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.”
apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
on 21 Oct 16:12
nextcollapse
One of the single best lines in all of cinema IMO.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
on 21 Oct 16:28
collapse
You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
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.
Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
on 21 Oct 15:57
nextcollapse
Because it makes money and is entertaining.
Without the celebrity status and novelty there would be a lot less tourism in Britain. It’s not like people go there for the food or the weather.
If they got rid of the royal family, that wouldn’t mean they’d need to get rid of all the castles and other historically relevant places and architecture, too…
Do you know how much money paid to the “monarchy” goes to the upkeep, maintenance and renovation of the properties that attract tourism?
Have you seen the revenue those properties make, and how 88% go to the treasury ministry?
edit: downvotes because nobody wants to actually figure out anything about the situation. I’m not even british, i’m fucking American but even I know the “royal family” brings in way more money than the architecture any fucking day. So much bullshit infests the news cycle from them, if people didn’t give a shit then they wouldn’t put it in the news - because the stuff in the news is what sells.
dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
on 21 Oct 18:11
nextcollapse
People are fucking ignorant and think they know how that shit works. You are 100% correct.
SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org
on 21 Oct 18:15
nextcollapse
Similar properties in other countries also make a ton of money. Why do you think it’s the “royal family” that brings in the money? It’s not like tourists can even meet them. What exactly do you think is the draw for normal people? Outside of some lunatics, who gives a fuck?
even I know the "royal family" brings in way more money than the architecture any fucking day
Based on what? France is literally right next door and it's the biggest tourist destination in the entire world, bar none. Nobody is going to Versailles and complaining that it's just not the same without the state waifu living there anymore.
How much extra is paid to support the lavish lives of royalty? And how much is paid to make those properties liveable rather than as tourist attractions?
Plus empty buildings don’t need quite as much security as kings and queens and their families…
FooBarrington@lemmy.world
on 22 Oct 06:48
nextcollapse
Do you have any idea how much the royal family owns? If their possessions were transferred to the state and invested, the RoI would probably be higher than whatever they bring in through tourism.
GhostFaceSkrilla@lemmy.world
on 22 Oct 13:24
collapse
We don’t need a royal family to attract tourism to the buildings. Tax money can still go to upkeep historical sites.
if people didn’t give a shit then they wouldn’t put it in the news
Why do British people think King Charles is the reason people go to Britain to visit? Nobody gives a shit about your existing monarchy outside of your country. We go there to see castles n shit.
It’s just a ceremonial thing, they don’t have any actual power. Plus it makes money for the country. There’s not really any reason to get rid of them and King Charles is always pushing anti-climate change stuff so he’s actually using his influence to try and help.
Then congrats on not knowing how all of it works. Buckingham is just one castle that runs tours. They also sell tours of Windsor Castle, Frogmore House, the Royal Mews, Clarence House, the Palace of Holyroodhouse, and the Queen’s Gallery. Their events (coronations, funerals, weddings) also bring in tourist dollars. Windsor Castle alone brings in $50M/year, while the Louvre by itself is $100M/year.
But that is ONLY the ticketing revenue they bring in. They also sell shitloads of trinkets, memorabilia, gifts, etc. People buy sets of collectible dishes! More than that, though, is the media money they generate. They are basically influencers. News agencies and tabloids sell TONS of adspace on websites and newspapers from info about the royals. Their Christmas specials bring in tons of TV viewers.
In the end, they only cost the UK taxpayer 1.29 pounds per year per person (89M pounds total per year) and have an estimated yearly input to the UK economy of close to 1B pounds.
SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org
on 21 Oct 18:44
collapse
You do realize that tickets to the castles, memorabilia etc. would sell without them, right? And there’s no shortage of celebrities. If they don’t exist, something else will take their place in those tabloids.
A) But they would sell far far fewer tickets and less memorabilia. I’ve been to really nice castles that are nowhere near as many visitors and have tiny gift areas. The most famous castle in Germany (Neushwanstein), also one of the most famous in the world, only makes about $6M/year while Windsor makes $45M/year on its own. A castle I went to just outside London was really beautiful and cool, and I could freely walk around it with almost no tourists and an entrance fee about half what Windsor was… because it wasn’t connected to anyone famous. It was just a castle. I went to the main palace in Vienna, and it was basically empty.
B) Fame isn’t a zero sum game, and some things aren’t so easily replaced. It’s like saying if Jordan hadn’t been in the NBA there would have been another player of his caliber. Or if Michael Jackson hadn’t been around in the 80s there would have been another King of Pop as big as him. To be clear: I’m not saying the people in the royal family are special like Michael or Michael, but the royal family as an entity is something the world doesn’t have any more. How many people know the royal family of Spain or Denmark or Saudi Arabia outside of the people in those countries? Now how many people know the name Queen Elizabeth? Not only that, but the people who buy tabloids fucking love reading about royalty. Yeah, there will always be famous people, but the things they are famous for aren’t easily replaced.
I’m no fan of the royal family. I think they are fucking disgusting and shouldn’t exist as an entity. But there isn’t another entity out there like them, so the UK has made the financial decision to give them a stipend in exchange for the income they provide.
They’re actually given full legal immunity to anything, meaning they’re allowed to commit crimes if they so choose (which we wouldn’t know anything about as there is no transparency concerning these types of things). There have also been cases of violent repression against unarmed dissidents who were protesting against the monarchy (mostly when the queen had died), with disproportionate punishments handed out.
Is this really necessary, having one family be pretty much above the law and having their lifestyle be funded via public funds? Sure, there’s an argument to be made that it drives the tourism, but it’s unknown how much does the royal family contribute to it, as there’s definitely tourists who would still visit the monuments and buy merch without the family.
We dont know how much power they have, it’s illegal to know:
| Due to secrecy laws, it is extremely hard to find documentary evidence of the queen’s exercise of influence. In the United Kingdom, government documents that “relate to” communications with the sovereign or the next two persons in line to the throne, as well as palace officials acting on their behalf, are subject to an absolute exemption from release under freedom of information or by government archives.
“relate to” is so broad and it means we have no idea what is going on.
| But The Guardian has managed to expose a chink in this armour of secrecy. In the UK’s National Archives, it discovered documents from 1973 showing the queen’s personal solicitor lobbied public servants to change a proposed law so that it would not allow companies, or the public, to learn of the queen’s shareholdings in Britain. The gambit succeeded, and the draft bill was changed to suit the queen’s wishes. Perhaps these documents escaped the secrecy embargo because they involved communications with a private solicitor, rather than palace officials
Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
on 21 Oct 18:37
nextcollapse
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.
To be fair, this specific royal family serves in the military and does not shy from front line duty. Although they kicked the last one out for marrying a divorced mixed race woman. So there’s that too…
undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
on 22 Oct 09:09
collapse
No no, they dont call them kings. They call them wealth creators and, despite worshipping them in much the same way, them ruling their offices in much the same way and literally just being a financial aristocracy, I’m told its a totally different thing.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
on 21 Oct 20:38
nextcollapse
For some the monarchy is a living museum, they don’t have to like it, they just find it interesting.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
on 22 Oct 06:16
collapse
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.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
on 22 Oct 07:01
nextcollapse
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.
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
on 22 Oct 13:37
collapse
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.
So, a bit more than one pound, instead of a bit less. *shrug* Not sure the difference was worth your abusive rhetoric.
Fair play, mod. I have a personality disorder and some of my dark humour/coping came though. I feel for people like VH who, like myself, have enormous difficulty dealing with people.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
on 22 Oct 21:29
collapse
First of all, that “bit more than one pound” is completely ignoring all the wealth they already own, including all of the precious baubles totaling hundreds of millions of pounds and land holdings covering a sixth of the surface of planet earth!
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
on 22 Oct 13:44
collapse
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.
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.
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
on 21 Oct 22:53
nextcollapse
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.
A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl
on 22 Oct 07:13
nextcollapse
Sure that’s true for half of Africa /s
undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
on 22 Oct 09:05
nextcollapse
Better for whom exactly?
This is why we need a proper, fact based education about empire and the damage it caused the world, even if it gets dismissed as “woke” by ignorant flag shaggers.
she was removed for speaking up against colonial criminals as an indigenous person. fucking boot lickers. probably literally too; wouldn’t be surprised.
Dainterhawk999@lemmy.world
on 22 Oct 09:24
nextcollapse
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.
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.
threaded - newest
Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Associated Press:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
https://apnews.com/article/australia-canberra-king-charles-visit-4ea87d39d17c4a9fe3cbfab3455fb8f7
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
“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… ]
“I had more swords than the other guy”
Mummy gave me the crown and we have too much money for anyone to object.
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.”
One of the single best lines in all of cinema IMO.
SHUT! UP!
Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
The Lady of the Lake...
Forgive the Reddit link, the artist has only posted it there that I can tell.
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.
Because it makes money and is entertaining.
Without the celebrity status and novelty there would be a lot less tourism in Britain. It’s not like people go there for the food or the weather.
If they got rid of the royal family, that wouldn’t mean they’d need to get rid of all the castles and other historically relevant places and architecture, too…
Do you know how much money paid to the “monarchy” goes to the upkeep, maintenance and renovation of the properties that attract tourism?
Have you seen the revenue those properties make, and how 88% go to the treasury ministry?
edit: downvotes because nobody wants to actually figure out anything about the situation. I’m not even british, i’m fucking American but even I know the “royal family” brings in way more money than the architecture any fucking day. So much bullshit infests the news cycle from them, if people didn’t give a shit then they wouldn’t put it in the news - because the stuff in the news is what sells.
People are fucking ignorant and think they know how that shit works. You are 100% correct.
Similar properties in other countries also make a ton of money. Why do you think it’s the “royal family” that brings in the money? It’s not like tourists can even meet them. What exactly do you think is the draw for normal people? Outside of some lunatics, who gives a fuck?
Based on what? France is literally right next door and it's the biggest tourist destination in the entire world, bar none. Nobody is going to Versailles and complaining that it's just not the same without the state waifu living there anymore.
Probably a decent chunk of it.
How much extra is paid to support the lavish lives of royalty? And how much is paid to make those properties liveable rather than as tourist attractions?
Plus empty buildings don’t need quite as much security as kings and queens and their families…
Do you have any idea how much the royal family owns? If their possessions were transferred to the state and invested, the RoI would probably be higher than whatever they bring in through tourism.
We don’t need a royal family to attract tourism to the buildings. Tax money can still go to upkeep historical sites.
Look up “propaganda” in the dictionary.
Why do British people think King Charles is the reason people go to Britain to visit? Nobody gives a shit about your existing monarchy outside of your country. We go there to see castles n shit.
Actually loads of people do.
^Nobody gives a shit about your existing monarchy outside of your country
Patently false.
30m Americans watched Harry and Megans wedding, that’s 3x the viewership of the NBA finals
Then you look at the USA where a large part of the population really wants there to be a King Donald the First.
Lmfao. That’s actually very fucking true. Fuck this dude
King D1 would like to confirm all 17 year old female subjects please.
It’s just a ceremonial thing, they don’t have any actual power. Plus it makes money for the country. There’s not really any reason to get rid of them and King Charles is always pushing anti-climate change stuff so he’s actually using his influence to try and help.
I call bullshit. The Louvre makes more tourism money than Buckingham Palace even without some rich assholes living there.
Then congrats on not knowing how all of it works. Buckingham is just one castle that runs tours. They also sell tours of Windsor Castle, Frogmore House, the Royal Mews, Clarence House, the Palace of Holyroodhouse, and the Queen’s Gallery. Their events (coronations, funerals, weddings) also bring in tourist dollars. Windsor Castle alone brings in $50M/year, while the Louvre by itself is $100M/year.
But that is ONLY the ticketing revenue they bring in. They also sell shitloads of trinkets, memorabilia, gifts, etc. People buy sets of collectible dishes! More than that, though, is the media money they generate. They are basically influencers. News agencies and tabloids sell TONS of adspace on websites and newspapers from info about the royals. Their Christmas specials bring in tons of TV viewers.
In the end, they only cost the UK taxpayer 1.29 pounds per year per person (89M pounds total per year) and have an estimated yearly input to the UK economy of close to 1B pounds.
You do realize that tickets to the castles, memorabilia etc. would sell without them, right? And there’s no shortage of celebrities. If they don’t exist, something else will take their place in those tabloids.
A) But they would sell far far fewer tickets and less memorabilia. I’ve been to really nice castles that are nowhere near as many visitors and have tiny gift areas. The most famous castle in Germany (Neushwanstein), also one of the most famous in the world, only makes about $6M/year while Windsor makes $45M/year on its own. A castle I went to just outside London was really beautiful and cool, and I could freely walk around it with almost no tourists and an entrance fee about half what Windsor was… because it wasn’t connected to anyone famous. It was just a castle. I went to the main palace in Vienna, and it was basically empty.
B) Fame isn’t a zero sum game, and some things aren’t so easily replaced. It’s like saying if Jordan hadn’t been in the NBA there would have been another player of his caliber. Or if Michael Jackson hadn’t been around in the 80s there would have been another King of Pop as big as him. To be clear: I’m not saying the people in the royal family are special like Michael or Michael, but the royal family as an entity is something the world doesn’t have any more. How many people know the royal family of Spain or Denmark or Saudi Arabia outside of the people in those countries? Now how many people know the name Queen Elizabeth? Not only that, but the people who buy tabloids fucking love reading about royalty. Yeah, there will always be famous people, but the things they are famous for aren’t easily replaced.
I’m no fan of the royal family. I think they are fucking disgusting and shouldn’t exist as an entity. But there isn’t another entity out there like them, so the UK has made the financial decision to give them a stipend in exchange for the income they provide.
They’re actually given full legal immunity to anything, meaning they’re allowed to commit crimes if they so choose (which we wouldn’t know anything about as there is no transparency concerning these types of things). There have also been cases of violent repression against unarmed dissidents who were protesting against the monarchy (mostly when the queen had died), with disproportionate punishments handed out.
Is this really necessary, having one family be pretty much above the law and having their lifestyle be funded via public funds? Sure, there’s an argument to be made that it drives the tourism, but it’s unknown how much does the royal family contribute to it, as there’s definitely tourists who would still visit the monuments and buy merch without the family.
We dont know how much power they have, it’s illegal to know:
| Due to secrecy laws, it is extremely hard to find documentary evidence of the queen’s exercise of influence. In the United Kingdom, government documents that “relate to” communications with the sovereign or the next two persons in line to the throne, as well as palace officials acting on their behalf, are subject to an absolute exemption from release under freedom of information or by government archives.
| But The Guardian has managed to expose a chink in this armour of secrecy. In the UK’s National Archives, it discovered documents from 1973 showing the queen’s personal solicitor lobbied public servants to change a proposed law so that it would not allow companies, or the public, to learn of the queen’s shareholdings in Britain. The gambit succeeded, and the draft bill was changed to suit the queen’s wishes. Perhaps these documents escaped the secrecy embargo because they involved communications with a private solicitor, rather than palace officials
theconversation.com/the-queens-gambit-new-evidenc…
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.
That’s actually awesome that you didn’t pledge allegiance to some dude who is not even in your continent.
To be fair, this specific royal family serves in the military and does not shy from front line duty. Although they kicked the last one out for marrying a divorced mixed race woman. So there’s that too…
So, racists? Lol
A long time ago his clan beat out some other clans so that makes him king.
I’m pretty sure anyone is welcome to challenge his assertion of authority at any time by the same means.
No no, they dont call them kings. They call them wealth creators and, despite worshipping them in much the same way, them ruling their offices in much the same way and literally just being a financial aristocracy, I’m told its a totally different thing.
For real, though…
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e4d3fa7c-179d-4454-9d6c-3b8833aa4c51.jpeg">
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.
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.
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.
Yeah but what would people dream of?
\s
But then I will miss out when it’s my turn to be king!
Sure you will, Ralph
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.
If you believe that, I have a palace in Buckinghamshire to sell you 🙄
Because it’s utter horse shit.
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.
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.
You talk like someone who’s aptly named.
Anyway, here’s a shitload of data
So, a bit more than one pound, instead of a bit less. *shrug* Not sure the difference was worth your abusive rhetoric.
Fair play, mod. I have a personality disorder and some of my dark humour/coping came though. I feel for people like VH who, like myself, have enormous difficulty dealing with people.
First of all, that “bit more than one pound” is completely ignoring all the wealth they already own, including all of the precious baubles totaling hundreds of millions of pounds and land holdings covering a sixth of the surface of planet earth!
Second, please can it with the concern trolling.
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.
news.stv.tv/…/how-much-does-the-royal-family-cost…
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.
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.
You have a man who’s spray painted himself bright orange… Badly running for the premiership of your country.
We elected Boris Johnson to PMship. We aren't better.
I’ve only ever seen the Queen in this regalia and I can’t not see it as crossdressing when Charles does it.
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.
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.
Sure that’s true for half of Africa /s
Better for whom exactly?
This is why we need a proper, fact based education about empire and the damage it caused the world, even if it gets dismissed as “woke” by ignorant flag shaggers.
Colonization is never good.
…well he’s not…
Oh boy, wait til you learn about the Commonwealth.
she was removed for speaking up against colonial criminals as an indigenous person. fucking boot lickers. probably literally too; wouldn’t be surprised.
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.
i guess they have their own gods from the dreamtime
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a0312ad6-a1ff-47ff-a480-c4099195a2a2.jpeg">
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.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/69454a9f-d555-4bec-83f2-e83f8ee4a38d.png">