World News
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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
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.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
Not really - the current British royal house is german-descended. There are noble families in the UK with longer english/british pedigrees than the ~~Saxe-Coburg Gotha ~~ Windsor/Mountbatten family. But the current situation suits them better than rocking the boat.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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, the guards, and all the touristy stuff. More of the revenue goes back towards infrastructure.
Look up "propaganda" in the dictionary.
People are fucking ignorant and think they know how that shit works. You are 100% correct.
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.
^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
Actually loads of people do.
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.
How much money do I need to bring your country before I can be called royalty and collect taxes from each person?
The only reason it still exists is because the only people who can give away that power is the royal family at the moment.
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
https://theconversation.com/the-queens-gambit-new-evidence-shows-how-her-majesty-wields-influence-on-legislation-154818