446
submitted 1 day ago by RandAlThor@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago
[-] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 20 points 11 hours ago
[-] pyre@lemmy.world 30 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

she was removed for speaking up against colonial criminals as an indigenous person. fucking boot lickers. probably literally too; wouldn't be surprised.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 hours ago

I was in favour of mummifying HRH so that her preserved corpse could continue to be our figurehead leader. Honestly, as stupid as it sounds, I don't think anyone can argue that it's more stupid than the status quo.

[-] Dainterhawk999@lemmy.world 9 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

SUBJECTS WILL ALWAYS SUPPORT OR PROTEST AGAINST THE RULER... It was, is and will be the norm for monarchy.

This ultra privileged section of society do nothing really nothing and just use tax payers money to showcase their immense wealth.

Let that indigenous LADY SENATOR go berserk against the RULER OF THE COMMONWEALTH who is much more energised and privileged to focus on courting with his newly „announced wife“ rather than providing advice to the problems normal people.

AT LEAST LEND AN EAR TO THE VOICE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 77 points 1 day ago
[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 hours ago

I've only ever seen the Queen in this regalia and I can't not see it as crossdressing when Charles does it.

[-] Naryn@lemmy.world 12 points 16 hours ago

You have a man who's spray painted himself bright orange... Badly running for the premiership of your country.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 13 points 11 hours ago

We elected Boris Johnson to PMship. We aren't better.

[-] 13esq@lemmy.world 18 points 17 hours ago

I think everyone knows it's ridiculous.

For some the monarchy is a living museum, they don't have to like it, they just find it interesting.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 17 points 17 hours ago

The most expensive museum ever. Just what he's wearing in that pic has a monetary value of more than the combined wealth of your extended family.

Imagine how much better the world would be if the wealth and land holdings (a sixth of the surface of the entire planet) belonged to the people in stead of the most privileged family in existence.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 10 hours ago

As far as what he's wearing goes, it's just a bunch of gold and jewels. Little that would actually help anyone do anything. We only consider it wealth at all because of the capitalist context around it.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

That's part of my point: the wealth and labor spent producing and procuring those ridiculous baubles could have been better spent improving the conditions of regular people, especially those that the system is actively stomping on.

Hell, the gold itself could have been put to myriad better uses than just adorning a spoiled idiot who believes in homeopathy and has a temper tantrum when someone gives him a pen that doesn't work.

[-] 13esq@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

The royal family costs the UK tax payer 77p per year, most people aren't outraged by that.

It can be argued that they attract a considerable amount of tourism, people that travel to the UK to see the Tower of London, the King's guards, Buckingham palace and all the rest of it. There is also the "soft power", people around the world are for some reason obsessed with the UK's royal family and it does help with influence whether you'd argue that is for better or worse.

I understand that the obscene wealth they hold during a cost of living crisis is an image problem to say the least and I don't defend that. Such obscene wealth is awful no matter who you are and according to the times rich list, there are at least 257 residents in the UK that are more wealthy than the Royals, some of them considerably so.

For the record, I'm not for or against the UK monarchy, I'm somewhere in-between and see validity in both sides of the argument.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

The royal family costs the UK tax payer 77p per year

If you believe that, I have a palace in Buckinghamshire to sell you 🙄

most people aren't outraged by that.

Because it's utter horse shit.

It can be argued that (repeats the same tired arguments that everyone's heard a billion times before)

Yes, it can, but it shouldn't. None of that justifies wasting billions of pounds on the royal family and letting them own most of the country tax free while enforcing austerity politics on an increasingly impoverished population with a deepening housing crisis.

It's a grotesque waste of desperately needed resources and land.

For the record, I'm not for or against the UK monarchy

Yeah, I can tell by how you spent your first sentence making up an outrageous lie about how much of a financier drain on society they are, your second paragraph repeating all the usual pro- monarchy clichés, and the third disowning the second.

Thanks for wasting my time and that of anyone else reading it with your wishy-washy nonsense.

[-] 13esq@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Ok, if you can find an unbiased source that says it costs the UK taxpayer more than 77p per person per year, I'll read the rest of your comment.

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/how-much-does-the-royal-family-cost-a-breakdown-of-86-3m-in-key-figures

[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

But then I will miss out when it's my turn to be king!

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

Sure you will, Ralph

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 5 points 16 hours ago

While I get your point the royal bullshit would just be placed in a museum similar to the royal regalia of the HRE or Lombardy. But yeah theyd probably be better off being kept as exclusive museum pieces rather than being put on the head of some inbred dipshit every once in a while.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago

Yeah but what would people dream of?

\s

[-] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 37 points 1 day ago

Lidia Thorpe is not wrong when Briitish colonialism fucked the world. The British should be held accountable for that. However, this arguement can be made to absolve the Australian government of their fuckery with indigenous people.

Sure, Australia didn't become federate until the early 1900s. However, I would imagine sometime prior to that Australia was acting more or less as an independent country.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] penquin@lemm.ee 143 points 1 day ago

Bro, this "king" and "queen" bullshit is fucking hilarious. It needs to fucking go away. Why the fuck would anyone be ok with some dude who's never held a job in his life to be his/her "king"? Snow white tale isn't real. Fuck off with this shit, man.

[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 71 points 1 day ago

Then you look at the USA where a large part of the population really wants there to be a King Donald the First.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago

Right? "Here's a family of inbred, pedophile, do nothings. Worship them peasant, and give them your money, for they are better than you. Because reasons."

It's so stupid that we still do this in 2024. I'm a Canadian citizen for 20 years now, and when I took the oath I straight up refused to recite the pledge to the monarchy. The judge actually let it slide.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 96 points 1 day ago

"I am your king." "Well, I didn't vote for you." "You don't vote for kings." "Well, how'd you become king, then?"

[Angelic music plays... ]

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 50 points 1 day ago

King Charles: "The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that my ancestor, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king."

Peasant: "Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] wick@lemm.ee 16 points 1 day ago

Is anyone gonna talk about the article or just virtue signal about hating monarchy?

I hadn't heard albo wanted to become a republic, that's pretty interesting, but unlikely to materialise into anything because the Australia public almost certainly won't vote for it.

This is par for the course of Lidia Thorpe, she's been very hard to work with, even for other Aboriginal activists. She's a contrarian that's doesn't seem to do much besides complain, just like the commenters on Lemmy.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
446 points (98.3% liked)

World News

38870 readers
2173 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS