How would it serve any of us, except the right wing nut jobs, for him not to spread this message though? I can’t imagine why it’s a good thing for him not to say this. It literally only helps the goals of the right wing nut jobs for him not to spread this message. It’s a message we agree with, it’s objectively true, it’s objectively better for society, and it’s something that needs to be reinforced and said over and over as much as possible. There’s no reason to silence it except if you agree with the right with nut jobs. Literally none.
I can’t imagine why it’s a good thing for him not to say this.
When the king of England, whose brother is a disgraced pedophile, whose entire family - including the pedo and his crooked daughters - enjoys immense undue wealth without lifting a finger and doesn’t pay taxes, whose first wife died like a dog in a ditch because he had an affair with his current one, whose second child is probably a bastard, makes speeches to promote this or that moral value, it achieves the exact opposite.
The best thing King Charles can do if he wants to improve anything is keep his mouth shut. Or better yet, abdicate and abolish the monarchy.
Absolutely does not achieve the opposite. It just furthers the point. The only people it would serve for him not to say this is right-wing nut jobs. Only people. You can tell because they’re angry he said it.
You keep using that phrase, but there hasn’t been a “King of England” since 1702.
Andrew was not accused of Paedophilia and all alleged encounters were with women of legal age.
Only the King, as monarch, is exempt from taxation. He pays income tax voluntarily, and gives 80% of the income of the crown estate to the government.
Diana died in a car in a tunnel, because she chose to get in a car driven by a coked-up drunk driver and she chose not to wear a seatbelt.
Charles and Diana both had a string of affairs, starting off with Diana’s affair with one of her royal protection officers, before Charles resumed contact with Camilla.
Charles has the power to abdicate, but not to abolish monarchy.
As for the earlier comment about diversity, Charles’ coronation was the first to invite representatives of other faiths to take part.
There are plenty of things to bash the Royals for, no need to go making more stuff up.
Andrew was not accused of Paedophilia and all alleged encounters were with women of legal age.
Andrew is like Michael Jackson: he was never charged, but of-fucking-course he’s a pedo. Only those who actively want to ignore the obvious can’t see it.
And what about Eugenie and Beatrice? Next you’ll tell me they’re honest socialites making honest money, right?
Only the King, as monarch, is exempt from taxation. He pays income tax voluntarily, and gives 80% of the income of the crown estate to the government.
Oh right. That’s fantastic. Yeah Charles.
You know what? I don’t get to choose what I give HMRC. Why does he get to choose his tax bracket? Also, he voluntarily pays taxes on things he never worked a minute of his life to deserve. So please! Don’t try to spin a horrendous case of inequality into a positive nice-rich-guy story. Fuck Charles and his entire family with a broomstick: none of those fuckers knows what it is to pull a decent day’s work.
Charles’ coronation was the first to invite representatives of other faiths to take part.
How about he gave back all the wealth his family has stolen around the world during the time of the Empire? Hell, if he doesn’t want to indemnify the countless peoples around the world the royal family directly took advantage of, how about he direct the British Museum to return all the stolen artifacts they’re holding on to?
If I was Canadian first nation, African, Egyptian, Indian, Australian aborigine or New Zealand Maori, I wouldn’t give a fuck about being invited to the inbred’s coronation. But I would care about getting my cultural artifacts back - and also getting an apology from the crown, and some money for my people’s struggles over the centuries, entirely due to the crown.
Britain is a constitutional monarchy. The King has no right telling the British Museum what coffee blend to sell in the cafe, let alone change a law and make it dispose its collection.
How would it serve any of us, except the right wing nut jobs, for him not to spread this message though? I can’t imagine why it’s a good thing for him not to say this. It literally only helps the goals of the right wing nut jobs for him not to spread this message. It’s a message we agree with, it’s objectively true, it’s objectively better for society, and it’s something that needs to be reinforced and said over and over as much as possible. There’s no reason to silence it except if you agree with the right with nut jobs. Literally none.
When the king of England, whose brother is a disgraced pedophile, whose entire family - including the pedo and his crooked daughters - enjoys immense undue wealth without lifting a finger and doesn’t pay taxes, whose first wife died like a dog in a ditch because he had an affair with his current one, whose second child is probably a bastard, makes speeches to promote this or that moral value, it achieves the exact opposite.
The best thing King Charles can do if he wants to improve anything is keep his mouth shut. Or better yet, abdicate and abolish the monarchy.
If you demand that people either only do the best thing or nothing, you will get a lot of people doing nothing.
Absolutely does not achieve the opposite. It just furthers the point. The only people it would serve for him not to say this is right-wing nut jobs. Only people. You can tell because they’re angry he said it.
You keep using that phrase, but there hasn’t been a “King of England” since 1702.
Andrew was not accused of Paedophilia and all alleged encounters were with women of legal age.
Only the King, as monarch, is exempt from taxation. He pays income tax voluntarily, and gives 80% of the income of the crown estate to the government.
Diana died in a car in a tunnel, because she chose to get in a car driven by a coked-up drunk driver and she chose not to wear a seatbelt.
Charles and Diana both had a string of affairs, starting off with Diana’s affair with one of her royal protection officers, before Charles resumed contact with Camilla.
Charles has the power to abdicate, but not to abolish monarchy.
As for the earlier comment about diversity, Charles’ coronation was the first to invite representatives of other faiths to take part.
There are plenty of things to bash the Royals for, no need to go making more stuff up.
Andrew is like Michael Jackson: he was never charged, but of-fucking-course he’s a pedo. Only those who actively want to ignore the obvious can’t see it.
And what about Eugenie and Beatrice? Next you’ll tell me they’re honest socialites making honest money, right?
Oh right. That’s fantastic. Yeah Charles.
You know what? I don’t get to choose what I give HMRC. Why does he get to choose his tax bracket? Also, he voluntarily pays taxes on things he never worked a minute of his life to deserve. So please! Don’t try to spin a horrendous case of inequality into a positive nice-rich-guy story. Fuck Charles and his entire family with a broomstick: none of those fuckers knows what it is to pull a decent day’s work.
How about he gave back all the wealth his family has stolen around the world during the time of the Empire? Hell, if he doesn’t want to indemnify the countless peoples around the world the royal family directly took advantage of, how about he direct the British Museum to return all the stolen artifacts they’re holding on to?
If I was Canadian first nation, African, Egyptian, Indian, Australian aborigine or New Zealand Maori, I wouldn’t give a fuck about being invited to the inbred’s coronation. But I would care about getting my cultural artifacts back - and also getting an apology from the crown, and some money for my people’s struggles over the centuries, entirely due to the crown.
Britain is a constitutional monarchy. The King has no right telling the British Museum what coffee blend to sell in the cafe, let alone change a law and make it dispose its collection.