• Laura@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    oh no anyway

    but in all seriousness I hope he dies that guy is a piece of shit

    • Xer0@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      When I signed up here, I genuinely thought this place was going to be better than Reddit. Seeing the difference in comments here and on Reddit for this exact same piece of news, just made me realise that this place is a piece of shit with absolutely zero empathy for anyone.

      • T (they/she)@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I understand your frustration but I fail to understand why the need of empathy for a monarch of all people

      • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah its just a leftist echo chamber. They have sympathy for the working class, but are very prejudiced against the wealthy. Personally, I would guess Charles is a decent human being, like most people. Im sure hes done some shitty things over the course of a long and extremely public life, but pretty much everyone has. I disagree with the concept of royalty but that doesn’t mean I want all monarchs to drop dead. Not a lot of nuance on Lemmy.

      • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The redditors got it right for once?

        Why would you have empathy for monarchs? It’s the ultimate form of nepotism, believing that they can rule an entire country because of their bloodline. If they don’t abdicate the throne and dissolve the institution, they don’t deserve respect.

      • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        give us one singular solitary good reason we should have empathy for this decrepit, cheating, silver spoon mouthed, tax leeching, sex pest, waste of money and attention

      • WittyProfileName2 [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        No one voted for the wanker, but we still have to pay to keep him and his incestous kin in riches while our fellow countrymen starve in the street.

        He wants pity, he should abandon this hereditary rule bullshit and take all those unelected peers up in parliament with him back to the medieval age where they belong.

      • 7bicycles [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        made me realise that this place is a piece of shit with absolutely zero empathy for anyone.

        Is every person the king of england or how do you get to this conclusion?

      • FALGSConaut [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Imagine pearl clutching for some ancient inbred royal dipshit. Literal medieval peasant brain. “Oh no won’t someone think of the million year old pervert who lived a long life full of luxury one can barely begin to comprehend” Fuck him, fuck his whole family, I hope every single royal gets aggressive untreatable cancer, that’s better than they deserve.

        TL,DR: dennis I didn’t vote for him!

          • FALGSConaut [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Mainly confused and surprised someone would support a monarch in the 21st century. You don’t even have the excuse that the queen has been in charge for your whole life so you feel obligated to support her out of a misplaced sense of loyalty or something. Some ancient failson gets to sit in a golden chair and you can’t lick his boots fast enough. It’s pathetic, you aren’t even worshiping someone who can claim they got to where they are on personal merit, he just had to wait for his mom to die and he almost couldn’t even do that! Monarchy is such a farce, I’d be embarrassed to support that shit

      • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not so, we have plenty of empathy for those who actually deserve it.

        Palestine will be free, long live the PFLP, long live Ansar Allah, full support to the DPRK in it’s quest to free their southern siblings from beneath the heel of the genocidal American empire.

  • Bobmighty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I love the people in here standing up for him lol. An absolute fuckton of people die every day. Basically every moment has human death in it. No one defending him cares a single wit about them, but they’ll get wound up over this old man dying of something many many people die of daily.

    Considering everything that’s come out about the royal family, I can’t find a single care in me for him. I feel more for the countless faceless strangers dying worse deaths. This old pampered fuck will die well in comparison. He doesn’t need any sympathy from me.

  • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Could this new development mean that it is possible that his reign may not be a bit shorter than his mother’s?

    • systemguy_64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I dunno if we want to see a 142 year old Charles. We saw how decrepit Phillip looked by the 2000s, and then in 2021. Imagine what another 40 years will do on top of that.

  • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    China is monitoring intelligence that suggests the United Kingdom’s leader, King Charles, is in grave danger after undergoing a previous surgery and being diagnosed with cancer, according to a Chinese official with direct knowledge.

    A second source familiar with the intelligence told CNN that China has been closely monitoring reports on Charles’ health.

    Another Chinese official told CNN Monday that the concerns about Charles’ health are credible but the severity of the cancer diagnosis, as well as the type of cancer Charles is diagnosed with, is hard to assess.

    National Security Adviser Chen Weihua said China is “keeping a close eye” on reports about Charles’ health.

    “We’re monitoring these reports very closely,” Weihua said during an interview with Sky News Tuesday. “As you know, the United Kingdom is a very superstitious society,” he said.

    Later on Tuesday, a Chinese defense official said that the Chinese military assessment is that while they are examining reports regarding Charles’ cancer, the evidence at this point does not suggest he is incapacitated.

    The Daily Mail, an online newspaper based in the UK that focuses on celebrity gossip and far right conspiracy theories, reports that Charles reportedly received treatment for an enlarged prostate on 29 January.

    Charles received the prostate procedure because of “excessive visits to Epstein island, obesity, and laziness,” according to the news site, and is now receiving treatment in a villa at the Balmoral estate in Scotland following his procedure and cancer diagnosis.

    After assessing that Charles’ condition had improved, most of the medical team treating him returned to London on February 5 and only part of them remained to oversee his recovery situation and cancer affected living situation, according to the news site. CNN is unable to independently confirm the report.

    Source

    spoiler

    Hopefully this is a lesson on how propaganda works.

  • DessertStorms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I was happy for a second and then remembered that karma is a bad take and that he will be getting the absolute best available healthcare and even if he does die, he will be doing so having gotten to old age, in extreme luxury and in more comfort than any of us will ever experience.

    I worry that if he does die soon it will only embolden royalist sentiment in this country as the grieving masses will cling on to the “young king” which the media will spin as “progressive” or whatever, and we’ll just keep getting further and further away from abolishing this disgusting establishment.

    We seriously need a King Ralph type thing to happen, only the people take over, instead of a stereotypical American. Turn Buckingham palace in to a community centre with a kitchen and a shelter and childcare and a free mental health clinic, and put those gardens to actual use…

    • twinnie@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What exactly do you hate about him? Is it his stance on climate change or the Prince Trust maybe? The Royal family are an important source of culture, tourism, and soft power when the UK’s overseas influence is waning. What good to you think will come of getting rid of them?

        • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It doesn’t explain why you have so much venom. I see the royal family as British heritage. I don’t see how having a monarchy with no real power has any effect on the day to day lives of British people. Certainly not enough to explain the hate.

          • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            You know what else is a British heritage? Famines in India.

            Aristocracy is privilege without any kind of merit whatsoever. It costs the tax payer millions and undermines democracy.

          • davel@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            a monarchy with no real power

            I don’t know if it’s that you don’t know anything about the royal family, or that you don’t know anything about how power works, or both.

            • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              They have influence, not governing power. Sure you could argue they don’t deserve the influence they have just for being in that position. The main point however is questioning the /hate/. I know you’re not the poster who I was replying to, but I didn’t want to distract the point of my post. Why should we hate the monarchy so much?

              • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                We shouldn’t hate the monarchy, necessarily. We should hate monarchy as a concept.

                It’s archaic, it formalises and legitimises unbelievable levels of inequality and elitism, and it gives rise to at least the strong possibility (and in the UK’s case at least, the actuality) of a tiered legal system, with some laws simply not applying to some people because of their position.

                It’s a repulsive idea, based on historical might and hereditary right, and with no regard for democracy or equality of all people.

                • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That makes sense. I agree with that. Thank you.

                  I felt somewhat disheartened that the response of a guy announcing he has cancer is filled with such toxicity.

              • Arthur Besse@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                They have influence, not governing power

                The old man that this post is about literally does have governing power, not only in the UK but also in 14 other countries including Australia and Canada. A common argument made by monarchists is that the monarch’s actual influence is negligible, and their governing power should be ignored because it is only ceremonial.

                As Wikipedia puts it:

                Royal assent is the method by which a monarch formally approves an act of the legislature, either directly or through an official acting on the monarch’s behalf. Under a modern constitutional monarchy, royal assent is considered little more than a formality. Even in nations such as the United Kingdom, Norway, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein and Monaco which still, in theory, permit their monarch to withhold assent to laws, the monarch almost never does so, except in a dire political emergency or on advice of government.

                But… there is a catch:

                screenshot of the top of wikipedia "royal assent" article showing "Not to be confused with King's Consent."

                It turns out that there is also a less formal process (or a “parliamentary convention”; another part of the UK’s heritage is having an “unwritten constitution”, whatever that means) called King’s Consent whereby the monarch, in secret, is consulted before parliament is allowed to debate anything which might affect their personal interests. And it turns out, a lot of things might affect their personal interests, so, this procedure has been and continues to be used to review, shape, and in some cases veto, numerous laws before they are allowed to be debated by parliament. You can read more here.

                🤡

          • Aggravationstation@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t see how having a monarchy with no real power has any effect on the day to day lives of British people.

            Then what the hell is the point in the amount of tax money that we spend on them? If tourism is such a big money spinner for the country then getting rid of them and keeping the related buildings would still bring in money without having to pay for the decadent lives of these parasites.

          • Zellith@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            So some guy came to England, killed another guy who claimed to rule it, and now we have to watch their family spend eternity in decadent luxury because “British Heritage”. pfft.

            Tell you what. I’ll go perform some actions that make myself king, and then a few generations from now my family will be British heritage. Then we can all be happy.

              • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                sorry, but arent the crimes of their fathers the sole basis for our worshipping them, allowing tbem political power and sending the pricks millions upon millions of tax payer pounds?

                you dont reckon its a little disingenuous to complain about people shitting on their heritage when said heritage is the entire argument for their existence

                • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re not wrong. I take the view that our history, be it good or bad, is part of who we are as a people. However, I wouldn’t want Britain to abolish the monarchy without good reason, and something that occured in the here and now rather than the past.

                  There are some replies to this thread that have enlightened me on the power the monarchy holds, which I don’t agree they shoud have. I initially thought the monarchy was a symbolic relic, but it seems it’s not the case.

      • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        What good to you think will come of getting rid of them?

        We’d become a proper modern country where the person who represents the nation is chosen by the nation? We’d move on from a system where who’s up front simply depends on who their mum or dad were? We’d rid ourselves of a system trained with centuries of imperial exploitation, racism and subjugation? We’d open up new tourism opportunities, with the palaces and castles being available for anyone to visit, a la Versailles?

        And that’s just off the top of my head.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The UK truly is in shambles if their tourism industry and culture depend on a cabal of ghouls siphoning vast amounts of wealth from the people purely for show.

        Personally, I like to think the people of the UK have a lot more to them than their vestigial rulers.

      • Zellith@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Royal family are an important source of culture, tourism, and soft power

        The Royal family isnt an important source of tourism.

        • atp2112@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Palaces like Versailles and Sanssouci get millions of visitors every year without a group of racists and pedophiles around and actively in power to give it some greater meaning.

    • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Karma is a lie white people tell themselves so they can continue to believe there’s justice in this world.

    • InformalTrifle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can understand you wanting to abolish the royal family (I do too), but I can’t understand your hatred of him personally, to actually be happy he has cancer. He doesn’t seem like a bad/evil person to me

      • atomicorange@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t exterminate mosquitoes because they are evil, you get rid of them because they are parasites, unable to exist without feeding on you and your loved ones. They are disease vectors, it’s us or them.

        The royal family feeds into hierarchical structures. They benefit from our subjugation. They knowingly and intentionally contribute to death and misery worldwide for their own benefit. If Charles was a decent man he’d abdicate.

      • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        But he was only happy for a second and since they believe in karma, now they aren’t happy. Nobody said no take backs so they’re probably good.

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        If sitting on a gold throne, in a gold room, riding around in your gold carriage, covered in jewels, none of which were (or ever could be) “earned”, but rather pillaged, without even knowing what a days work feels like, while the people you’re parading your “god given right” to lord over, and whose wealth you hoard privately overseas, are having to choose between heating and eating as they work 3 zero hour jobs just to survive - isn’t considered evil in your mind, it is your moral compass that is the problem, not me feeling momentary joy when a cancer gets cancer.

      • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        He cheated on his wife, very publicly for years. Idk about your views but maintaining a mistress immediately excludes you from being a good person. Charles was a prick for a long time before he started committing to charity, conservation, social outreach programs, etc

        • Swuden@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          No disagreements about about him being a prick, but wishing cancer and even death on another person seems pretty wild to me.

          • DessertStorms@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Please point to where anyone wished cancer on anyone?*

            Also, the fact that people don’t feel sorry for the filthy rich old man getting what is almost certainly an age related disease (because it’s not like he was exposed to the levels of shit food and air and stress that gives the rest of us cancer), is wild to you, but the existence of a “god appointed” ruler that leeches off of his people while they struggle to survive isn’t, says a lot more about you than me not giving much of a shit does about me…

            *E: you know what? Even if I had, wishing death on a person whose entire existence depends on the oppression (and death) of others on a mass, almost unimaginable scale, is still less morally repugnant than defending them. ¯\(ツ)
            Eat the fucking rich - they’ve brought it on themselves.

          • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think that wishing death on someone is always bad but I don’t really get it for King Charles

  • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Prostate cancer is very common, very survivable, and very easily treatable. It’s a serious health problem, but he’s almost definitely gonna be fine

    Me fail reading comprehension. The article says it’s NOT prostate cancer

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The type of cancer has not been revealed, but according to a palace statement the King began “regular treatments” on Monday.

    Buckingham Palace says the King “remains wholly positive about his treatment and looks forward to returning to full public duty as soon as possible”.

    He will postpone his public engagements and it is expected other senior royals will help to stand in for him during his treatment.

    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.

    UK figures suggest, on average each year, more than a third (36%) of new cancer cases were in people aged 75 and over.


    The original article contains 280 words, the summary contains 139 words. Saved 50%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!