• ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 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
      ·
      10 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
        ·
        10 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
          ·
          10 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?