Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by _-david-_ 1373 days ago
>Yes, I understand she was a fake Queen of a country, but so what?

She was a real queen, albeit with little power. What is a fake queen?

>Why do we feel we need to worship these people, be it royalty or celebrities?

Can you point to anybody worshipping her? Talking about a person or showing them respect is not worship.

>People are dying in Gaza too, maybe spare a tear for them.

Can people not do both?
1 comments
dimensionc132 1373 days ago
A Queen, without power is a fake; it's just a title but with the inability to do anything because successive governments over time striped the Royal Family of any and all powers, and any that do remain can be vetoed by the Govt.

This media circus, is a form a worship.

Sure people can cry for a person such as the Queen, a person they do not know except for what they see on TV or in other forms of media. Personally I don't get it, I think Israel bombing Gaza killing children (just an example) is far more sad

link
_-david-_ 1373 days ago
>A Queen, without power is a fake; it's just a title but with the inability to do anything

The power the queen had was very minimal, but she did still have some power. Maybe you don't consider minimal power to be sufficient to be considered a monarch?

>This media circus, is a form a worship.

Are you using worship to just mean a high level of respect? If that is the case then fine, I assumed you were using it as thinking of the queen as divine.

>Sure people can cry for a person such as the Queen, a person they do not know except for what they see on TV or in other forms of media.

Most of us don't know any person in Gaza so it is just a number or image on a TV. It doesn't really seem any different than the queen in that respect.

Also, a random kid in Gaza likely doesn't impact us in the way the Queen can. If a kid in Gaza makes a speech are you going to hear about it? What about the queen?

>Personally I don't get it, I think Israel bombing Gaza killing children (just an example) is far more sad

It is irrelevant though? People can be sad for multiple things. There have been multiple threads on HN over the years about Israel / Palestine and other places going through turmoil. Why can't you just let people express sadness without trying to one up the sadness?

link
dimensionc132 1373 days ago
Great Britain is still a monarchy. However, it’s known as a constitutional monarchy and now King Charles III is the holder of this title. However since it’s a constitutional monarchy, most of the governing power rest with the parliament.

https://medium.com/dose/does-the-queen-of-england-have-any-r...

link
nly 1373 days ago
She did have power. She chose not to wield it or interfere, and trust in the system.
link
dimensionc132 1373 days ago
She was a figurehead only

Although she was Commander-In-Chief, she gave responsibility to the prime minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, along with other officials. Theoretically she could have ordered a strike against the white house but this would be vetoed by the govt.

She had the ability to declar war, however the government doesn’t need the Queen’s permission.

She could have issued an order of Dissolution of Parliament, but parliament is not the same as the government. The British government is the one that actually rules in the UK. Also such an act would have caused an absolute uproar among UK citizens and probably ensured the beginning of a Republic

So she has "power" in name only, but no real power which was my point, everything has been taken away from her ... and now also King Charles.

link