Not to mention that she was the last monarch to have any memory of WWII and served as an ambulance mechanic. Now that generation that remembered the horrors of fascism has mostly passed and we find ourselves in a period that seems to have many echos of the 1930s with a new rise of authoritarianism and fascism around the world.
> Not to mention that she was the last monarch to have any memory of WWII
That's probably not true. There's the Dalai Lama and Simeon II of Bulgaria, who were minors but at least Simeon surely remembers (his father died in suspicious circumstances, he had an unconstitutional regency, and then he was dethroned, expelled and spent his life in exile).
> Now that generation that remembered the horrors of fascism has mostly passed and we find ourselves in a period that seems to have many echos of the 1930s with a new rise of authoritarianism and fascism around the world
It's honestly infuriating that with the wealth of information available at everyone's fingertips so many people are so easily making the same mistakes as a century earlier.
King Harald V of Norway (born 1936) and Queen Margrete II (born 1940) are old enough to remember WW2. So is Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands (born 1938, abdicated).
I think the grandparent comment’s author forgot to insert a “British” in front of monarch.
I think you're picking hairs, given how much influence Nepal and Bulgaria have on the world stage, compared to QEII's 70 years as one of the most powerful heads of state on earth, probably the most powerful, given the duration.
Actually the British monarch has a lot of power, de jure, they just don't use it due to "tradition". They're the ones who appoint prime ministers, and they're the ones who dissolve parliament for new elections. Traditionally they do those things at the behest of others, but de jure it's their right. (Note: those two powers are the ones abused by Hindenburg in Weimar Germany to de facto appoint whomever as chancellor based on his power to dissolve the Bundestag if they disagreed with his choice)
No. Royal prerogative is only exercised on advice of the prime minister, the cabinet or by the consent of parliament. Constitutional convention is not just tradition. And the fact that the constitution of the UK is uncodified doesn't mean the monarch has any de jure powers. Even the prorogation of parliament on advice of the prime minister was held to be unlawful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...
> I think the grandparent comment’s author forgot to insert a “British” in front of monarch.
"she was the last British monarch to have any memory of WWII" is pretty weird too, though, since her father George VI was the only other monarch alive during WW2. I guess unless you also count her uncle Edward VIII who was alive throughout WW2 and had previously been a British monarch. If that counts then sure, she was the last of three British monarchs to remember WW2.
The Dalai Lama and Simeon II of Bulgaria were both heads of state during WW II. But China invaded Tibet in 1950, and by 1960 the Dalai Lama ruled nothing. And Simeon lost his throne in 1946 (though he did get elected prime minister many years later).
Is the Dalai Lama a monarch? I see a resemblance in how monarchy works to how the Dalai Lama is chosen, but it's not obvious to me this is the same kind of thing.
Monarch is not a precisely defined term. It usually (though not in the case of popes) also requires that the holder be part of the country’s traditional aristocracy or nobility. Lifetime heads of state of regimes issued from modern revolutions (North Korea or Iran, for example) are not usually considered monarchs.
I guess the only real definition of monarch is social and cultural: someone who claims to be one and is broadly recognized as such.
> It usually (though not in the case of popes) also requires that the holder be part of the country’s traditional aristocracy or nobility.
Not really. Reza Khan was just a colonel in the army before the coup that later established him as Shah of Iran. Osman of the Ottoman Empire and his descendants for a very long time had no aristocracy or nobility to speak of, only temporary (land reverted to the Sultan at death) land owners.
Yep, one of the most popular monarchies, the Holy Roman Empire, was an elective monarchy (mostly theoretical after the Habsburgs took over, but still).
> It's honestly infuriating that with the wealth of information available at everyone's fingertips so many people are so easily making the same mistakes as a century earlier.
I think it's more about wilful ignorance than truth. I saw a video the other day with a US student protesting a speaker at his uni, and saying how he thought that some political violence could be useful. He then went on to admit he didn't know what the speaker looked like, nor what they believed, nor had he ever seen or heard anything they'd done. He'd just seen a poster saying that this person was bad, that was enough for him.
I've thought for a long time that when the generation that fought in the war, or even grew up in it, has died out, that's when idiots like this student will be free to make something terrible rise. Fight for freedoms like speech while you can.
Which war? There's a couple dozen at any given moment. I fought in some, have a bunch of friends who fought in a couple entirely different ones, too. I probably won't die for another 40-50 years, so rest easy I guess? What's the special quality of "the war" that makes its participants repel tigers I mean keep idiots like this alleged student from mucking things up?
Okay, what are the magical qualities of "the war you mean WWII" that make its participants, who have special significance to you the British, repel the unruly youth of the United States? Or, is it possible you're just a grouch, the latest in a line stretching back to at least Socrates, complaining about "kids these days?"
I know that the US has a reputation for producing idiots but believe me, they exist in other places too, hence why I didn't specify the States, but you feel free to make it all about you.
If you want to say I'm a liar, say it. Otherwise, what is your point? That I'm producing some sinister narrative by sharing a thought with an anecdote attached? Perhaps I'm part of a bot army, pushing a narrative insidiously through the medium of <checks notes> a comment on HN.
I think that while its certainly ignorance. it's more about complexity (which ignorance thrives in), wherever complexity lies, divisions do as well. ignorance itself does not necessarily have to be wilful. I suppose I'll say, this is not a counterargument, I somewhat see your point and wanted to expand on it.
That's a good point. It's also often the case that the differences aren't as big as they seem to outsiders. One of the benefits of going abroad for a while is to be able to see your own country's politics from a distance, and the one your in's closer. It's easy to see that the Overton window is often quite narrow.
However, I don't know many places where mainstream politics would accept political violence as anything but extreme in almost every case. I'm not sure the fringe is growing, but to come round to my initial point, I'm worried that it will after the last WWII generation dies out.
>It's honestly infuriating that with the wealth of information available at everyone's fingertips so many people are so easily making the same mistakes as a century earlier.
I agree, but for me it's more infuriating how often I see this comparison used when when the modern version is primarily head-canon catastrophizing despite the same people making the comparison advocating and practicing behaviors that are even closer to what they decry, all while pretending they're not. Nuance and introspection are sorely lacking everywhere.
Strongly disagree. "The antifascists are actually the facists because they won't tolerate my facism!" Strong paradox of tolerance vibes you've got there.
And I, in turn, strongly disagree with you. The paradox of tolerance is a product of sloppy thinking and mostly amounts to tribalism in a fancy coat. And antifascists refuse to tolerate many things substantially milder than actual fascism.
Yep I’d definitely refuse to tolerate mild fascism, thanks I don’t want to go to shooting war over it. It’s bad enough seeing people I love and care about beaten or harassed out of their homes.
This is basically where Howe’s 4th turning thesis comes from. The cycle repeats over the course of around 80 years more or less as the generations die off.
Ahh yes, that photo of Elizabeth changing an ambulance tire, one of the great public relations triumphs of the 20th century. So humble! She's just like one of us...
We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments. That's not allowed here.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I don't lightly ban an 11-year-old account, but we've warned you many times, and you've done little but post flamewar comments lately, including nationalistic and religious flamewar.
The site guidelines do ask people not to respond to egregious comments, since those just fuel the flames (this is HN's equivalent of "please don't feed the trolls"), but the problems with what you were posting were much worse than that.
