King Charles diagnosed with cancer

[pachinko 10,757]

17 hours ago, Borisapillar said:

The ghost of Diana is hard at work, I see 

asdfgh  

[weed 79,043]

21 hours ago, HelloHangoverz said:

First came Big Foot

Now comes Big Hands

I put my hand to my mouth for this one szdljgbdlklnlkjnfgjb gagged me mama 

[Axl Jax 634]

There are millions of people who have cancer and don't get this coverage. I get he's the head of state, but as a British person in a silent majority, I really don't like the royals. Why should they be exempt from law? I don't feel sorry for someone who was great friends with Jimmy Savile... 

[Vicixs 3,559]

QUICK, When is Trisha Paytas due? I might need to take the day off for celebrations! 

[Natalia Kills 420]

1 hour ago, Axl Jax said:

There are millions of people who have cancer and don't get this coverage. I get he's the head of state, but as a British person in a silent majority, I really don't like the royals. Why should they be exempt from law? I don't feel sorry for someone who was great friends with Jimmy Savile... 

The monarch being exempt from the law is an old rule based on the idea that the king or queen symbolizes the entire country and therefore can't be sued or prosecuted like ordinary citizens. It's a constitutional matter that keeps the balance of power between the state and the government in power.

A lot of legal paperwork is justified from the authority of the monarch, especially in criminal law. So him being charged, prosecuted and/or sentenced would render the law vulnerable to manipulation or collapse because the ultimate authority of law has been found in the wrong. This would trigger a constitutional crisis and cause unrest, crime, government shutdown, economic downturn etc.

His family is not exempt from law, neither was he when he was heir. It's only the monarch.

[Axl Jax 634]

12 hours ago, Natalia Kills said:

The monarch being exempt from the law is an old rule based on the idea that the king or queen symbolizes the entire country and therefore can't be sued or prosecuted like ordinary citizens. It's a constitutional matter that keeps the balance of power between the state and the government in power.

A lot of legal paperwork is justified from the authority of the monarch, especially in criminal law. So him being charged, prosecuted and/or sentenced would render the law vulnerable to manipulation or collapse because the ultimate authority of law has been found in the wrong. This would trigger a constitutional crisis and cause unrest, crime, government shutdown, economic downturn etc.

His family is not exempt from law, neither was he when he was heir. It's only the monarch.

Maybe I'm just jealous because I'm working class lmao.

No but in all seriousness - I understand what you're saying and how it all works etc. I also believe Savile was procuring kids for them (there's an interview where he basically admits it and the audience just laughs - the 80s were a strange time) but I don't wanna go into dark stuff at this time of the morning lol

I do like William and Kate though! I believe they will modernise the monarchy and take it in a new direction. A lot of young people believe the monarchy will disappear but I think it will just slowly modernise

[Economy 52,901]

On 2/5/2024 at 2:12 PM, HelloHangoverz said:

This man is the head of state and anything he does is subject to rightful scrutiny. The bigger issue is that he is the head of state using private healthcare, instead of the national health service. He was diagnosed a few days ago and he's already in private treatment funded by the taxpayer. Meanwhile:

U can scruitinize those actions, u dont scruitibize him getting cancer itself. Some ppl here almost seem happy about it

[4th Time Around 5,061]

I find some of the reactions in this thread a bit disgusting honestly, you can dislike Charles or monarchy as much as you want but being happy about the fact that a guy has cancer is pretty gross.

I hope he makes a speedy recovery, just like I would hope that anybody with cancer would.

[Future Lovers 7,680]

11 hours ago, Economy said:

U can scruitinize those actions, u dont scruitibize him getting cancer itself. Some ppl here almost seem happy about it

i'm not gonna say I'm happy about it, but I'm not gonna feel bad when bad things happen to bad people

[waterfall 943]

dont like him but yeah feel bad

watching someone have a disease or sickness is scary cuz u dont know what will happen the next day

[4th Time Around 5,061]

1 hour ago, Future Lovers said:

i'm not gonna say I'm happy about it, but I'm not gonna feel bad when bad things happen to bad people

What has this guy done that is more horrific than any other celebrity?

Don't tell me people are still salty about the fact he had a failed marriage with Diana ages ago? Hardly a reason to wish cancer upon a person.

Speaking of Diana, people have turned the woman into this saint like figure and martyr because of her tragic death. Some of her behavior was just as irresponsible and damaging as Charles yet people want to act like eveything was 100% his fault. The two were mostly victims of circumstances that were forced upon them by other people.

[Economy 52,901]

10 hours ago, Future Lovers said:

i'm not gonna say I'm happy about it, but I'm not gonna feel bad when bad things happen to bad people

Its fine to be neautral... someone being important doesnt make their life more valuable.

 

But some comments dont suggest simply being neutral. Being neutral is not bothering to comment... or if you do comment u wish them well anyway out of basic curtisy just like u would if a stranger u didnt know mentioned they had cancer (even if u dont care that much), you wouldnt tell that stranger "anyway what yall having for dinner tn"

 

Purposely commenting passive agressively that u dont care and bring up other topics in the next sentence is just plain rude when someone has cancer regardless of who it is. U dont have to care, just dont say anything if u dont.