• Sibbo@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Is this good or bad news? I don’t know much about the UK, but I thought he was kinda unpopular.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Generally it’s considered bad when people have cancer.

      The monarchy has no real power, and they’re no worse at wealth hoarding than any other billionaire, so it’s vaguely uncouth to be happy he has cancer.

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The monarchy has no real power

        "The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her “embarrassing” private wealth from the public, according to documents discovered by the Guardian.

        A series of government memos unearthed in the National Archives reveal that Elizabeth Windsor’s private lawyer put pressure on ministers to alter proposed legislation to prevent her shareholdings from being disclosed to the public.

        Following the Queen’s intervention, the government inserted a clause into the law granting itself the power to exempt companies used by “heads of state” from new transparency measures.

        The arrangement, which was concocted in the 1970s, was used in effect to create a state-backed shell corporation which is understood to have placed a veil of secrecy over the Queen’s private shareholdings and investments until at least 2011."

        https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Aight. I meant more like “the monarchy can’t order the military to detain people, or unilaterally pass decrees against the will of the people”.

          Asking parliament to pass an abusive law isn’t the same type of abuse of power that would justify wanting a monarch to die in the short term in my view.

          Charles is not Putin. I’m pretty firmly in the “overthrow the monarchy camp”, but that’s different from wanting an essentially harmless figurehead of an old man to have cancer.

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Charles is not Putin. I’m pretty firmly in the “overthrow the monarchy camp”, but that’s different from wanting an essentially harmless figurehead of an old man to have cancer.

            Who wants him to have cancer? You said they have no real power, I showed that they do. Obviously they can’t have people thrown out of windows but that wasn’t the point I was making.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              I was more saying we seem to have different definitions of “real power”. You’re not wrong that they have influence, but the influence they have doesn’t seem like “dictator level” power. Simple disagreement of terms.

              Given the context of someone asking “is it good the man has cancer”, people disagreeing with “there’s no real reason to want him to have cancer, so no” are easily mistaken as suggesting that maybe it is good he has cancer.

              • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                “real power” to me, is being able to make the government craft legislation that suits you. I can’t do that, can you?