thread for KING CHARLES III (regnal name george vii)

Merry Wokemass guys 😡 pic.twitter.com/tbJhnKq6ge

— The Good Christian Benjamin Hair ✝️🙏 (@Viral_Ben) December 22, 2022

Wow, I forgot about this guy.

🚨 | BREAKING: General Llywelyn Fortwilliam has cast doubt over Prince Harry's claim to have killed 25 Taliban fighters.

"By my count it was 24. One insurgent was mangled and paralysed from the neck down but he could still have triggered an IED if he'd bitten down hard on it." pic.twitter.com/brHbdS3aVz

— BAZAKE (@BazakeMedia) January 6, 2023

I'm not sure if this is as funny as I found it this morning!

It's bonkers how the military and others are saying "Prince Harry mentioning killing people is making other soldiers from that war a target".

They were a target during the war. They could be a target now if the Taliban, terrorists, or whoever wants to target them, for having fought in Afghanistan - never mind anything that Prince Harry says. It's not as if it was a secret that UK soldiers killed Afghans during the Afghan war.

if anything you'd be quite fair to suspect that the soldiers that served with him could have been closer to a branch of Spar than any Taliban. More like an executive babysitting platoon than Taliban hunters.

Bizarre threads of media pros saying "by golly my grandfather murdered 80 Germans with his bare hands, but he never spoke a word of it, he bottled those feelings up and only expressed them by beating us with his belt, it's the British way and any suggestion of anything else is a grave insult to our brave troops and our nation"

Agree.

I suppose saying "military secrets should remain secret because this helps our military power" is one thing, and makes its own sense.

But saying "the Taliban will be outraged when they learn that British soldiers killed people in Afghanistan!" doesn't.

tbh the omerta was always largely abt british ppl being outraged that british soldiers were killing people in afghanistan

Pretty sure I remember the little cunt talking about killing ppl at the time and how it was jolly good fun like a video game

obv i don't care about being fair to guillotine-fodder but i've just seen this

The extent to which the British media have misrepresented what Prince Harry wrote about his Afghan war experiences in ‘Spare’ is disquieting. https://t.co/FGlZbC9jRr

— Ian Fraser (@Ian_Fraser) January 7, 2023

xp
the mofo was a certified killing machine in Afghanistan, but heh, not so kool & deadly against a feeble sucker punch attack from his pathetic loser brother.

I'm too hungover to even work out what that Telegraph front page is supposed to be depicting or what it means. At first I thought it was a parody and now it seems like the British establishment is fucking insane.

Agree!

my first thought was that it seemed like trolling, like the Maxwells were intentionally being offensive and crass as an act of bravado, but maybe they really are weird and disconnected enough that they think the general public will find this convincing evidence of Andrew's innocence? After all, Andrew was weird and disconnected enough to think the Matlis interview was a good idea. It was probably impossible to be one of Robert Maxwell's kids and not end up somewhat insane.

story and image being so evidently idiotic (= retweetable) somewhat masking that this use of the actual image of giuffre's face is p abusive imo

It's harassment of Giuffre. Why is this coming round again?

— last year's settlement (feb 2022) included the stipulation that giuffre not publicly tell her story for a year
— maxwell is prepping her own court arguments for her appeal

so i imagine this is early skirmishes in the next round :(

re king george

https://www.spellingmistakescostlives.com/product-page/commemorative-beheaded-king-coin-preorder

Fat chance.

Surely someone can pay me to write about this problematic environmental appropriation??? https://t.co/lhcuyKprZa

— Rebecca Tamás (@RebTamas) April 5, 2023

lol genuine sleeping beauty /briar rose days

ideally at the moment when they say should anyone here present know of any reason that this couple should not be joined in holy matrimony, speak now or forever hold your peace the green man will burst into westminster abbey and turn all there present into like moss or brambles and thus bind the heart of the kingdom into freedom for 1 x 1000 yrs

this is my politics now: war between the plants and the windsors

not sure I understand Rebecca Tamas's problem, tbh! Problematic environmental appropriation, wtf? Foliate heads are common enough on CoE churches. There's probably at least one on the stonework of Westminster Abbey!

Can imagine Charles being interested in all that Green Man stuff tbh.

Grandpoint Genie I don't think Tama has a "problem" I think they are making a "joke".

"being interested" was the basis of the colonial expansion tom!

the design of the invite is very "teaching nature to children 1955-61" btw, as a tiny i was the recipient of several little books that looked exactly like that

design style is the new elizabethan heraldry: the items being thus organised depicted via a brightly coloured realism

Grandpoint Genie I don't think Tama has a "problem" I think they are making a "joke".

if that's "the case" then it wasn't very "funny"!

everyone's a critic

"Problematic environmental appropriation, wtf?"

Didn't see this as a joke. I think it is problematic because Charles attaches himself to the green movement for different reasons than other people who have left/environmental politics would. I'd like to see Tamas write a about this.

But she will get paid badly/not at all. Or so I guess.

Mark S seems to want the coronation to be a marriage.

I get the impression that ms Tamas is genuinely annoyed at the appropriation of the Green Man, though not very serious about writing about it at length.

She seems like a serious person..

You can read an extract from my essay 'Season' here, a meditation on the connections between ritual and nonhuman life.

The full essay is in issue 113 of the brilliant @WasafiriMag this month, in print & through their online portal.https://t.co/cpGU9vmiq1

— Rebecca Tamás (@RebTamas) March 4, 2023

and the briar rose story is a christening so yes i'm just lumping all the churchy stuff into one, after all it's not like the green man is bothered by such mortal distinctions

"30. The Coronation ring, known as 'The Wedding Ring of England' was placed on The Queen's fourth finger of her right hand in accordance with tradition"

^^^ !!!

tbf the site this is from opens with this warning: "Some of the information on this website may be out-of-date following the death of Queen Elizabeth"

either way the coronation shd absolutely include the "should anyone here present know of any reason" line (content to follow adjusted for the ceremony) and we can then work to smuggle calzino into the ceremony

i'm trying to remember exactly which children's illustrator it reminds me of...it's a bit Quentin Blake, a bit Janet Ahlberg.

Kit Williams

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/W/IMAGERENDERING_521856-T1/images/I/91FOfmEe3-L.jpg

Gotta love The Guardian's "The Cost of the crown", just another useless campaign that tells us that there is a cost to keeping these people alive, as if we didn't know.

I dunno, I think lots of people still don't know this.

Cost arguments about monarchy have never changed anybody's mind ever

but I still hear bollocks about "the monarchy bring so much money to Britain" all the time, it's the main pro-monarchy argument I hear

what would we do without great knots of gawkers shoving money into the tills of the Hyde Park Londis and washing down their Leon wrap with a pint or two of Carlsberg on their way back to St Pancras, it would be literally a nightmare on earth

xyzzy there does appear to be an acknowledgment of the royals' role in the slave trade imminent? which seems positive? not that i've actually read the articles

but I still hear bollocks about "the monarchy bring so much money to Britain" all the time, it's the main pro-monarchy argument I hear

and it's not convincing either!

i mean i guess i'm down a hungover rabbit hole of "winning political arguments by debate is a lie" so it doesn't really matter

best arguments are made at the handle end of the guillotine

guillotines are way too humane, these parasites should die slow agonising deaths (just as hundreds of millions of their subjects did) as opposed to the institution of monarchy dying way too slowly. I used to think as a kid that by the time we get to the 2000's everything will be dystopian and ruined, but in a cool way and there will be no tolerance for a constitutional monarchy and we'd be laughing at how preposterous it was that the UK one even lasted until the 20th century.

xyzzy there does appear to be an acknowledgment of the royals' role in the slave trade imminent? which seems positive? not that i've actually read the articles

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 6 April 2023 bookmarkflaglink

I've not read them either but it's just that lot working the angle a bit more strongly because their founders had a role in slavery (which is good to see them admitting to it), so I've seen a few items like this.

if you want a super-fun time look up the stories abt how long the heads of guillotined ppl possibly stay conscious and aware

(there is much debate plus some of the truth-seekers very much sidestepped the norms of ethical research IMO)