kaanski

I agree and would add that it's a particularly good time to be a Linux gamer. I recently started downloading games in Fedora on my dual booted machine and so many games support Linux officially now, I think the success of steam deck has contributed to this.

For games that don't officially support Linux, Steam's Proton means most of mine bar two run perfectly on Fedora.

I haven't booted up Windows in months, a good outcome.

So the Queen read bills and gave her opinion on them, which is public record, before they were debated? And that constitutes political power?

It also states that this is a purely formal part of the parliamentary process and she never refused something being debated, even if she did parliament could override it.

I’d argue that if David Beckham tweeted his annoyance at a bill being passed it would have more influence. Not to mention the hundreds of lobby groups that get their way.

I think people forget that the relationship between Monarch and people in Britain has always been different to the rest of Europe. No Magna Carta or equivalent document was signed anywhere else in Europe in the 1200s. It took the famously rebellious France 150 years to abolish their monarch after the English did.

Personally I don’t mind the monarchy, if they replace it then fine, but I want it replaced with something decent. I definitely don’t want to see a US style presidential republic set up here, with executive orders, etc.

I’ve said this before in another thread but growing up as a not very well off ethnic minority the Queen seemed to care more about me than anyone in parliament. The monarch in the UK shows more civil devotion and service than any politician.

> The King or Queen functionally has zero power over much of anything - their role is pretty much entirely ceremonial in purpose (they can theoretically choose to not sign laws, but this would just result in them getting sidestepped).

This is the same in the UK I’m not sure I see the stark difference. The Monarch doesn’t really have power over parliament.

I think if you assembled a list of elected MPs who have changed laws to suit them or lead directly to their profit (the PPE scandal, the recent scandal with Rishi Sunaks wife owning shares in a company the government officially endorsed, etc). You’d have a much longer list than the laws the crown has influenced.

I think if you made a list of how many laws and bills have been influenced by private lobbying and donations you’d have an inconceivably large list.

My point earlier is that the wealthy get their say, the monarchy as an institution hold the same amount of political power as the wealthy in the UK, but they do not hold direct political power.

To be honest this is already largely the case.

Most if not all of the castles and palaces in the UK are open to the public through the national trust. The Monarchy have multiple residences but apart from Windsor castle (which is open to the public when they’re not there) and Buckingham palace, they are mostly cottages or manors in the countryside.

The monarchy today is not seen by anyone as a symbol of imperialism and class hierarchy unless they explicitly set out to see them as a symbol of imperialism and class hierarchy.

They are mainly to most people a symbol of the country and its traditions. Again the monarchy has existed for a thousand years and has changed as society has changed. They are a reflection of the country that hosts them. Everyone is taught about the English civil war at school and knows that the monarch was beheaded and a republic was formed (150 years before the French Revolution). Nobody feels like the monarch has us under their thumb.

As an ethnic minority growing up in Britain I can tell you from my experience and the experiences I’ve heard from other ethnic minorities, the monarchy represented to me a more fair and kind view than the politicians we elected.

The Queen would have seen me (had we met) as a subject like any of her subjects regardless of race or class, she stood above it all and the monarchy still is above it all.

While the BNP and EDL were organising marches across the country the Monarchy actually made me feel like I belonged in the country I grew up in, that is a powerful thing.

A thousand years is bit much.

A monarchy existed in the UK since the fall of Rome.

The monarch since the signing of the Magna Carta has had relinquished political power in England.

Since 1640 the monarch has been largely symbolic and subject to parliament.

The violence, slavery, genocide and theft was definitely present during a period of the history of the monarchy, and should be addressed.

But we cannot necessarily paint the entire history of the monarchy as evil.

The monarch has not exercised direct political power since the English Civil War.

Yes they’re wealthy and have exercised power that wealth gives you but they’d still be wealthy if they were not a monarch.

If we want to talk about the power that money brings you in politics then we’re having a different discussion, a discussion that is not UK specific.

But yes the monarchy as an institution has not involved itself in political matters in living memory, and has not exercised political power (executive orders, vetoing bills) in centuries.

Parliament is the sovereign political power in the UK. If they wanted to they could pass a bill today that dismantled the crown and the monarchy.

Personally I like having a politically neutral head of state as a personification of the country.

An elected head of state will be impossible to keep politically neutral and inevitably will polarise things.

Maybe a system with an appointed head of state instead of elected, similar to peerages in the House of Lords. Someone vetted and trusted, approved by an elected parliament.

Although the Monarchy is already completely controlled by parliament which is democratically elected so I’m not sure what the difference would be.

Yeah I do the same. It seems to permeate into everything, even positives.

UK announcing research into x: comments will probably be negative and about how it’s a boondoggle.

UK company doing exciting stuff like fusion or quantum: comments will probably be negative and about how it’s a boondoggle.

It’s tiring.

Edit:

That being said it does lead to hilarious moments where I’ll read the Guardian and see a headline like “The NHS won’t make it to Christmas (for real this time) but it doesn’t matter because we’ll all be dead by then because of Brexit” and then I’ll see the Express in my corner shop with a headline like “Brexit HERO Boris makes Ursula von der Leyen CRY when he announced new BRITISH MOON BASE”

In general there seems to be a weird zeitgeist of negative exceptionalism in the UK at the moment.

Not sure why but generally journos seem to write about issues like they are only hitting the UK when a simple google search shows they aren’t.

It does come across like a weird concerted effort to paint the UK as collapsing since leaving the EU. The majority of journos seem to be able to write only negatively about UK current affairs unless you read something like The Express who are delusional in their own right.

Most recent ones I can think of are the failed space launch and British volt going under.

These were both highly ambitious projects that had a high chance of failure, especially the space launch. It’s unlikely you’re going to get your first launch right, famously it takes many attempts.

When both of these happened journalists seemed to revel in the failure. It was very odd to see.

I understand with these two examples a lot of it has to do with government/brexiteer chest thumping which shon a spotlight on them. However it was still odd to see.

I think this then trickles down to places like HN (who’s membership generally has a bias towards remain) who also see an opportunity to revel in it.

This is odd as well because I can see why Britons or Europeans would be passionate about membership in a regional trade bloc, Americans who get really passionate about it confuse me. As a Briton I didn’t really care when America left NAFTA.

This is assuming the majority of people on HN are American but based on time zones and when articles are posted I’m probably wrong.

Edit:

This is a UK based publication writing about Groceries in the UK which is why it’s so specific. Your comment just spurred something I’ve been thinking recently.

As we all know doing something new requires immediate success or it isn’t worth pursuing.

OGL refers to the Open Game License.

Essentially you are allowed to use the rules of DnD (and other games that use the license) to make derivative work as long as its also published with OGL.

It allows homebrewed content to exist and is part of the reason the DnD community is so big.

WoTC (Wizards of the Coast, the owner of DnD) is “updating” the license from 1.0 to 1.1 and is using the update as an excuse to clamp down on competition and limit what can be used.

This has a far reaching effect because 1.0 would be revoked which means lots of content that has already been created would be put in a grey area, WoTC could sue anyone who made content for ownership even if it was made with the previous license.

It also puts entire games like Pathfinder into question as these are essentially modded DnD.

If I remember correctly the coup was rushed by its organisers because the authorities had caught wind of it and were beginning an investigation.

Generally coups take place in the middle of the night when everyone is asleep. This was during rush hour.

Usually coups involve taking over key administrative buildings as quickly as possible. They took over one of the busiest bridges in Istanbul.

The attempted coup also lacked the majority support of the military it requires to be successful.

97% of the Turkish Armed Forces ranking officers weren’t involved in the coup.

66% of the military's top leadership weren't involved in the coup.

They only had 35 jets and 37 helicopters.

During a coup the military should not be fighting itself whilst also attempting to take control. In this case the coups forces were smaller and worse equipped than the governments military.