197
submitted 7 months ago by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 54 points 7 months ago
[-] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Cancer Fucks.

[-] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago
[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 7 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/shorts/GH5fpMoC5ds

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] GlitzyArmrest@lemmy.world 50 points 7 months ago

Imagine having a King in 2024

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 28 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

"these inbred, pedophilic, half alive cretins are your monarchy! They are your betters, bow to them and pay their bills!"

It is absolutely moronic that we haven't dragged every king on earth off his throne, made them private citizens and kicked them off the government payroll

Edit: for anyone downvoting, my comment was light. What I actually believe is that once they are dragged them off the throne, they should be executed and tossed in the river. But I know that's a bit far for 2024

[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

But I know that's a bit far for 2024

Thats polluting the river bro!

Compost the wealthy.

[-] rammer@sopuli.xyz 4 points 7 months ago

I might have a modest proposal for you.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] gnutrino@programming.dev 11 points 7 months ago

We tried that once, their replacement cancelled Christmas and invaded Ireland...

[-] Wanderer@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

The far bigger issue is land owners in general.

Targetting the Royal family and them alone will solve nothing. I'm pretty sure all their land money goes to the state anyway doesn't it?

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

They're pretty much the American military of landowners, in that they own more land than the next 10+ biggest land owners combined.

And no, I'm pretty sure that the majority of the income from their.. mimes big bosoms vast tracts of land goes to them rather than the country as a whole. They're one of the biggest public funds black holes in the world, just like the aforementioned military.

You could feed, clothe and house every person in the UK for the rest of their lives with just a fraction of the land and riches that the royal leeches are hoarding.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] intrepid@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

We did that with some of them. But there are also a lot of 'royalists' out there.

[-] GhostFence@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago
[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 19 points 7 months ago

Still more respectable than the previous US President that people actually chose.

[-] militaryintelligence@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago

Well I didn't vote for him

[-] rammer@sopuli.xyz 9 points 7 months ago

Be quiet! You bloody peasant!

(Monty Python reference)

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

[-] HigHurtenflurst@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 7 months ago

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[-] sunbytes@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

There's a lot of that going on at the moment lol

[-] magic_lobster_party@kbin.social 7 points 7 months ago

I can’t speak from the British Commonwealth perspective, but from a Swedish perspective my opinion is this regarding having a monarch:

Yeah, it might not reflect our modern values well, but since the (Swedish) monarch is mostly ceremonial and completely unpolitical, there’s actually quite little to hate about it. They’re just the mascot of the country. There’s far more pressing issues in our country than having that confused old guy as head of state.

At least he doesn’t possess nuclear launch codes.

[-] sugartits@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

there’s actually quite little to hate about it

Where does their money come from?

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 4 points 7 months ago

I don't know about Sweden, but the UK monarch is an aristocrat that owns loads of land, businesses, trusts, etc, and his money comes from that. At least, he gets to keep about a quarter of it; the rest goes to the Government.

[-] rammer@sopuli.xyz 7 points 7 months ago

In Sweden that might be true. But in the UK the monarch has some vestigial power. Even though everyone assures that if he ever tried to actually use those powers they would be taken away. But it doesn't change the fact that in the UK the monarch still has power.

[-] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Let's see where we're at after November before we start shit talking too much.
There's a very high chance that if Trump wins, he'll make himself a monarch

[-] Coreidan@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

It won’t be long before he suffers a cheeseburger induced heart attack

[-] Aux@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Better to have a king than a Trump or Bush.

[-] GhostFence@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago
[-] Aux@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

And he didn't do much except for talking. The only real fuck up was Liz Truss, but she was gone in no time.

[-] richmondez@lemmy.world 43 points 7 months ago

Didn't expect him to be reigning monarch for long given his already advanced age and the fact males tend to live shorter lives, wonder if this will cut it even shorter?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 38 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Would be weird for the longest serving monarch to be replaced by the shortest serving one.

Which raises a good question... who was the shortest serving British monarch?

Oh, of COURSE there's a Wiki for that...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchy_records

"The shortest-reigning monarch was Lady Jane Grey who ruled for 9 days from 6 July until 15 July 1553 (although she was only proclaimed queen by the Lords of the council on 10 July). Her husband Lord Guildford Dudley was her consort for the entire reign, making this the shortest tenure of the male consort of a female monarch. Note: Jane's reign is disputed.

The king with the shortest definitively known reign was Edgar the Ætheling who ruled for 2 months, 12 days in 1066 before submitting to William the Conqueror. Some records indicate that Sweyn Forkbeard reigned for only 40 days in 1013–4.[7]"

Queen Elizabeth II died 9/8/2022, so Charles has already been in 514 days. He's good...

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 11 points 7 months ago

Doesn't seem like liz has been gone that long... Time is weird

[-] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

If you are generally morbidly curious about odds.

And assuming speculation is right that it's bowel cancer

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/king-charles-brave-words-kind-32054314

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/bowel-cancer/survival

Depends on what stage, but odds are given the level of care Royals get they've probably caught it at stage 1.

That's a 55% chance he's got 9 or 10 years for something else to get there first.

His father lived to 99 and he's currently 75.

A very old friend at 89 told me they had cancer a week before his 90th. They then laughed and said it was too late to the party.

They were right in the end, it was his heart a few years later. Thankfully he was still pretty active and living life until the last couple of weeks. Great guy, genuinely kind and wise. The phrase he gave for his memorial was "It's only sad to die if you haven't lived. I've lived."

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SpiceDealer@lemmy.world 31 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

While I don't wish death on the man (or anybody for that matter regardless of how I feel about them), Charles has been known to promote pseudoscience and quackery to the general public. It would be highly hypocritical of him to use mainstream medicine when he promoted utter nonsense to commoners. But, again, I don't wish for his death; I would be an insensitive asshole for wishing otherwise. He is human after all.

[-] thorbot@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Eh, fuck that limey ole pedophile protecting twat. I’d be happy to see him gone.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 25 points 7 months ago

It's nice to see the monarchy embracing the speed running community. I can't wait for summoning salt's video on the latest MDQ.

(That's sarcasm of course, cancer sucks)

[-] Gigan@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Who's next in line, just out of curiosity?

[-] Zellith@kbin.social 12 points 7 months ago

His eldest son William iirc.

[-] Marthirial 6 points 7 months ago

Elizabeth II and then all the way backwards to king Athelstan.

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

His eldest son, William.

[-] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 1 points 7 months ago

Weird, I clicked "next episode" and the title says "Bloody republican overthrow"?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] autotldr 5 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The type of cancer has not been revealed, but the palace said the King began "regular treatments" on Monday.

The King informed both his sons personally about his diagnosis and Prince William was said to be in regular contact with his father.

Prince Harry, who lives in the United States, spoke to his father and will be travelling to the UK to see him in the coming days.

The King, 75, returned to London from Sandringham in Norfolk on Monday morning and the palace says he has commenced treatment as an outpatient.

Although he will pause his public events, the King will continue with his constitutional role as head of state, including paperwork and private meetings.

Prince William had also temporarily withdrawn from public engagements while he helped his wife Catherine, the Princess of Wales, as she recovered from "abdominal surgery".


The original article contains 451 words, the summary contains 141 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
197 points (90.9% liked)

World News

38563 readers
3400 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