Comment on King Charles III diagnosed with cancer, Buckingham Palace says
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 7 months agoAight. 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 7 months ago
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 7 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 7 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?
HeartyBeast@kbin.social 7 months ago
Yeh, I can actually - I can write to my MP, go and see them in the local surgery and persuade them to table questions and even draft legislation It's quite cool.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Yes, we’ve already determined that we have different definitions.
To me, real power would be if they could just choose not to disclose the information.