blogspot.com/2010/05/quote-prince-philip.h...

ephextom5 tahun yang lalu

The full context of the "spears" comment in Australia:

"[Prince Philip and the Queen] were coming down the [cable car] and we were putting on a special performance," Warren Clements recalled.

"We had royal fever so we said 'Let's go out the back and throw some boomerangs and spears and hopefully we'll get a glimpse of them as they come down'.

"They waved and we were showing off. I think Prince Philip took that in and that's why he said it.

"He's been taken out of context."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-03/prince-philip-was-not...

sesuximo5 tahun yang lalu

He lives 99 years. Most of it in the public’s eye and lots of it in an era where once common ideas are now considered abhorrent. Seems unsurprising to find these quotes and uninteresting to post them

kwonkicker5 tahun yang lalu

Cant argue with almost any of it. I said almost (for legal reasons)

Hasnep5 tahun yang lalu

Sorry, are you saying he was right to say those things?

[deleted]5 tahun yang lalu

JUNGLEISMASSIVE5 tahun yang lalu

I'm playing the Devil's advocate here, but these seem like instances of dark British humour being delivered in the traditional deadpan fashion - the humour being in the absurdity of someone keeping a straight face while saying something obviously inane or offensive.

It doesn't translate at all across cultures.

maybeOneDay5 tahun yang lalu

I can see that argument for some of them, but if anyone said the slitty eyed or spear throwing comments to me and then tried to pass it off as "it's just british humour mate" I'd laugh in their face.

samizdis5 tahun yang lalu

Quite so, and you'd be right to. But Prince Philip also came out with some decent quotes - some arguably typical British humour and some others just his thoughts:

- I would like to go to Russia very much — although the bastards murdered half my family.

- Dontopedalogy is the science of opening your mouth and putting your foot in it, which I've practised for many years.

- You're just a silly little Whitehall [civil service] twit: you don't trust me and I don't trust you.

- I don't care what kind it is, just get me a beer.

- So you are the people tearing down the Brazilian rainforest and breeding cattle. [This was when he was a figurehead for the WWF.]

- Anyone who is concerned about his dignity would be well advised to keep away from horses.

Anyhow, it is a shame to lose an entertaining tradition. Also a shame to lose someone with such character from the royal family. Only Princess Anne has the same outspoken, blunt manner and a penchant for the odd swearword.

sloaken5 tahun yang lalu

You had me at: >- I don't care what kind it is, just get me a beer.

celticninja5 tahun yang lalu

Oh some of it is definitely colonialism inspired racism. I just find it weird how OP grouped what are certainly jokes in with the rest.

nmca5 tahun yang lalu

Now seems as good a moment as any to raise a proposal for the UK's adoption of constitutional necro-monarchy. We ought to declare, as a matter of principle and beyond all dispute, that Queen Elizabeth is alive and well, if unfortunately unavailable at the moment. Keep her on the money; politely decline to comment on any foolish concern for her health and certainly cut off and disparage any efforts from the more recent cohort of royals to take over her sacred position.

Simple reasons that this is an excellent idea:

1. Maintain tourist interest, as necro-monarchy is more interesting than monarchy.

2. Reduce ongoing operational costs.

3. Avoid expensive re-printing of money and any state funeral for Elizabeth (who is, clearly, going to be alive and well for all time)

4. Sidesteps any need for a formal declaration of republic, or dispute with royalists (who hopefully wouldn't be so foolish to disparage the health of the queen, who is alive and well).

opwieurposiu5 tahun yang lalu

This is such a bizarre idea, I love it. It reminds me of how Lenin still holds court and receives visitors at his Tomb on the Red Square.

bigbillheck5 tahun yang lalu

I'm not sure that this is an accurate description of the situation.

jtmlis5 tahun yang lalu

Yay!

jariel5 tahun yang lalu

He was funnier than most comedians.

gorgoiler5 tahun yang lalu

Sixty five years as the husband of the head of state of a G7, nuclear armed nation, that brought the world Thatcherite individualism and the first cracks in the EU.

Philip, like it or not, wielded influence and power beyond his constitutional station. One doesn’t have to like him, but one should respect him.

andrepd5 tahun yang lalu

Wow, why should I respect that this unelected aristocrat "wielded great influence beyond his station"?

dopamean5 tahun yang lalu

I'm with you on this. I see no reason to respect someone simply because they may have had a significant impact on something because of his birthright.

stareatgoats5 tahun yang lalu

No reason, except you might consider waiting a little before exuding the full extent of your contempt however. People with close ties (real or imagined) are in mourning and might not fully appreciate your insights at this moment, and will react emotionally to your opinions. It's been this way since time immemorial.

But fret not, the hunting season will be back on in just a few days.

phantomathkg5 tahun yang lalu

Compare to other unelected autocrat around the world? The house of Windsor earn their respect by being modest.

greedo5 tahun yang lalu

I think "modest" in conjunction with royalty is inherently in conflict.

toomanybeersies5 tahun yang lalu

When you're of Royal Stock, it's not modesty, but normalcy.

Compared to the braggadocio of many tinpot dictators, I can't think of any particularly immodest European royals. Outside of the countries they rule, are any other royal families even particularly famous? Would the average American or European know who the King of Spain, or the Queen of Denmark is?

pdpi5 tahun yang lalu

Respect here doesn’t mean admire. It means you shouldn’t underestimate or treat dismissively. The way you respect an opponent (though you might also admire them)

gorgoiler5 tahun yang lalu

Frankly, because Philip — and especially with Elizabeth — was important.

On the day of my death I would hope that, no matter how much people disagreed with me or what I represented, the fact that I was important to someone is shown some respect.

zokier5 tahun yang lalu

Can you give some examples how the late Prince wielded influence and power? I don't remember him playing any significant role in history, but then I haven't really been looking that closely either.

LordAtlas5 tahun yang lalu

> One doesn’t have to like him, but one should respect him.

I'll pass, thank you.

I have no respect for a racist AF person: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/8/13/the-priceless-r...

There are other failings too; his image has been carefully managed with skilled PR.

That I am a citizen of a country that his country once subjugated might make me a little salty towards the monarchy in general.

bigbillheck5 tahun yang lalu

I do not, under any circumstances, "gotta hand it to him".

samstave5 tahun yang lalu

That's gunna be a 'no' from me, dawg.

neuronic5 tahun yang lalu

(2)

[deleted]5 tahun yang lalu

naurupatel5 tahun yang lalu

Do dukes do anything? Why do we care enough to post this news here?

PUFFhPhEHo5 tahun yang lalu

A sad day for the Queen. Not only has she lost her husband but also her 3rd cousin.

[deleted]5 tahun yang lalu