Ask HN: What do you think of the Queen?

[nickgubbins]

As a Brit, in honour of the Queen's Platinum Jubilee I want to understand what the HN community think of the Queen.

I grew up in and live in the UK, and have personally never understood why we have a monarchy in 2022 as it is blatantly anti-democratic and anti-meritocratic. Yet speaking to family and friends as well as folks from other countries, I am often taken aback by her popularity and airing my opinions often feels a bit controversial.

Where do you stand?

[EddieDante]

> the HN community think of the Queen

I can't speak for anybody else, but I can answer your question in seven words:

I usually don't think of the Queen.

I'm not her subject, since I'm a New Yorker and some of my English ancestors fought to throw off the tyranny of Britain. Some of my ancestors are French, and I think most of us know what the French think of monarchy; they created a technological solution to the sociopolitical problem of a burdensome ruling class.

As for Britain maintaining its half-assed monarchy: it's not like the Queen has any real authority, is it? Sure, she can open and dissolve Parliament, and gives her assent to laws passed by the Lords and Commons, but isn't the royal assent essentially a rubber stamp?

It seems to be Parliament and the Prime Minister calling the shots, and even the PM doesn't dare annoy Parliament too much. I wouldn't say that the British system is less democratic than the one we have in the US, where unelected billionaires all but buy Senators with impunity, and a few senators can force Congress to ignore the will of the people. If anything, I'd say that the UK is more republican than the US.

Besides, the monarchy seems to be good for tourism and the occasional scandal. We can't let the Kardiashians have all the fun, can we?

Now, let's talk about meritocracy. I know the word has positive connotations, especially here on HN, but we seemed to have forgotten that the word "meritocracy" was coined by Michael Dunlop Young in his dystopian satire, The Rise of the Meritocracy. Alas, too many people have misread it as they've misread 1984, The Handmaid's Tale, and Snow Crash, so that like these better-known books The Rise of the Meritocracy is treated as an instruction manual instead of a warning -- when it is read at all.

[p0d]

I'm 50 and the Queen represents a more resilient past. The two things I hear loudest from our culture today are anxiety and the desire for success. I was just saying to my wife we grew up during the troubles in Northern Ireland, experienced bombs, the murder of friends, and the murder of relatives of close friends. There seems to be more anxiety now than there was then. Especially among young girls who are under no imminent threat. The threat seeming to be the problem of too much information and comparison.

We have made great progress in society but I fear we are in danger of shooting ourselves in the foot. The long life of a Queen who is committed to serve others, and not just her own wishes, sits well with me

[tycho_oscar]

I have no love for that family. I don't wish any ill on them, but they are a relic of a bygone age that caused more harm than good. The tourism angle that people use to justify their expenses doesn't really hold up either. Paris alone has just as many if not more tourists per year and they got rid of their royals a long time ago.

To be fair though I am not British, I'm Irish. So my perspective on that family is not the same as someone who was born and raised in the UK.

[uberman]

How is the UK monarchy anti-democratic in any manner? She has only symbolic governmental power. Alternatively, do you feel the monarch should be elected for some reason and if they were, what problem would that solve?

[midislack]

Her power is absolute and temporal, she isn't a mere figurehead. She does wield this power from time to time, she dissolved the nation of Australia not too long ago on a whim.

[riccardoj]

I think that grossly misunderstands what happened in Australia with the Whitlam government dismissal.

The executive power in Australia is held by the Governor General who "represents" the Queen, but is limited by the constitution in what powers can be exercised. The Monarch of Australia essentially has no power in Australia. The Governor General can largely only do what he/she is told by parliament or resign. The "crisis" part here was that the Governor General found a grey area, the current Prime Minister could not form a majority in the lower house and so the Governor General appointed the opposition leader as the Prime Minister who immediately asked the Governor General to dissolve parliament. It was dubious that the Governor General could actually do this, and it has since been codified in law that he/she cannot.

The Governor General did discuss the matter with the Queen, but largely she had no part in this decision. In fact the released correspondence between the Queen and Governor General shows the Queen declined to make a decision.

[jleyank]

Almost 50 years ago. Caused a constitutional crisis. Would not think it’s repeatable elsewhere in the commonwealth. Reasonable chance her successor will be head of state of fewer realms. Constitutional monarchs use their power at risk to their institution. Sometimes it’s quite useful (Spain), but it would quickly fade if used repeatedly.

Analogous to any non-executive head of state I would think. However, the time of a non-resident monarch has passed - they should be of and reside in the country they're head of state of.

[midislack]

It's not just possible, it can be done without notice on a whim.

[gus_massa]

Australia has enough tanks. In case the Queen want to dissolve the government they can just tweet "Nah" and continue as usual. What is the United Kingdom going to do? Invade? Ask Canada and New Zeeland to make a joint force?

(Officially breaking will cause some problems, so it depends a lot on the internal situation and how much popular support the government has.)

[midislack]

That’s just incorrect, Australia isn’t a proper legal country and those tanks belong to the Crown, ultimately.

[jleyank]

Careful. Us Canucks can be a right violent people with a stick in our hands. Especially in the corner…

[jleyank]

Rereading the wiki article, it seems Australia resembles England before the House of Lords was broken in the 1905-1909 time period - the upper house can influence money bills. It would seem that this was a case of the Governor General involving powers of the crown that it has but should not use. The gg was Australian.

Perhaps this is (another) example of the difficulties of running a government composed of more than one centre of power.

[msingle]

What are you talking about? I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional.... But this looks like political maneuvering between parties more than the queen being arbitrary (or using powers that normally can't be invoked.

[midislack]

To understand just one of the Monarch's many powers as the representative of the Crown, you should read the essay entitled The Royal Power Of Dissolution. There is no "normal" limit, the Monarch, acting on behalf of the Crown, is Sovereign.

[uberman]

Feel free to read : https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-u...

The queen has been effectively stripped of all personal discretion when it comes to the use of her reserve powers.

She has no real choice when it comes to who is appointed prime minister or which bills are made into law.

The voters and elected officials make those decisions, and her only real job is give a royal stamp of approval.

[nickgubbins]

I think a set of individuals having legal privilege by virtue of bloodline, as well as being state sponsored by tax revenue (regardless of absolute cost), is pretty anti-democratic. And yes, elected is literally democratic?

[uberman]

What actual problem would electing the monarch solve?

There are many people in the world who currently have some form of legal privilege by virtue of bloodline. For example, many indigenous people.

I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat about this. For me, at worst The Queen seems benign at best a proud symbol of a great nation.

[usrn]

I think the people in the UK have lost their appreciation for the advantages of a monarchy. Yes it's anti-democratic but democracy is not an absolute good, many people have written about this. I think she could have prevented a lot of the destruction that's come to Britain but she needs a little more support from the people. The lack of faith in the monarchy has unfortunately (in a kind of democratic way interestingly enough) taken away a lot of its power.

[midislack]

She is a fine CEO of the Crown Corporation. It's likely you don't even know what that is, most Brits have no clue what the difference between London and the City are, or what the relationship is between the Sovereign and the Crown.

[mikewarot]

For the most part, I like her. I'm sad that she hasn't been able to keep all her kids in line. They (the Royals) need to get back in touch with their actual purpose in the 21st century - to act as a check against the wild excesses of democracy. They're the safety valve to keep stuff like Brexit from happening.... oops.

Also, it would be awesome if one of them studied forensic accounting and looked into all areas of Her Majesty's government.

[simonblack]

The Queen is just a figurehead, like the more recent US Presidents.

The true power in both the US and the UK is the 'Deep State' or the 'Establishment' or the 'Oligarchy' or whatever you want to call it. (The rich and powerful behind the scenes.)

Sure, we think we elect the President. But who really selects who are the final two candidates that we are allowed to vote for?

[cheaprentalyeti]

I think she's done a good job at Starfleet.

[VoodooJuJu]

I don't.