386

‘You are not my king,’ Indigenous Australian senator yells at visiting King Charles (apnews.com)

submitted 23 hours ago by RandAlThor@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 16 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 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.

[-] Dainterhawk999@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 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.

[-] jimmy90@lemmy.world -5 points 2 hours ago

i guess they have their own gods from the dreamtime

[-] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 33 points 14 hours 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.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 62 points 16 hours ago

For real, though..

[-] 13esq@lemmy.world 15 points 7 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 10 points 7 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 1 points 50 minutes 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.

[-] 13esq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 49 minutes 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.

[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

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

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Sure you will, Ralph

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 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 6 hours ago

Yeah but what would people dream of?

[-] Naryn@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago

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

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 3 points 1 hour ago

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

[-] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

I can barely hear you around all the royal cock you have in your mouth, mate.

[-] penquin@lemm.ee 128 points 22 hours 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.

[-] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 35 points 18 hours 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.

[-] penquin@lemm.ee 7 points 15 hours ago

That's actually awesome that you didn't pledge allegiance to some dude who is not even in your continent.

[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 61 points 21 hours ago

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

[-] penquin@lemm.ee 15 points 20 hours ago

Lmfao. That's actually very fucking true. Fuck this dude

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago

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...

[-] penquin@lemm.ee 8 points 15 hours ago

So, racists? Lol

load more comments (20 replies)

[-] wick@lemm.ee 11 points 15 hours 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.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 89 points 22 hours 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 46 points 22 hours 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."

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 23 points 21 hours ago

You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 26 points 22 hours ago

“I had more swords than the other guy”

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024

386 points (98.0% liked)

World News

38861 readers

3018 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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.