4 ms·

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

by cies 4y ago

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.

davrosthedalek 4y ago
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.
gnulinux 4y ago
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).
- cies 4y ago
  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.
percevalve 4y ago
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.
- youngtaff 4y ago
  I think the distinction between public and private wealth is sophistry That ‘private’ wealth was acquired because she was head of state
  - percevalve 4y ago
    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_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_...
    - youngtaff 4y ago
      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.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - jahewson 4y ago
        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.
        delecti 4y ago
        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).
confidantlake 4y ago
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.
- morelisp 4y ago
  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.
- dang 4y ago
  That was not what I requested. Penance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771818
dang 4y ago
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&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=disambiguate%20burden%20by:dang 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.
- baq 4y ago
  Thanks for all you do. I wouldn't want your job yesterday.

by cies 4y ago

davrosthedalek 4y ago

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.

gnulinux 4y ago

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).

cies 4y ago
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.

percevalve 4y ago

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.

youngtaff 4y ago
I think the distinction between public and private wealth is sophistry That ‘private’ wealth was acquired because she was head of state
- percevalve 4y ago
  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_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_...
  - youngtaff 4y ago
    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.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - jahewson 4y ago
      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.
      - delecti 4y ago
        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).

confidantlake 4y ago

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.

morelisp 4y ago
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.
dang 4y ago
That was not what I requested. Penance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771818

dang 4y ago

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&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=disambiguate%20burden%20by:dang 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.

baq 4y ago
Thanks for all you do. I wouldn't want your job yesterday.