Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnulinux | Hacker News Reader

> People like to make out her life was easy and that it's not fair that she inherited such a privileged position, but I think the exact opposite. Her life seemed like living hell to me. Every day for the last 70 years she's had to serve this largely ungrateful country, and she did so without complaint. Even in her 90s she took her duties extremely seriously, and I respect the hell out of her for that.

She wasn't doing it from the kindness of her heart. This was her job, she was obscenely rich off of taxpayer money and she could retire any second she wanted to. You make it sound like she was sentenced to sign paperwork for her entire life, when the reality is she consciously chose to do so every day and in exchange she and her family was granted an immense wealth. It's not even remotely something that would warrant complaint. I'm not saying this to be snarky, just pointing out that although maybe parts of her job was boring, stressful, and unfulfilling, this is what she signed up for. And her "compensation" was unimaginable amount of money and power in the form of interpersonal relations.

View on HN

> You make it sound like she was sentenced to sign paperwork for her entire life, when the reality is she consciously chose to do so every day

They are not popular concepts these days, but the ideas you're grasping for are duty and service. She did her duty and she served her people.

Also, the Royal Family is not in receipt of taxpayer money. The Sovereign Grant is funded from income generated by the Crown Estate.

The Crown Estate is not the private property of the Windsor family though. It is more akin to the wealth of a parallel state. One could speculate that in the event of the abolition of the monarchy the Crown Estate would be taken over by the government (at the very least not become Windsor family private property), in effect making it the taxpayers' property.

I think it's totally fair to feel that they have a life of immense luxury and privilege off of wealth that belongs to the people, while so many people in this country are wondering if they'll have heating this winter.

Again this is something I assume that must have been very frustrating too. She couldn’t just say “that’s not right” and intervene because that’s not within her remit in a democratic system.

I can’t begin to imagine how many times she must have had to bite her tongue over the last 73 years.

No, they actively lobbied over the years of her reign to preserve their economic benefits. They enjoyed this luxury and made attempts at preserving and expending it. Elizabeth was not a passive victim of her birth circumstances.

>Elizabeth was not a passive victim of her birth circumstances.

It's so strange that this even needs to be said out loud. It's not edgy to say that someone born into her position has benefitted from it. For a place that claims to be a meritocracy, the UK has some strangely dissonant beliefs.

Not sure who this needed to be said out loud to.

It’s not edgy to explain something everyone already knows. The royal family benefits from the taxation of UK citizens.

“For a place that claims to be a meritocracy, the UK has some strangely dissonant beliefs”

Are you.. States-splaining.. to me right now?

“Elizabeth was not a passive victim of her birth circumstances.. the UK has some strangely dissonant beliefs”.

I don’t know if you’re from the US or not, but if so this is the most ironically hypocritical thing I’ve ever read.

The Crown Estate is owned by the government, so it could be used to reduce taxes or increase spending if it weren't used to support the Royal Family. So indirectly, the money comes out of taxpayers' pockets.

My understand is that the Crown Estate is owned by the Crown, personified by the Monarch. Also, it's NOT used to fund the Monarch directly, instead all profits from the Estate go to the Treasury, which in turn pays a percentage of that back to the Monarch, for the purpose of running the Monarchy.

I'm not sure if it is in any way clearly defined what should happen to the Estate should Britain choose to become a Republic, but I suppose the actual result would be that it would be taken over completely by the government.

But _formally_ it is still considered property of the Monarch.

It's the property of the Crown, which is legally a corporation sole with the monarch as the sole 'member' of the corporation. It means, for example, that Charles gets Buckingham Palace and the crown jewels automatically by operation of law on becoming king, rather than via Elizabeth's will. A similar arrangement applies to Anglican vicars who have the freehold of their church - it's owned by 'The Vicar of Bray' rather than by Rev Smith.

It's generally understood by constitutional scholars that the Crown is essentially governmental rather than private and the Crown Estate would go with the government rather than the royal family if the assets were split up on the creation of a republic.

The Queen also had extensive private wealth, including Balmoral Castle which (unlike the royal places) was hers personally rather than as monarch. IIRC it was bought privately by either Victoria or Albert rather than via the Crown Estate. This mattered after the abdication of Edward VIII, where the property of the Crown passed to George VI as the new king, but the private possessions of Edward stayed with him. I think Balmoral and Sandringham had to be bought off him so they would stay as royal residences. Presumably most of that private wealth will be bequeathed to Charles, though we won't find out: the Queen's will is, uniquely, private by statute.

This sounds eerily like college football in the US. “It brings in money that funds other sports and university facilities so we can’t get rid of it.”

Yes and no. The assets still have much the same value without a monarch but the opportunities to monetise them would be significantly reduced.

I never bought this argument. France got rid of their royal family but the royal palaces and their art still attract millions of tourists each year.

Tourists would still want to see Buckingham Palace and visit the royal gallery even without a sitting royal family.

And without the Windsors in the way, the visitors could pay £10 to look around inside.

She didn't really "sign up" for it though. She was born into it in 1926. It's not like 2022 where she could've said "yeah, not for me, I'm moving to Santa Barbara". I don't see how she had any choice but to do what she did, and by all accounts she did it well.

What do you mean? Edward VIII abdicated in order to marry Wallis Simpson. Not to mention countless other people born into royal families not only in European kingdoms, but also kingdoms throughout the world. Yes they were (in varying degrees) pressured to respect the line of succession but if Elizabeth II wanted to retire 10 years ago she would be able to.

> What do you mean? Edward VIII abdicated in order to marry Wallis Simpson

Which was a giant diplomatic incident. It wasn't without consequence.

Everyone was actually more worried about Edward VIII not abdicating.

Was it though? What real consequence for anyone not named Windsor was there?

I've never heard of one.

Edward was among other things the most popular man on the planet, the first real global modern celebrity.

His actions among others weakened British image in the world. He was also a nazi sympatizer.

> His actions among others weakened British image in the world

I don't see how that's true at all, and I've never seen any evidence to support it. Simply asserting it does not make it true.

> He was also a nazi sympatizer

Wouldn't that make him abdicating a good thing for England?

It's not like 2022 where she could've said "yeah, not for me, I'm moving to Santa Barbara".

Plenty of monarchs have done just that including her very own uncle.

Which begs the question of why they’re all moving to Santa Barbara. It must be lovely.

It is lovely but does not beg the question.

Maybe they like Welsh experimental rock music?

And he wasn't treated very well by his family as a result either. So you're kinda choosing between your family and leaving. Not saying you should always pick family, but for a young 20 something year old girl, that can be quite the ultimatum.

Most people end up doing something or other their family disapproves of - it's not some unusual hardship of adult life that outright prevents you from doing things. In his case, being both a doofus and a bit of a Nazi cut off the possibility of future family reconciliation. I suppose there's a line even in royal families.

> It's not like 2022 where she could've said "yeah, not for me, I'm moving to Santa Barbara"

That's true, back then she'd have to move to the Bahamas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallis_Simpson#Second_World_Wa...

You think she enjoyed the trappings of wealth? I never had that impression. And no, she didn't "sign up for it", she became Queen as a result of birth. Yes, she could have abdicated but the fact that she chose duty is to her credit. She was not faultless, but it's difficult to imagine another monarch doing a better job. I say all this as an anti-monarchist. I don't want one, but if we have to have one, she was the best.

> Yes, she could have abdicated

If you can quit a job but you choose not to do so, in what sense did you not "sign up for it"? Her own uncle Edward VIII abdicated so he can marry Wallis Simpson without controversy. This has nothing to with anti-monarchism, I'm just pointing out that she was the queen only through her own free will.

>If you can quit a job but you choose not to do so, in what sense did you not "sign up for it"?

>she became Queen as a result of birth.

It is true that failing to live up to her responsibility was a path she could have chosen. She did not, and that is greatly to her credit. Choosing not to abandon your responsibility is a far cry from "signing up for it."

Her responsibility to be a rich and powerful figurehead for a colonial empire? I don't see how choosing that was to her credit. Isn't it better to value something more than your own family's power and prestige?

>Her responsibility to be a rich and powerful figurehead for a colonial empire?

Correct

>I don't see how choosing that was to her credit.

I can see that.

There's a massive difference between signing up for your dream job and being handed a responsibility with the right to abdicate it if you don't mind causing a constitutional crisis and still being stuck with the media obsessing over you.

Technically, I can take drastic action to negate things I received as an accident of birth if I don't mind getting flak for doing it, but it makes no sense at all to claim that on that basis my parents, physical appearance or manhood were all stuff I signed up for of my own free will.

If tomorrow some guy from a small remote and completely obscure island came to you and told you're the last in the royal bloodline and need to reign the SNBXIHWJ people, leave your life and everything you own to come to their survival island and sit on the throne, you'd probably give them the middle finger.

In our current world wealth and royalty is preserved by free will and is nothing comparable to your manhood (which you can also give up if you want to, people do)

> If tomorrow some guy from a small remote and completely obscure island came to you and told you're the last in the royal bloodline and need to reign the SNBXIHWJ people, leave your life and everything you own to come to their survival island and sit on the throne, you'd probably give them the middle finger.

Sure, I wouldn't necessarily be up for a lifestyle change involving playing Survivor with consonant-loving maniacs I wasn't actually related to and have never heard of before! However the Queen's situation is the exact opposite: she had a life built around being heir to the throne and whilst it was technically possible to give the middle finger to everyone in her life instead of fulfilling the role she'd been assigned at birth, that's a bit different from implying monarchy was the job she wanted or even a net positive.

Odd that a subthread which started with someone praising the late Queen for choosing not to run away from obligations requires so many followups pointing out that she could have run away from them...

> your manhood (which you can also give up if you want to, people do)

Well yeah, that was the point. You can change almost anything you're born with; the ability to give something up [at significant cost, and without necessarily getting a better alternative] clearly isn't remotely sufficient to describe it as something you "signed up for".

> Odd that a subthread which started with someone praising the late Queen for choosing not to run away from obligations requires so many followups pointing out that she could have run away from them...

This goes in pair. You praise someone for the choices they make, it doesn’t make sense if it wasn’t a choice at all in the first place.

I think she was a brilliant and intelligent person, she proved it in so many occasions, and she didn’t become Queen or stayed for so long just because of social pressure and “daddy told me to”. So yes, I’m assuming it was a net positive for her, and that she dedicated her life to something she wanted to do.

Sure there are many shitty parts coming with the throne and the toxicity surrounding the whole royalty system, but I give be the benefit of the doubt on having done the right choices in her life.

The easiest choice of all would have been to take up the role of monarch but decline to keep her opinions to herself or do stuff she couldn't be bothered with. The talk of her "signing up for it" upthread was all aimed at dismissing the notion that performing the role well was praiseworthy, as if they were responsibilities she'd actively looked for rather than merely been given.

> without controversy

Wasn't this actually a huge controversy at the time?

He was pressured not to marry Wallis Simpson. If he married her it would have been a constitutional crisis, so in order to prevent that controversy, he abdicated and married Wallis Simpson. He could have chosen to be the king and not marry her; or he could have married her anyway and embrace the huge controversy. This is why I said "he abdicated in order to marry Wallis Simpson without controversy".

Wasn't he the guy who was pressured into abdicating for being a Nazi?

No, he was pressured not to marry an American divorcee (with two living ex-husbands). That led to his abdication - doing otherwise would have led to a constitutional crisis. He was rumored to be a Nazi sympathizer, but that wasn’t the direct cause of his abdication.

I feel like the timing is important in that story, and often underemphasized. Edward was pressured not to marry a married (and arguably not separated) American woman he was in some form of relationship with, who was willing to divorce her current husband in order to marry him. Simpson didn't file for divorce until after George died, and the cause of divorce is widely understood as having been orchestrated to allow her to marry Edward. The divorce was not finalized until well after the abdication.

While, technically, the constitutional crisis would have been caused by him marrying a divorcee and being the head of a state religion that didn't approve of remarriage with living ex-spouses, the circumstances were likely important in motivating a hard stance on the policy: it involved the sort of situation that an apologist might have given as an example of why remarriage should not be allowed. Even current Church of England rules would not allow the marriage.

It is interesting that the story is often simply portrayed as him wanting to marry a American divorcee, likely leading to the sense in many readers unfamiliar with the circumstances that he wanted to marry someone who simply had had prior marriages, quite possibly with ex-husbands who were still in the US.

No, that has nothing to do with why he was pressured to abdicate. Really he was pressured not to marry Wallis Simpson, not pressured to abdicate.

Not directly, but for that reason it was a massive relief for the govt when he did abdicate and they could "exile" him and his wife and their Nazi sympathies somewhere far away.

Basically he never wanted to be King, and seemed totally unsuitable for it anyway.

Edward VIII abdicated at the end of 1936, almost three years before the start of the second world war. At that time being a Nazi sympathizer was still perfectly respectable in much of British high society. I think possibly you are getting the timeline slightly mixed up.

You're right I had the timeline between abdication and "exile" condensed in my head. But by govt relief I wasn't referring to High Society but the functional bureaucracy of govt and intelligence services etc.

I recall (possibly faulty memory) from a documentary I watched once, that the bureaucracy stopped providing him with certain daily government briefing documents out of fears for national security.

Then again, the intelligence services were riddled with communist sympathisers so that probably explains it just as much :)

Smart billionaire monarchs don’t flaunt their wealth lest the peasants realize what a raw deal they have and revolt.

I admire the queen if only for the masterful job she's done at convincing the masses that she is a victim of circumstance rather than the quintessential purveyor of privilege

> she chose duty

I would like to choose the duty of being fabulously wealthy and literally immune to criminal or civil prosecution, too.

to be fair those are entirely theoretical powers, the second any of that become a legitimate issue parliament can remove them. Just ask King Charles I about how well sovereign immunity saves the monarch from criminal prosecution.

Completely theoretical. Actually no member of the British royal family has ever been in a situation where the common man would rote in jail for life and got away scot-free. It was all my imagination these past few years.

She was "obscenely rich" whether she did her job or not. She did it anyway.

That she was obscenely rich makes it all the more noteworthy that she lived a dutiful life. Need more examples of that.

This. Her personal wealth would already have been astronomical even without the Crown Estate.

She could have retired 40 years ago and never worked another day in her life if she’d wanted to. Charles would still have been King and her family would have been no worse off.

The Royal Family in the UK is unusual in that it generates more money in tourism for the UK than they take in. Probably due to so many people being interested in the British royal family.

https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-57559653

For one thing, the Queen was rich for a list of complex reasons that largely have to do with hereditary properties and assets stretching back centuries. It's not as cut and dried as "taxpayer expense". Yes, the monarchy as an institution benefits from certain public resources, just as do all institutions in all major countries, but it doesn't do so to any obscene degree compared to a vast range of other public projects and organizations that waste enormously while being much better funded. Any major head of state also benefits enormously from taxpayer money in all sorts of ways and lives daily in the lap of luxury with enormous resources spent on his or her security, personal living "needs" and any trips they make. Despite this, I see little complaint about that much larger source of taxpayer money being spent.

There seems to be a reflexive, emotional and partly irrational hatred of the UK monarchy spending heavily and having assets and money, along with certain public benefits (which by the way are carefully circumscribed) by people who barely bat an eye at the fact that the absolute largest sources of resource and tax spending on a vast range of immensely expensive but often wasteful and even pointless things are perfectly modern government institutions that have nothing to do with monarchs. It's an absurd sort of blindness.

What the UK government spent on the idiocy of the Iraq War alone far exceeds all public funds given to the Monarchy in decades, but hey, let's complain about Elizabeth and the castles that have been in her family for centuries.

I'm pretty sure she didn't do it for the money but from some sense of moral duty. Don't forget, she took reign right after one of the worst wars in history.

Was it moral duty or was it wanting to have her name at the top of the list of longest reigning monarchs? It’s interesting that she died not too long after hitting that mark, almost as if she was just holding on to get there and then let herself die.

7 years after hitting that mark. I think the death of her husband last year has more to do with it than “yay, I got to the top of the list so now I can die”.

> It’s interesting that she died not too long after hitting that mark

She didn't, Louis XIV is still up there.

The wealth is private. She wasn't granted immense wealth for doing paperwork. She did the "paperwork" through a sense of duty.

It’s literally called the Crown estate.

In the Top10 in every ranking with regards to real estate asset management.

Also all the planes and trains and cars. Top notch brand of each for the last 70 years were provided by the State.

The Crown Estate is explicitly not the property of the monarch.

This is simply semantics. She was clearly given tons of property, real estate, airplanes, vehicles and means to access goods&services only because she was the queen; including the very estate she passed away in: Balmoral Castle.

She was rich because she was part of the royal family; it's not the case that she was part of the royal family and then independent of that had private wealth. There was never a possibility of her being poor as long as she was the queen.

Balmoral Castle is owned by the family, not the Crown unlike other residences like Buckingham Palace. She was head of state. It's not uncommon for heads of state to have houses, cars, planes etc. for their use as part of the job provided by the government. Even for ceremonial ones. Should she have entertained other world leaders in a one room flat?

>Should she have entertained other world leaders in a one room flat?

What would exactly be the problem here? A lot of the people that the queen supposedly represent live in a one room flat.

I think that is the problem. An undemocratically elected monarch should not be entertaining world leaders period.

It was literally her job as head of state. That's part of what heads of state do. Now, being antimonarchist is a fine thing - I'm one - but not having an understanding of the duties of a head of state, elected or not, is a whole other thing.

Balmoral isn't part of the Crown Estate. It is the Queen's (now the King's) private property.

I respect /u/dang's request not to go in monarchy bashing, but as a result I see lots of "praise her reign" on top.

> she consciously chose to do so every day and in exchange she and her family was granted an immense wealth

This! Saying that wealth and status is a burden for XYZ always elicits a "but they can give it all up in a singe day if they want to" response from me.

It's my fault for not being clearer, but it was so obvious to me that my point had nothing to do with monarchy, and only with lame internet flamewars, that I never thought of being taken it this way.

If I were moderating myself I would now point out that the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate intent: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....

I couldn't care less which side you guys are on re monarchs! If you want to make thoughtful critique, go for it. Just remember that the bar for that is rather high when it comes to a topic so filled with bombast as this one.

The idea that we'd be trying to preserve the royalist status quo and the elegance of railway travel is just so silly that I can't believe I have to say that. Clearly it was my mistake, though—that was no splash-free dive.

Thanks for all you do. I wouldn't want your job yesterday.

Can they though? I mean, yes, they can give away the wealth and status, but the burden, mainly being constantly the focus of the public eye, would that really go away? Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of dictatorships or monarchies. But if you compare how she handled it, compared how to others did in similar situations, she handled it well.

Yeah it seems pretty one sided to me. If you are going to put in a request to not "bash" the monarchy, then you should have a similar request not to "praise" it.

That was not what I requested.

Penance:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772419

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772274

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772067

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771874

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771818

If someone says bashing the powerful is malignant but praising the powerful is benign, you have a pretty good idea of how they sit in relation to the (horribly insecure) powerful.

Ok I'm sorry if this is considered "monarch bashing", I don't see how that's the case. I just pointed out that she did this voluntarily (as evidenced by countless other people who were born into royal families and chose to skip the line of succession).

I did not mean to say you were bashing. (Believe me I love bashing monarchy, also when others do it).

I found your point valid. Where other al say she was had no choice and did well under circumstances. I rather saw her end the monarchy all together, or at least step out of it herself.

I think the point here is that her wealth being mostly private (or enough of it being private not being a specialist in those matters), the way she carried her duty was even more remarkable. You could easily imagine somebody inheriting similar wealth and not behaving nearly as well as she did for her country. I do not think it is about being pro or against monarchy here.

I think the distinction between public and private wealth is sophistry

That ‘private’ wealth was acquired because she was head of state

I do think the distinction actually exists for the British Monarchy... A quick Googling would give you something like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_...

Legally their may be a distinction but the monarch's wealth was ultimately taken from the people and maintained via favourable tax laws - there's no inheritance tax on a monarchs estate, she didn't pay income tax etc.

If you think that Queen Victoria, head of the largest empire the world has ever seen and who purchased Balmoral, got rich by skimping on taxes, then I’d recommend taking some time to read a book or two.

I don't think their comment was arguing that at all, and in fact it seems like an indefensibly uncharitable interpretation.

> ultimately taken from the people and maintained via favourable tax laws

Taken from the people and maintained via favorable tax laws. UK inheritance tax is 40% (over the threshold, which is so low as to be meaningless next to the royal estate). With 5 royal deaths since Victoria, Charles III would have less than 8% of what he actually does if that 40% were taken each time (which is obviously vastly oversimplifying to make a point).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com