this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
522 points (98.0% liked)
Not The Onion
20596 readers
2208 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think we really should stick to calling him “Prince Andrew.” If we don’t we’re letting the monarchy separate itself from him…but that’s bullshit; he has the privilege of being a prince and his status as prince is not just what gave him the liberty to be a monster, but I think we can assume it’s what actually made him a monster.
The Andrew formerly known as a prince.
I heard a very interesting argument that if the Royal family can remove Andrew from the line of succession, then the line itself can be manipulated, and anyone else could be added. In that case, what is the point of having a royal family?
A lot of people have a tendency to want to show loyalty to their country by showing subservience to some rich arrogant asshole that surrounds themselves with gold. See the how a significant percentage of the US population think of Trump for example.
If there is no King the subservient portion of the population will create one. It's better to have a King that doesn't have any actual power so that won't happen. The subservient part of the population don't really care that their King has no political power, they just want to bow to someone to prove their loyalty to the country and see some pomp and pageantry. For a lot of people the concept of a country is too abstract to understand so they need some person to do all kinds the ceremonial stuff so they can express their loyalty to the country by showing loyalty to that person.
Similar to how having a separation between government and religion, it's a separation between government and all the ceremonial pomp and pageantry stuff.
Sure, I wouldn't directly care if there was monarchy was eliminated, but a lot of other people would. And those people would start voting in some wealthy asshole to rule over us like a king. And that's something I definitely don't want. So just give the subservient types someone they can bow to so it doesn't impact the rest of us.
I kind of feel like the Royal line has been nothing but manipulated. Usurpations, rule changes, and exceptions to primogeniture have been there since the beginning.
I’m not sure what the point is in any case. Whatever about how the monarch is chosen…having a monarch is bad! And this monarchy is particularly bad!
The line has been manipulated several times by Parliament, including the selection and elimination of kings.
The point of the royal family now isn't to be a defined lineage, but an agreed upon vessel to hold power when Parliament temporarily breaks. Even then, Queen Elizabeth II was kind of shit at it.
It'd be nice if this led to just getting rid of the concept of royal families in general
A monarchy is a family business. Anyone in the family can run it. Monarchies are inherently unstable when the monarchs die because of this.
Authoritarian forms of government will be unstable when there's no clear line of succession. It's the reason why monarchies come about. It's not like people don't understand that it's extremely arbitrary, it's just that it's better than the alternative: civil wars whenever whoever is in power dies. It's an agreement among various lords that it's better they just accept that person over there that's the son of the King will someday be King rather than having a civil war when the King dies.
And sure civil wars would still happen, but most of the time the succession would happen without bloodshed. When there's no line of succession, it's just constant power struggles when the leader dies.
Of course democracy is a far better way to determine who will run things, but that requires a literate population to work. Which didn't exist throughout much of human history. Sure, there were republics throughout history, but they'd usually become monarchies when the illiterate masses would decide they liked that Julius guy (he threw the best parties!) and hated that Brutus guy who killed him, even if the Julius guy was becoming a tyrant.
So monarchies suck, but they're better than civil wars. So when the population becomes too dumb, it sucks, but it's better than the alternatives.
Seems a little threadbare as a theory.
People have been adding other people to royal families for the entirety of recorded history.
Sometimes its through marriage, but sometimes its adoption, sometimes they just make up a lineage.
Now, theres arguments against royalty, for sure, but if the royal family wasn't allowed to prune itself, find the best people and merge them into the royal family, etc, there never would've been royals in the first place. Royal families begin with individuals but they remain by caring about "good breeding" (and other ways of consolidating power).
Consolidating is the real purpose. It can be obscured with religious lines of divinity, or what have you, but royal families are always shopping for people to incorporate.
Eh… I have mixed feelings on that.
Firstly, I don’t think his position made him a monster. I absolutely think it made it easier to become one, but there are plenty of opportunistic pedophiles who aren’t princes. In fact I don’t think it’s a far stretch to say the vast majority aren’t princes
Secondly, correct me if I’m wrong but hasn’t the majority of his privilege been stripped from him? Yeah, he can still visit royal places and such, but doesn’t he have about the same “power” as an in law or something?
There’s also the question of if the monarchy enabled his actions. Though, again I admit they may not have done enough after learning of his actions.
As a Canadian who never really paid attention to British royalty, this feels a lot like blaming a family for one member committing a mass murder. But that could just be a lack of understanding on my part.
That’s a good point, though powerful people do seem more likely to be a monster, to not see other people as people. Bring a members of the royal family is just one way in which one can be a powerful person. But certainly the way Virginia talked about prince Andrew was that he saw being a monster as his birthright.
I don’t know what majority of his privilege means…he’s still living a luxurious life on his estate with servants. That seems like a pretty extreme level of privilege to me…maybe privilege no human being should have, but certainly not just for being born into a family of historical mass murderers, and certainly not for being a pedophile. Until prince andrew is treated the same as any other person, I will not believe that he is not getting special treatment on account of his royal status.
I am an immigrant to Canada and I cannot understand how “chill” everyone here is about the monarchy. Is it not clearly an irredeemably evil institution? I really don’t get it.
Folks say they have no real power here but that’s definitely untrue, and even if it were (and again…it’s really not)…we should still sever ties, if nothing else to show that we don’t endorse what the royal family has done!
I, no joke, would rather Canada declare Justin Bieber king of Canada than leave it with the British royal family. Obviously we shouldn’t have a king, but we could at least pick a Canadian I guess. Anyone would be better.
I do want to point out, the British monarchy has zero power in Canada. Any status they have is purely symbolic.
Everyone says this, because so far the monarchy has generally done what parliament asks in terms of, for example, appointing a prime minister, appointing senators, etc. Except there was the "King-Byng affair" in which the crown refused to exercise its constitutional power at the behest of the elected government. Now in retrospect, that may have been for the best...but that absolutely should resolve anyone's question that the monarchy "has zero power in Canada." People generally remember this as the crown "saving us from ourselves" ...I don't have any strong feelings about that, as long as we recognize that it had the power to do something and still does. I think it shouldn't have power...if someone else wants to say it should at least we can talk about that...but when we pretend that the monarchy has no power we have to talk about that first.
But ask Australians...they had no interference from the monarchy in their democracy until their "1975 constitutional crisis," in which the people voted for a prime minister (some evil socialist who did crazy dangerous tankie things like bring in universal healthcare and pull out of the war in Vietnam...practically stalin), the queen then dismissed him, dissolved parliament, and appointed the liberal party leader as her new prime minister, and told them to have a new election.
Legally, Canada is in the exact same position as Australia was at that time. The only real differences are: (a) another 50 years of the monarchy not going rogue and fucking with democracy, but also (b) precedent of the monarchy going rogue and fucking with democracy and getting away with it.
I'm a lawyer, and it blows me away that lawyers here don't know this stuff...like your whole government is built on a rug that could be pulled out from under you at any time! And look...if the monarchy tried to do something that was overwhelmingly unpopular, it would create a constitutional crisis, but I am sure we would get through it and get to the right result. Absurd to leave that risk on the table if you ask me, but fine... What worries me more is when the question is a bit more ambiguous...what happens if it's not overwhelming? what happens if the country is split 60/40 on an issue, but many of the 60% are not willing to cause a constitutional crisis, and the monarchy is willing to push the less popular option? (I mean, we know what happens, that's what happened in australia!).
Well when the family has a long history of mass murder....
It’s kind of their thing really lol